Youtube

Go to The Main Page Add Youtube to favorite!

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not 

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not page.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II.
Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.

Contents

Regarding Wikipedia's impersonality

I've been spotting a few editors who have lately been editing with what seems to be a disregard to the community, and some seem to have "personal crusades" which, though may be good-intentioned, lack an understanding that Wikipedia is as much an online community as it is an online encyclopedia. I should note that their edits are not disruptive, simply lacking in one aspect or another (lack of edit summary, for one) that gives them an appearance of being these lone-wolf editors. Perhaps a point should be made here in WP:NOT concerning that Wikipedia is a community and NOT personal, either in WP:SOAP or in its own section. Any thoughts to that? Brokenwit (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

How about "Wikipedia is not a punching bag"? Hyacinth (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I like it! 78.34.143.49 (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Is your concern with addressing these "lone-wolf" editors or with how these editors are being addressed? Hyacinth (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Addressing them. There seems to be a pattern that these editors believe that they can make "personal" edits to Wikipedia. As per what Calgary is saying below, I raise this issue because though they aren't making disruptive edits or vandalism as defined here, they aren't making constructive edits either. For example, there has been a few cases of section blanking without explanation, or with a personal explanation. That may not be disruptive as defined, but it can be considered disruptive in terms of editing against consensus. It's somewhat (though not entirely) comparable to the conflict-of-interest edits of late. What I'm trying to say is, maybe they are being disruptive based on interest. Brokenwit (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not too sure what you're saying. If an editor makes edits without providing an explanation, and someone takes issue with the edit, then the person who made the edit in the first place is simply going to have no weight in attempting to establish a consensus, which doesn't really hurt anyone but that editor. On the other hand, if the editor edits in conflict with an established consensus, or ignores attempts to establish a consensus, then the editor IS editing in conflict with Wikipedia policy, but that's covered in Wikipedia:Consensus, and I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned here as well. Although I'm still not entirely sure what you mean when you say "personal". What would you consider to be a "personal" edit? I'm sorry, i just want to be sure I fully understand what you're saying. Calgary (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow you. If an editor is following all of the guidelines, and their edits are constructive and not disruptive, how are they doing anything wrong? I guess I don't just understand what you're saying. I could understand if an editor was editing against consensus, or ignoring decisions made on the talk page, but that would be disruptive. If it just seems that an editor is editing out of personal interest, and not out of a desire to support the community, though, I really don't see how we could put in something to tell people not to do that. I mean, as far as I understand it, we can tell people how to edit Wikipedia, we can't tell them why. Calgary (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I know what's being said here. When I used to edit more frequently there was an issue with some editors and WP:OWN, don't know if that still exists. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new section: Wikipedia is not governed by statute

Might I suggest a new section under "Community"? This follows from and builds on WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY but goes up a level from rules made by bureaucrats to rules made by a legislature. IMHO Bureaucracy deals best with "instruction creep". The demands we sometimes see for "enforcement" of policy would be better dealt with in a separate section. You may feel that the writing style of this proposal is not consistent with that of the article generally; in that case re-wording it in a more consistent style would be totally cool. Scolaire (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not governed by statute

Policies and guidelines express standards that have community consensus. They do not have the force of law. Arguments such as "policy dictates..." or "policy forbids..." have no validity, nor has the follow-on argument that "admins should be enforcing policy" or "we all have a duty to enforce policy". It is reasonable to say "in my opinion this is contrary to policy X", but if nobody agrees with you, or if your interpretation of policy X is challenged, it is wiser to bow to consensus than to invoke non-existent "laws". See also Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.

