Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 3

message: We should rewrite this section to say wikipedia entries are not just collections of internal links except in the following cases...
Now which are the cases?  Disambiguation pages are one case, categories another.  What else? ---- Charles Stewart 02:20, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: "Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or chat room (mind you, neither is Everything2, or at least it tries not to be..."
This is a non-NPOV attack on E2. What's the best way to fix it? Twinxor 22:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, generally, NPOV applies to articles; it's less strictly applied when it comes to pages in the Wikipedia: namespace.  That said, if you don't think that particular phrase speaks well of us, you're welcome to be bold and change it.  It's best to discuss changes on policy pages first, but this one seems fairly minor, and I don't think there will be much of a problem.  Best wishes, Meelar (talk)]] 22:38, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV trouble 

message: I recently saw someone writing this on Talk:Georgia, yet I don't think this has ever been brought up before. Anything to say about this?? 66.245.26.130 14:12, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a travel guide 

message: Is the following appropriate for "What Wikipedia entries are not"?
:7. Mere vehicles for testing anarchism. The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchistic communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism. But of course none of this is to deny that a great deal of our success has been due precisely to our openness.
It would sound better to me if it was adjusted to an item in the  "What entries is not" section.  I'll wait for comments before applying the change, since the item has a distinguished history ... ---- Charles Stewart 03:44, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Mere vehicles for testing anarchism

message: #6 for "Wikipedia entries are not" is Wikipedia entries are not "propaganda or advocacy of any kind. But of course an article can report objectively on what advocates say, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. Go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views—and good luck."
I agree that Wikipedia entries should be neutral and all of this.  My question is about the *process* of things.  Let's take a contentious article like the Israelis and Palestinians.  Or perhaps I'll call them Houyhnhnms and Yahoos.  When I come to the page, I see it is written by a Yahoo, with POV language "The wretched evil Houyhnhnms persecute and kill Yahoos for no reasons, and have the degenerate habit of breaking their eggs on the big end of the egg".  I am a Houyhnhnm, and I feel this is unfair so I rewrite it, perhaps taking out the adjectives wretched, evil and degenerate, and then add some negative factual information about the Yahoos.  The Yahoo then comes on the page and we go back and forth.
In an ideal world, the Houyhnhnm and Yahoo will balance each other out.  Perhaps even a Brobdingnagium comes around, who could care less about Houyhnhnhms and Yahoos and which end of an egg to break open, and serves as sort of a neutral peace maker.
In some ways you could say numerically, the Houyhnhnm and Yahoo are a 1 and a -1.  NPOV is 0.  Houyhnhnm knows eveything good about Houyhnhnms and everything bad about Yahoos.  Yahoo knows everything bad about Houyhnhnms and everything good about Yahoos.  When they both add their comments to the page, and strip away POV language, baseless assertions and so forth, the article becomes more balanced.  The -1 added to the 1 equals 0 - NPOV.
However, if the Houyhnhnm starts out as a 0, and the Yahoo continues as a -1, then that back and forth will become a -0.5.  The page will become unbalanced because the Yahoo is being 100% pro-Yahoo and anti-Houyhnhnm, and the Yahoo is being 50/50 on things.  The page becomes unbalanced, overpraising Yahoos, demonizing Houyhnhnms.
I hope people see the point I'm trying to make.  The article should be 0 - NPOV.  But the more biased the other side is, the more biased your side has to be just to get the article to the middle, to NPOV.
I think rule #6 is kind of vague and I'm not sure exactly what it means.  Or more the question is - how does one be NPOV when others are not committed to NPOV? Ruy Lopez 23:29, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that highly controversial topics, such as the one listed above, should have almost-mandatory "Case for" and "Case against" sections.  This will allow those who are NPOV on both sides to present their arguements fully (within reason) and still, IMO, maintain article neutrality. Oberiko 21:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: To achieve NPOV we need to be patient in explaning newcomers why NPOV is a good and important principle, we need to be vigilant about POV additions and quick to reedit or revert them, we need to use existing "policing" tools such as protecting a page, banning repeat offenders, even blocking the most biased and disruptive advocates. In regards to the "case for/against" structure, it is contrary to the NPOV principle. Our goal is to present a neutral view, not a combination of supporting and opposing views. Paranoid 11:48, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd think the for/against combination would, in and of itself, bring neutrality to an article.  Ordinarily I'd agree with you though, as I think a properly written article wouldn't have need of such a device.  The problem is that alot of people can't help putting heavy bias into articles, and then it becomes a ceaseless shouting match or possibly even a revert war (which in turn leads to things like page protection, which I think we should avoid unless absolutely needed).  It's an imperfect solution to be sure, but we have many imperfect contributers. Oberiko 14:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with you in that I think for/against segmentation is much worse than edit wars, reverts and page protection. One of the reasons is that it's a permanent problem of the article, while the latter problems are transitional. Note also that Wikipedia is supposed to be (mostly) about verifiable facts, not unfounded claims by two opposing parties. Paranoid 15:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right.  On further reflection, the for/against would probably just intensify the situation in any case, and seemingly make us compromise to allow NPOV material to seep in.  I withdraw my suggestion on this issue. Oberiko 16:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia entries not propaganda or advocacy of any kind. 

