Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 5

message: :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)
thread_title: Crystal ball

message: As a sidenote to Wikipedia is not a democracy, how about "Wikipedia  is not a nomic?" Morwen - Talk 18:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But can you convince anyone of that? Benjamin Gatti 20:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a nomic 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a game guide 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Moot Court? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Do we need every shortcut listed?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Summary

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Straw poll on censorship section title 

message: #Clawed 23:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leave the section title as it is: '''Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors''' 

message: #Kaldari 23:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to simply '''Wikipedia is not censored''' 

message: #Kaldari 23:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to '''Wikipedia is not censored to remove potentially offensive material''' 

message: # Dpbsmith (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to '''Wikipedia does not censor sexually explicit content''' 

message: # jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Change to '''Wikipedia is not guaranteed workplace-safe or child-safe''' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Runoff Straw Poll 

message: #Halcatalyst 21:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leave the section title as it is: '''Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors''' 

message: #—Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 05:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Change to '''Wikipedia is not censored''' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  changelogs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The phrasing was Jimbo's idea. Phil Sandifer 08:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: "The phrasing was Jimbo's idea."  What's your point? Superm401 | Talk 11:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  I support that idea. Superm401 | Talk 07:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  As do I. -- Dalbury(Talk) 11:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Looks OK to me. Now, if we can just get users to pay attention. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not MySpace

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: We have a winner. Phil Sandifer 17:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy|Wikipedia is not therapy]]

message: 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)
replies: text: There's the  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)
thread_title:  Advertising 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[User:Alkivar]] 

message: (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)
replies: text: Let's use a really general term: Wikipedia is not a game. Stevage 21:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: I agree.  --Rob 16:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not an [[MMORPG]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Links to travel agents

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Section/comment about "sports journalism"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Actually, thinking about it, it would likely be better in WP:MOS. -Localzuk (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Not an exchange rate site 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Not censored - law of Florida 

message: 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)
replies: text: Perhaps you should wait until the site is notable enough to get a Wikipedia article. Superm401 - Talk 18:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiREASON is a publisher of original thought/public forum 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not gamefaqs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: With politicians, there's very little difference. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 02:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political advertising 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Apologies 

message: An expansion of this is at Wikipedia:Censorship for those interested. Gerard Foley 00:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not censored 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed:  Wikipedia is not an in-joke 

message: 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)
thread_title: Wikipedia is neither a compendium of book reviews nor an advertizing billboard

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Clarification about the meaning of "personally involved" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Genealogical entries

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'll see if I can get something worked up then. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 17:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not your plaything 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a tribunal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That wasn't my logic, that was the logic that User:Splash was using. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lists of definitions/usage guides... 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Wikipedia is a laissez-faire dictatorship?  Coyoty 20:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not an oligarchy or a dictatorship

message: 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)
thread_title:  Shortcuts 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia]] 

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

message: 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).
* Such items should be tagged with a Temporal template such as , , , etc.
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).
* An upcoming book, documented both at A Series of Unfortunate Events (bottom of "Other notes", bottom of "Books" table) and Book the Thirteenth (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  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)
replies: text: 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  with a warning notice like you implied above btw.  - The DJ 15:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documenting Crystal Ball vs. scheduled products 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a contest 

message: I've removed the following text which was added by User:Bill Sayre: 
=== 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  removed proposed addition "Wikipedia is not communism"  

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Question on speculation issue