That itself looks like instruction creep. Though policy and guidelines are to a certain extent mutable and IAR does apply to wikipedia as a whole, they exist for a reason and good reason should be given before they are broken or ignored. IAR comes after discussion in my mind, not before. In some cases (like WP:BLP I believe) the policies are based on law (Florida law I think). I'm a big fan of all policies, guidelines or guidance that exists and rarely find the need to ignore them. I've never been a fan of encouraging people to ignore policy and guidelines. WLU (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't really understand "looks like instruction creep". There does seem to be a lot of editors who justify the most whimsical of demands with "policy dictates..." or "policy forbids..." and cannot grasp that these policies are not set in stone, and at the moment conciencious editors trying to improve articles don't have a simple NOT that we can point them to. In my first draft, which I didn't use, I was going to say "Policies must be adhered to in serious matters such as copyright violations and the inclusion of unreferenced contentious material in biographies of living persons, but..." I do recognise and respect the need to follow policy! The reference to IAR could easily be taken out if it makes the whole section look like an "anything goes" manifesto, but bear in mind it's already linked to in the Bureaucracy section. Scolaire (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Now that you bring up Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, how is anything covered here that is not, in essence, already covered there? Calgary (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
What I said: bureaucracy is about instruction creep, "perceived procedural errors" and such like, not about people trying to lay down the law by insisting that "policy dictates..." WP:BURO might be expanded to cover that, but at the moment it's not covered at all, hence my suggestion. Scolaire (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
To give you an idea where I'm coming from, I've recently been involved in two separate move requests where sincere but misguided editors said "the proposed name is forbidden under WP:COMMONNAME", although the proposed name was a reasonable one and enjoyed a reasonable consensus. I've also seen (many, many) edit reverts on several articles with edit summaries of "this is not allowed under WP:OR (or WP:V or WP:RS)". The editors in question simply didn't understand the relevant policies, but despite everybody explaining this to them they wouldn't back down. The situation could have been dealt with easily if we could have pointed to a NOT that said "you can't just cite a rule and leave it at that". As it stands, WP:BURO doesn't cover that at all. IMO a new section with an unambiguous heading would be better than just expanding BURO. Scolaire (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you really think it's necessary to include it as a separate section on WP:NOT, then I think it would be better to include something more clear, such as:
Wikipedia policy represents community consensus, and is meant to improve the encyclopedia, not to detract from it. While Wikipedia policy is a standard that all users should follow, it should be approached with common sense. Policy outlines a common standard for Wikipedia content and practices, but it is not meant to be used as a technicality to dismiss otherwise valid contributions which improve the encyclopedia.
In my opinion, with no offense intended, I think this sounds less presumptuous and condescending. Although I still think this is suficiently covered already. Calgary (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
No offense taken :-) It probably is covered if you read the whole article carefully, but I think it is desirable to have it dealt with specifically in its own section - as I said, a specific section with its own shortcut that you can point editors to. Your wording works for me. Scolaire (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
In principle there is no difference since the same people here have the power and the right to make content policy pages and enforce it by deleting & editing articles. It's not like there are two castes, or classes, or sets of people with opposing interests. Every editor here has the exact same rights with content and policy. (The admins check the final deletion, and close afds, but that is or at least should be a routine function--whether admins are to be seen a separate caste is another matter--but one thing they do not have the right to do in any case, which is to make policy.) Everyone who cares about, say, policy for including schools, can work on the N:Schools page and at AfDs concerning schools and at discussions of whether to merge or redirect school articles.
So why is there any difference between the two? Partly, because some people are more comfortable working at one place or the other. People who care about something shouldn't really do this--they will be more effective working at both. Unfortunately, all of us have a limited amount of time, and can't work everywhere that might be relevant--and this does give people with a strong position the opportunity to try to concentrate their efforts and carry out something that might not get more general approval. But the other reason is that changing a policy page requires a much greater degree of consensus than deleting an article. No one or two people can force an afd one way or another, but they can hold up a policy page change indefinitely--for better or worse--I'm talking completely generally. This gives a greater stability, which is fine, but it also lets it drift from reality--whether reality be defined as what happens at AfD or what most people want as policy.
I'm not sure how to solve this. Even formal criteria for the necessary supermajority for policy change will still always leave it as more conservative. And there's a problem why it is hard to get even a bare majority, let alone a supermajority. It is very easy to get general consent that change is needed about a general policy. it is much harder to get agreement on what to change it to. The basic [policies and the major guidelines affect a great number of disparate interests, and everyone will want to protect their own. In the RW, this is carried out by political bargaining, but online communities aren't good at this, because it takes two things that we don;t have: the ability for face to face contact to judge how strongly people actually do feel, and the acceptance by the group of a small number of lead negotiators.
