Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 1

message: Wikipedia is not a repository of predictions of what will happen in years to come. (the exception being if such predictions are well-known, such as Nostradamus, Asimov, Jules Verne etc; and even then these should not be intermingled with history articles since they are parts of works of fiction). Should we add a new entry or file under "9: Personal essays"? -- Tarquin 22:16 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)
: I think 9 is sufficient. We do not want to deter people from putting valid, properly attributed predictions into articles. --Eloquence 22:22 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)
Indeed. And things like solar and lunar eclipses and "Turkey's entry into the EU due to be reviewed" -- things we're sure or fairly sure will happen. My point was things like "2005: Oil Wars", "2010: aliens land" etc. -- 
Tarquin 23:46 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC) , Stephen Gilbert 23:32 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)
I agree. Future history is mostly opinion, so the "Personal essays ... personal opinions" already excludes them. Besides, there's an entire other wiki where they would be more appropriate: http://futures.wiki.taoriver.net/
DavidCary 22:09, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not future history 

message: : "Wikipedia is not a genealogical or biographical dictionary"
I'd just like to check. Is being killed by having an aeroplane crash into your office window an "achievement" within the context of wikipedia? Martin
: It's a matter of opinion. Every wikipedia user will have their own opinion about what's worthy of an article. Provided they are based on solid facts that can be verified elsewhere, I see no problem with such articles (see discussion about Sir Mildred Pierce). ( 22:30 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)
There is discussion about The Cunctator's recent change to this entry on WikiEN-L.
I'll try to divert it here.
-- Toby 19:46 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)
: I actually quite like the idea of requiring that there be at least a few published articles, documentaries, etc, ec, about someone before they are worthy of inclusion. Luke Rhinehart is an obscure author who's had several book reviews and a couple of documentaries. Brandon Teena is a dead person who inspired a film.
Meanwhile, Ben Hajioff's exposure is limited to liner notes on a compilation CD. That's not noteworthy. Mind you, I'd put the bar higher than requiring a single article - I'd like to see subjects of articles have a range of sources available, so that we can use all of them to guard against bias and achieve a rounded picture. Martin
----
It seems to me that even if something's on the summary edit, it should still be on the complete list. This is especially true when the complete list has more detailed explanations. -- Toby 23:53 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)
: Huh ? What "summary edit" are you talking about ? DavidCary 22:09, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  some sort of achievement 

message: National and International(Empty, as of 19 April 2003) are Social and Political boundaries.
Whereas, Wikipedia is a Community or Virtual Community. 
Morality unites Communities whilst 
Ethics unites Societies. 
I think that division of the World along the lines of British Political Economy is too Empirical(Empiricism).
Am I wrong? afterall Wikipedia:NPOV
-- JW
:These topics should be discussed (and have been discussed) on the WikiEN mailing list, I have recently (16 April 2003) presented somewhat similar lines of thought about the internationality of (english) wikipedia. I think you should post your proposition there. -- Rotem Dan 12:24 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)
:: I'd be better able to agree or disagree with you if I understood what the heck you were saying, JW...
:: I also am confused by your proposal DavidCary 22:09, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia]] should not be the [[United Nations]]

message: Can the following points be expanded or removed from the page :
* 3. Lists of such definitions -- the point only explains why such lists are allowed and not why such lists are NOT allowed.
* 12. Mere collections of external links -- only says within brackets why external links are allowed
* 13. Mere collections of internal links -- same as above
* 4. A usage guide -- almost same as above, the point is not explanatory, rather the exception is.
* 11. List repository -- same as above
This page can be reformatted to separate out what is allowed in Wikipedia and what is not. I feel the bracket-ization is confusing things. Jay 17:49, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks The Cunctator for standardizing on the brackets ! Jay 21:42, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Expand or remove

message: :Wikipedia articles are not...
:10. Primary research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal peer-reviewed journals. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge. But of course you don't have to get all of your information on entries from peer-reviewed journals. 
How does this relate to images created by a user for an article, particularly artistic impressions of extinct animals with very little extant data (eg. talk:Paranthropus) or modem folk tale animals (eg. talk:Yeti)? - UtherSRG 19:46, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary Research wrt User created images