There are other factors. By now, many of us have gotten rather good at defending our interests under the existing policies. We could probably learn to do almost as well under others, but we know how to work with there. I doubt N=2RS could be adopted ab initio, but it sort of works because we know all the necessary qualifications and work-arounds. I may really dislike the principle, but I nonetheless know how to often get what I want using it. If it changed radically, no one would be sure how it would go--that's the basic argument for conservatism in general, in the RW too. The lawyer types tend to like it, for they make a living with their knowledge of the existing rules. I might rationally decide that, though I lose about 1/3 of the articles I fight for, if the rules changed, while I might lose only 10%--but I might lose 50%, and I might not be willing to take the chance.
But I am not a conservative about the rules--here's why: the life of Wikipedia depends on keeping new people coming in, both for articles and for policy. Many very active people lose interest or time after a few years, and need to be replaced. The existing rules are a maze that takes most people many months to learn. So long, in fact, that people who join and rapidly show a knowledge of the rules tend to be suspected of sockpuppetry! the way to avoid this is the same as the way to avoid the strangulation of fossilized rules--have many fewer of them and have them simpler and less ambiguous. Better a definite decision, than arguing every case.As an example only, if I know I can't put my local losing candidates for office in, I won't even try. DGG (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, and please don't take offence, but I have read and re-read this post, and I just can't see what it has to do with my proposal. By any chance did you mean to post it in a different section? Scolaire (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll outline the argument: the question is whether policy is descriptive or prescriptive. You are arguing that the formal rules take precedence over the actual practice--what others call prescriptive. I say the describe the consensus of the current practice. I note that its odd that there's differences between what we do and what we say, since we do make our own rules. I then explain why the formal statement of this in the form of rules is always going to be somewhat behind the actual effective rules. DGG (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, my argument is that the formal rules do NOT take precedence over the actual practice, hence my proposal to include this in What Wikipedia is not. My idea is to educate those sincere but misguided people who talk about policy as though it was statutory law, with a penalty of a $1,000 fine or three years in prison if you violate it, as it were. So can I take it that you are in agreement with this position? Scolaire (talk) 06:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
So, here is a re-statement of my proposal. I think it is important (obviously). What does anybody else think?
  • Wikipedia policies are descriptive, not prescriptive. That is, policies and guidelines represent community consensus, and are meant to improve the encyclopedia; they are not a code of law. Editors and administrators alike try to ensure that policies are followed in a reasonable way for the improvement of articles, rather than "enforce" rules. While Wikipedia policy is a standard that all users should follow, it should be approached with common sense, and policy should not be used as a technicality to dismiss otherwise valid contributions which improve the encyclopedia.
Scolaire (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I like it. It's a quite important explanation of how Wikipedia functions that is very worth having on this page.--Father Goose (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :-D Scolaire (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I see I came late to the party but I think it's a strong addition. One quibble - shouldn't it be 'that' instead of 'which' in "valid contributions which improve the encyclopedia"? Wikidemo (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Done. Scolaire (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The content added in this new section is all true and not particularly controversial (at least, to me) but it seems redundant with the WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY section immediately below it. I always worry about instruction creep on this page that we all admit is already longer than ideal. Does the new section really add that much new content? Could the two sections be merged and the page tightened up a bit? Rossami (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
It's the principle that's important. It seems to me that bureaucrats or would-be bureaucrats are not a particular problem on WP, but people quoting policy as if it were international law are a daily menace IMO. It may be that a merge is doable, but it should emphasise the NOTLAW aspect, and deal with the lesser issues of instruction creep and "perceived procedural errors" after. Perhaps it could be headed Wikipedia is not governed by statute, and have a sub-heading "Alternative title: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, with the associated shortcuts. Scolaire (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there is a bit of redundancy between this new section and WP:BURO, but that is because BURO is a facet of the broader "statute" issue. On the other hand, BURO has a long and healthy history within WP:NOT, so I'm not so eager to subsume it to the new section. I think there are one or two sentences that are duplicated and can be removed, however. I'll try to tighten it up when I get some time later.--Father Goose (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Scolaire (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've done what I could to specialize their respective messages and reduce redundancy -- cutting a couple of things, moving some sentences from one section to the other, etc.--Father Goose (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
In general, this is just what I was hoping for - a clear distinction between bureaucracy and law. The re-write was well done. But I would have quite a serious problem with swopping IAR and wikilawyering. This gives NOTLAW a message very different from what I intended. To those people who insist (usually sincerely) that the current edit, discussion or consensus goes against policy we need to say "policy is not law, and citing it as though it was is wikilawyering"; the section as it stands now says (to them) "sure, we don't have to follow the rules at all if it doesn't suit us!" This is guaranteed to gall them into redoubling their efforts to "enforce" the rules, including clamouring to have that section in NOT struck out. I really would prefer if they were swopped back, and they could be re-worded as appropriate e.g. "Insisting that something must (or cannot) be done simply because of policy is a form of wikilawyering." Scolaire (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I have been bold and swopped them back. I hope that's okay. Scolaire (talk) 06:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not permanent

Shouldn't we mention the fact that the information and images in Wikipedia are subject to change, and what's here today may be gone or completely different tomorrow? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a game guide?

Can someone help me to understand why "not a how to play" WP:NOTGUIDE applies only to video games and not to Acey-deucey or Cards in the hat or any of the other mainstream table and card game articles that are little more than a list of the rules? Is it time to revisit this policy to tighten it to exclude those current articles or loosen to allow computer games to have rules articles? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm actually trying to find out what the actual policy is and how it should be applied. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It does apply to those as well - they should be cleaned up significantly or merged to a larger list. --MASEM 03:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
That's what I would think, but I got told off for nominating Cards in the hat Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cards_in_the_hat so I am asking for clarification on this policy...if it's going to be applied to some articles it should be applied to all or changed to allow these types of articles in table, card, AND video and computer games. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a difference for NOT being a guide, and not demonstrating notability. The former is a cleanup issue; the latter is a deletion issue. The AFD showed that it, at minimal , notable, so deletion is not proper. However, it does need to be more about why the game is notable, which, when wrapped around what is there, is fine. --MASEM 04:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear...see, this is where the policy's wording can be deceptive, and have some very negative consequences. I remember last year when someone tried to delete Rules of chess based on this policy (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rules of chess). The problem is the definition of the word "game quide" can confuse people (although I don't think the phrase is currently used). A "game guide" is not simply an explanation of the mechanics and rules of a game, but is an instructional guide, meant to give advice to a person playing the game. If a particular game is notable, then the rules of the game are almost inherently notable as well. You can't write about chess without describing the rules of chess, you can't write about go without describing the rules of go. As long as these articles do not serve main the purpose of advising people how to win or improve their gameplay, they are not "game guides" per se. Also, keep in mind, there are no rules prohibiting the inclusion of description of the rules or mechanics of video games. See for example Pokémon game mechanics, or Gameplay of World of Warcraft. These articles are about the gameplay of video games, but are not "game guides", because their primary function is as a description of the mechanics of a notable video game, not as a manual designed to help people improve their own ability to play. And if by some chance a person can learn how to play a game by reading an article, this is a coincidence, not a violation of Wikipedia policy, because the intended purpose of the article is what should be considered, not additional possible effects. (I'm tempted to make an teleological argument here, but for the sake of space I will not. Calgary (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hrm...ok...makes sense...can we figure out how to reword this bit? "a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain how-tos. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes" Because the way you explain it makes sense....the way it is currently written technically excludes rules descriptions as a how to play or an instruction manual. So I agree with your explanation, how can we make it so that everyone does? (am I making sense?) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, is the word "tips" of any use? --Kizor 06:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Defining discriminate and indiscriminate

Recently, I had an AFD closed as no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fictional Pandas, in which I raised the question, are such lists indiscriminate if the only linking factor is their species? And given the result of the AFD, I would like to pose that question here: what is really the boundary line for discriminate and indiscriminate? And where does this particular article that I AFD'd stand in that? I believe we're going to need some more clarification on this issue, and for it to be more apparent. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 19:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  • The boundary line for discriminate and indiscriminate is purely a matter of opinion. Since we are not allowed to express our own opinions in articles, then only the citation of reliable secondary sources is evidence that a topic is not indiscriminate. Once a subject matter is notable, then it falls outside the scope of WP:NOT#IINFO.--Gavin Collins (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    By the same token, one would have to cite secondary sources saying the topic is indiscriminate. We're not allowed to insert our own opinions in articles, true, but we are most definitely allowed to exercise them when making editorial decisions, such as evaluating the merits of a given article. If we weren't allowed to exercise our own judgment while editing articles, we wouldn't have been able to write word one.
    "Indiscriminate" is the new "unencyclopedic" -- like xDanielx says, "all encompassing". Further, IINFO (in its current form) isn't a reflection of WP:Notability, it's a group of not-especially related "other things Wikipedia isn't". That lyrics, news, plot summaries, etc. are all grouped together as "indiscriminate" is arbitrary -- but that word has taken on a life of its own, and people attempt to enforce it in ways completely disconnected from what's actually written in the section. It would have no more intrinsic meaning if the section were titled "Wikipedia is not an unencylopedic collection of information".--Father Goose (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • In this case, I'd say the list was purely organizational, and therefor the bar is a lot lower. It probably should be a category but given that the title of each subject is fairly uninformative, a fairly sparse like this seems reasonable. As Gavin says, this is pretty much subjective. Hobit (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • IMO, it's generally a bad idea to reference the indiscriminate clauses of WP:NOT in XfDs (with exceptions, e.g., when newcombers have trouble understanding the motivation for deleting valid info). They're directly based on the notability guidelines, and while the notability guidelines tend to leave significant room for interpretation, it's better to argue about sources than to engage in a back-and-forth about the discriminant clauses. All articles are discriminative to some extent (try insert long strings of random characters into articles), so the gray area between "discriminate" and "indiscriminate" is essentially all-encompassing. — xDanielx T/C\R 10:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • As a newcomer, I was quite surprised to learn from an inclusionist editor that the typical section "References in popular culture", in many articles, is generally unsuitable for Wikipedia. When somebody would raise the question where to look for pop references to topic ABC or theme XYZ, I would have knee-jerk responded "Wikipedia". If consensus among editors seems to be that this is not correct, then I would welcome an extra guideline under the WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. And an eradication campaign of all such sections throughout Wikipedia, while you're at it. —Bokske (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
    • A few especially notable examples are generally considered acceptable within an encyclopedia article but attempts to build comprehensive lists of every instance where the word, phrase or concept occurs are more like concordances than encyclopedic content. They may have a place but it's not really supposed to be here at Wikipedia. Someday we will get around to cleaning them up. Rossami (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • maybe what it needs is a change of wording, something like Wikipedia is not a haphazard collection of facts and data. maybe change the intro paragraph on that section to read Wikipedia provides articles that discuss notable topics; articles that primarily serve to gather together information of a type, without significant discussion, are not generally encyclopedic. Lists or collections of information may be inherently notable for a number of reasons (as in List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States or List_of_placental_mammals), but that should be considered the exception rather than the rule. what do you think? --Ludwigs2 21:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Those examples, in my opinion at least, are not lists which are inherently notable as lists - we keep those lists around because they are useful navigational aids to similar encyclopedic topics. We can safely say that every US President meets Wikipedia's inclusion standards so a list that puts those related topics in context (for example, by chronological order) is useful to our readers in ways supplement the categorization of the individual biographies. To go back to Bokske's example, though, we can not say that every instance of a usage or reference to MAD is inherently encyclopedic, therefore a list of those instances, even with discussion, is probably inappropriate for the encyclopedia.
      I think any clarification of the rule needs to address the two different reasons we might keep a list - as a navigational aid to related topics (which may not require any supplemental discussion at all) and when the list is notable as a list (in which case, the page should primarily be about the notability of the list and possibly not even include the list itself). I don't have good wording to make that clearer, though. Rossami (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
      • hmmm... I kinda think what you're getting at is 'scholastic' or 'pedagogical' use. lists are often used in educational contexts for teaching general knowledge by rote (e.g., teachers might very well force kids to memorize a list of US presidents, a list of state capitals, even a list of knots if it's a sailing class or the scouts), but there would never be a pedagogical reason to gather a list of MAD references. there might be a research reason to do that, mind you (making a text analysis of cold war politics, say), but not a simple pedagogical 'learn this because everyone ought to know it' reason. so: something like the List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States should be kept because it has clear scholastic value; something like List_of_placental_mammals should be kept because it has navigational value in Wikipedia (as well as some scholastic value); something like a lists of birthstones should not have a separate list page (since it has little pedagogical or navigational value) but should be (as it is) one part of a larger article. there will be some hubbub about what constitutes 'scholastic' value (I don't want to see how that plays out on List_of_Pokémon for instance), but it would certainly rule out mere collections of information. --Ludwigs2 04:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"old school, Macedonia (terminology), or truthiness"

The "Not a dictionary" section says: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic, such as old school, Macedonia (terminology), or truthiness." Is it just me, or are two of these not the best examples? Old school, while it does contain a brief discussion of the term's origin, is mostly about its varied uses and the genres it represents, not about the phrase itself. Truthiness is hard to classify; as a neologism for a novel concept, both the word and the concept spread simultaneously, so any discussion of concept of "truthiness" will be closely related to discussion of the term itself. To me, though, it seems the article is primarily about the concept of "truthiness", addressing the word only to the extent necessary to chronicle the concept. (Macedonia (terminology), on the other hand, looks like a shining example of what an article about a word should contain.) Should we perhaps choose some other examples? "Old school", in particular, seems to be causing some confusion about what kinds of articles are allowed under WP:NOTDICDEF. Powers T 01:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Old school is just a shitty article right now; it has a lot of speculation/OR and is desperately in need of additional sourcing, though it is not irredeemable. I'm confident that it could be turned into an article just as good as the other two examples, focusing on the concept of "formative style" as well as the use of the term "old school" to refer to that style in a number of different genres, and which artists are felt to have "old school" style.
I think it's also worth keeping a less-than-great example in the policy so as to not imply that "only well-written articles on terminology should be permitted". If an article contains encyclopedic content, and is not just a dicdef, it not only tends to be "kept" at AfDs, but it reasonably should be kept -- as it contains encyclopedic content. Pure dicdefs should get deleted or transwikied -- few people contest that. For me -- and I believe for many other editors -- the rule of thumb is whether there is content in an article that would be removed when transwikiing it to Wiktionary (as its content scope is very narrow), but that should not be "thrown out" all the same. We see no value in discarding that content merely because an article is about a word -- nothing is gained by moving it from Wikipedia to Wiktionary if any substantial content is lost in the process. If, on the other hand, it's a total crap article -- pure OR or some other damning problem -- then it should be deleted on that basis. That includes articles that would be nothing more than a dicdef if all the policy-violating content were removed.
Separately, I believe the general perception of most Wikipedia editors is that documenting the historical usage of terms (as different from "usage guides"), including their origin(s) and evolution of their usage, is considered potentially encyclopedic. Technically, some dictionaries, such as the Oxford English Dictionary, do go extensively into usage, usage history, and etymology. However, I think articles incorporating such material, past a certain size, simply work better in an encyclopedic format (semi-conversational tone and article structure) than in the terse, rigidly structured dictionary format.
On the simplest level, it may come down to this: if it reads like an encyclopedia article (and is sourced like one), we are willing to think of it as an encyclopedia article, even if it's an article about a word. Maintaining a segregation between Wikipedia and Wiktionary in such cases does not seem all that important or constructive.--Father Goose (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
So, then, is there any word about which an encyclopedia article could not be written? That seems to be what people are saying, though I can't get anyone to admit it. Powers T 12:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I won't say that they can or can't -- just that if I see an encyclopedia article written about a word that goes beyond a "dicdef" (and is not OR), I generally feel it should be kept. I see nothing gained by deleting them, or deleting any substantial portion of them in the transwikiing process.
I understand and agree with the principle that Wikipedia is not a dictionary -- but this means, simply, "no dictionary entries", not "no articles about words".--Father Goose (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
But how else to interpret the principle, clearly stated in WP:DICDEF, that the article octopus is properly about the eight-armed mollusk, not about the English word? Powers T 14:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
With your brain.--Father Goose (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
That's not very helpful. Powers T 13:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I meant it exactly as I said it. We apply the rules according to what makes sense, not according to a rigid interpretation. Sure, octopus should be about the cephalopod -- there's nothing in that that precludes us from writing encyclopedia articles about words, when the word is the encyclopedic subject itself. An article being "about a word" isn't an automatic indicator that it's a dictionary entry.--Father Goose (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I would disagree on the point of historical usage. Most Wikipedia editors who comment in AfD discussions on word-articles tend to, in my opinion, vastly underestimate the capabilities and potential of a truly great unabridged dictionary. Even OED's coverage of usage is somewhat limited. Wiktionary, on the other hand, is not paper. Usage, history and etymology are all excellent content and can be included in Wiktionary at any level of detail that our editors decide is appropriate. (I use "our editors" inclusively because many editors work both projects and all of us can.) Some excellent Wiktionary pages have long prose-based discussions of usage and history. The existence of a section on history alone is not enough reason to keep a page on Wikipedia. A page here needs to have more than merely lexical content such as discussion of social impact, etc.
It's probably true that you could have an article on any noun. You would not, however, want a separate article on every noun. The policy and practice as Wikipedia has long been that synonyms should redirect to the Wikipedia page using the most common name for the subject. Other word types are less clear. To me, the threshold for an encyclopedia article about a word comes when someone has written extensively about the word as a word, not merely used the word. So by that threshold, there are many words for which an encyclopedia article can not now be written. The necessary academic sources do not exist. Rossami (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about that; I bet a large proportion of English words have been written about academically. Powers T 18:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
That question would seem fairly easy to test. Here are the first four english words, phrases or acronyms that turned up using Wiktionary's random page feature. Can anyone find academic texts specifically about these words as words? Rossami (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, two of those aren't English words. =) Admittedly, though, I should have said "common English words". Rare ones like "oxilorphan" are admittedly less likely. Powers T 01:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, they may have been loan words but they're english now. But I understand your point. Back to Wiktionary random page for more common english words. The next ones that turned up were:
If, when transferring articles over to Wiktionary, those "long prose-based discussions of usage and history" were retained, I probably wouldn't have a problem with keeping such articles on Wiktionary. Unfortunately, such articles are almost always cut down to a nub in the transwikiing process, and not for any compelling reason. Let's take the example of dime (slang), an article you yourself transwikied, then overwrote with a "soft redirect" here. The Wiktionary page you created out of it (wikt:dime) is a shadow of the Wikipedia article. I'm not seeing how shifting it to a different site while stripping out most of its content improved the encyclopedia. Importing some of its material into the Wiktionary article improved Wiktionary, but I don't see how discarding the additional content improved Wikimedia's offerings overall.
You also talk of how such articles should have "discussion of social impact, etc." Nucular was just such an article, and the issues discussed during its recent AfD apparently prompted LtPowers to open this thread. It had citations from academic sources discussing several different aspects of the word, and I'm not sure if you (Rossami) would have opted to delete it, though clearly, LtPowers wanted to, and he seems to think that current policy ought to necessitate its deletion. (It was actually deleted, in what I consider a poor decision by the closing admin -- not just because I disagree with him; I believe any objective person would find the closing rationale wanting.)
So, I'd like to hear from you an actual rationale for why articles of this type should be deleted. Why delete dime (slang)? Why did that make for an improved encyclopedia?--Father Goose (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
When I moved Dime (slang) over, I kept the only parts that I thought were appropriate (much like the editorial decisions in any merge-and-redirect). The things I left out were, in my opinion, trivia that didn't belong in the encyclopedia in the first place. But if you think there was useful content that was missed, feel free to pull it out of the pagehistory and expand the Wiktionary page. (Bear in mind, though, that some of the content shoehorned into the old version of dime (slang) was already in Wiktionary but on different pages. All those related phrases, for example, have their own pages in the Wiktionary structure.) I hardly consider the Wiktionary version "a shadow" of the former Wikipedia page. If I thought it made the project worse, I wouldn't have done it. I think it made the project better because Wiktionarians are demonstrably better at verifying, sourcing, organizing and presenting lexical content than Wikipedians are. Their policies and tools are better optimized for it. But again, if you think you can make the Wiktionary page better, be bold and do it. Editing is not supposed to stop just because a page has been transwiki'd and one of the major reasons for a soft redirect using {{wi}} is to encourage editors to cross-over and help write the Wiktionary article. Rossami (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
As a casual passer-by happening upon this discussion, I had a read of the already linked Dime Wikipedia article and was underwhelmed. I far prefer the Wiktionary article. Surely the whole point is that in the appropriate wiki there is consistency of aproach to give an informative and enjoyable article! Keep doing what you're doing because it works for me. Scolaire (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
there is no sharp dividing line. It is impossible to discuss a word in a meaningful way if one completely ignores explaining the concept for which it stands. It is impossible to explain a concept, without discussing the terminology. Any article with significant discussion of the concept--academic or popular-- belongs here. Any article about a word as a word where there is significant controversy or academic or popular discussion of the meaning belongs here also. I'm not at all sure that NOT DICTIONARY is a useful distinction except at the extremes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Not a teaching tool

One of the problems that I've run into in some discussions on WP:NPOV is that some editors appear to want to use wikipedia to teach the reader of the article, particularly in articles about science. There isn't a bright line between providing information and teaching, but there is a line. In some ways, this is really the same as WP:SOAP, though the intentions behind it are honest. Including it is under the list of soapboxish activities has problems, because many wikipedia contributors want to share what they know about the world (heck, I might even say all of them do, vandals aside).

Is it worth including this concern under WP:SOAP, or is it simply too much of a minefield to word it properly? SDY (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think WP:NOT#TEXTBOOK already addresses the issue you raise. But I'm not really sure what your saying, since I don't see how you are equating teaching with soapboxing. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I've just seen a lot of comments about "getting the point across" and such that sound like the editor is trying to educate a prospective reader, and I'm hearing that as trying to convince a prospective reader. SDY (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I understand what SDY, and in a way, I agree with Silly rabbit. I would add that most text books are a synthesis of primary sources, and articles written as if they are a teaching aide are not permitted in Wikipedia. Unless you can come up with a more specific point, I think the existing policies and a guidelines already have this issue covered.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Reading further, I am satisfied with what the textbook section has to say on the matter. It's sort of a different spin on the same concern, but adding it twice would be redundant. SDY (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
hmmm... just as a thought, we could add something like the following to the not-a-soapbox section: "wikipedia is not decisive or authoritative. It does not decide between sides in an issue, or present authoritative claims about what is or is not correct or true. such claims will appear in wikipedia where reliable sources make them, but editors should be careful to give proper attribution, and should taking sides on contested points even where they believe a given side is clearly right or clearly wrong." --Ludwigs2 19:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I very much like at least that first sentence. For the rest, I also like it, and am thinking further about wording Something like this can be so useful w need to get it right. Possible "Such claims will appear in a balanced manner in Wikipedia ..." DGG (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Textiquette Discussion

I was talking with a friend about a Radio 4 interview about text messaging and its popularity and this led to us talking about when it is an appropriate time to text. We both agreed that it could be perceived as rude to either receive or send a text message when out socialising unless it is a matter of urgency. What are people's thoughts on this? Am I being harsh. This led me to then consider if there are other unspoken rules about receiving and sending text messages especially regarding the use of abbreviations. Could this rules be captured in the word Textiquette? :-) This is my first post so feel free to blast me down in flames. Nathan Nathancresswell (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you won't get a constructive response to this question here; this page is for discussing Wikipedia, not general topics, and in particular is for discussing this page of rules on Wikipedia. Google for an Internet forum that discusses stuff like texting and social etiquette, where you'll get a better response.--Father Goose (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes to NOTCENSORED

Does anybody beside me find the changes made here hard to understand? I'm not sure what the changes were meant to accomplish, so I don't know how to rewrite them to make them clearer or more concise.--Father Goose (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what the main point was but I do get the idea. I suspect this might be an outgrowth of the AfD/DRV of [1] or something similar. The basic idea being that while we have an open mind about what we document, BLP violations still need to be dealt with. So saying that "gross thing X" happens and describing it is something that might be NOTCENSORED, but saying "And Bob does X" still needs to meet BLP guidelines and folks can't just argue "but NOTCENSORED means we should include this anyways" . Or something like that. I'd prefer to remove it as being a small part of NOTCENSORED, and fairly obvious in any case. No ideas on how to clearly clean it up. Hobit (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
harumph. well, seems a little strident. let me see if I can clean it up some... --Ludwigs2 03:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I went further with your cleanup, and removed some stuff that could be taken all out of proportion. I'm very happy with the current version -- clearer than it's ever been.--Father Goose (talk) 08:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

NOT#PLOT

Hi all, Two links were removed, re-added and removed again from NOT#PLOT. As the one who re-added it, I think it's useful and relevant for most anyone who is reading NOT#PLOT to be aware of what is currently being discussed. The links are:

Current discussion regarding this section is occurring on both WT:NOT and Wikipedia:Plot summaries.

Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  • As a data point, it looks like this was added in early May. Hobit (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Neither of those discussions appear to be active any longer. Nor does there appear to be any appetite to restart those debates. The disclaimer was reasonable at the time but removal of the disclaimer seems appropriate (and probably a bit past due) at this point. Rossami (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree; the conversations about WP:PLOT at this time are dormant.--Father Goose (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Its unnessary linkspam. Discussions about WP:NOT#PLOT occur all over Wikipedia, and the purpose of this policy page is not to list them all.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I have a suspicion that the discussions are dormant through mutual exhaustion, rather than any even partial consensus or true loss of interest in the issues and will be revived as soon as any of the participants regain enough hope of the possibility of convincing the others. The scattering of discussions was due to the attempts of people (on all sides) to gain at one place what they could not gain at another; I would like to think we have all abandoned that tactic which will permanently postpone conclusions, except that there are clearly those (on various sides) who will fight indefinitely rather than compromise. And even if we reach a compromise it will be temporary, for a wiki has no method of permanently settling anything. But yes, we might as well remove the traces for the time being. DGG (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Could not update stat
UP