message: Wikicities dosen't have as strict of a policy as Wikipedia.  Would it be OK if people put external links on Wikipedia articles for propoganda articles on Wikicities.  If it is, mention it as an exception to the WWIN policy. --SuperDude 23:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links to propaganda

message: I would like to make it policy that wikipedia is not a memorial service for people unless their death in and of itself was proveably significant (ie. caused new laws to be created etc.).  This, of course, does not apply to people who merited a wikipedia article in life. Oberiko 21:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not a memorial

message: Oh no, the barnstar! Ashiibaka tlk 02:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Please upload only files that pertain to encyclopedia articles; anything else will be deleted.

message: I have been doing a lot of thinking about wikipedia and fancruft, what is encylopedic and what isn't. I feel that we need to have the policy "wikipedia is not cliff notes", in the same way as "wikipedia is not a dictionary". Obvious its ok to use a definition or plot summary within an article, but when an article is only that and looks like it can only be that, then it should be vfd. This instantly solves to me the fancruft problem, and helps ensure the encyclopedic nature of wikipedia. Thoughts?
:I think this rule needs to be revisited. There is a huge amount of material that aspires to be like Cliff Notes; some of which I have added myself. This point is out of date and has been superseded by unofficial practise. :ChrisG 12:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not a spoilerroom, or wikipedia is not cliff notes

message: Please review my proposal of a revised version. Note that I have not much changed the content, but rearranged it in a more logical fashion, rewritten a few sentences, added a few explanations, and raised an item from the second list to the rank of a "What Wikipedia is not" topic. The proposed version is at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Rewrite December 2004, and I would suggest to discuss it here, not on a talk page of its own. Thanks. Kosebamse 14:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trusting your word that you restrained yourself to reshuffling existing ideas.  Given that, I like the new structure.  Much clearer.  (You seem to have made an error of list syntax in the "General knowledge base" section.)  --Smack 20:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Like Smack, I haven't had a chance to give it the fine-toothed-comb treatment and compare it with the existing article and I'm taking your word there are no substantive changes. I like the arrangement (I particularly like the way you've organized a number of topics as subtopics under "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base."). Nice job. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please discuss the rewritten version 

message: I'm getting a bit tired of seeing pages that consist of sequences of facts tacked on sequentially and incrementally by sequences of contributors.  Not only are such would-be articles stylistically inconsistent and devoid of structure, they also risk duplication of information and seeming contradictions.  (I addressed the seriousness of this issue in a recent essay.)  I'd like to see this mentioned here. --Smack 20:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need to revise Wikipedia policy for that.  I think it is better to just say "This article needs clean-up", which we already have a policy for.  I see "What Wikipedia is not" as a way of having a policy to handle problem editors.  Items on this list have been brought up in arbitration disputes and used to resolve edit wars.  I don't think poorly written articles are the cause of edit wars. Samboy 20:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Wikipedia articles are not collections of facts 

message: Articles on video game topics are not inherently unencyclopedic, but many are crossing the line into "how to" articles, some mere collections of statistics about the monster in question -- not merely uninteresting to anyone except a fan, but incomprehensible to anyone except a fan.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:45, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal:  Wikipedia is not a strategy guide 

message: Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary, but entries about notable individuals are acceptable. To me the latter is the primary meaning of "biographical dictionary", and Wikipedia encompasses a vast biographical dictionary. It would be clearer to say something like, "Wikipedia is not a repository for biographies of non-notable people. Biographical entries are only appropriate for individuals who have achievements which are of interest to a range of people beyond their personal associates." Whoops, I forgot to sign this the last time I was here. Wincoote 07:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary

message: What about categorisation of pages as (put very crudely) adult, then allowing filtering?  That is not censorship, though it would facilitate it and encourage wider participation. 
If I didn't want to let my kids read about non-creationist theories, I could 
a) Ban them from using the wikipedia at all
b) Ban them from using a class of pages in the wikipedia
c) Allow them to use a set of categories of pages
d) Allow them to see specific pages I have chosen and checked myself
a) and d) are available now, but b) and c), NPOV black and white listing, would be better than a), no? Also, many people wouldn't have the time, energy or inclination to do d), though some do use filtered ISPs.
I raise this here as I couldn't see anything about it in the text below (which should be summarised, preferably by the participants, who I've listed below). Mr. Jones 13:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filtering rather than censorship 

message: Right now the article says: Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links. I'd like it to go farther, and say that Wikipedia is not a link repository. It's not meant to provide every possible link relevant to a subject - that's what Google and DMoz.org are for. It's also not meant to advertise someone's personal fan site.
The "External links" section of a Wikipedia article should only contain links to primary news sites or well-established fan sites which directly contribute to the factual information covered in the article. For example: the polygamy article should not link to every web site having anything to do with polygamy. The Babylon 5 article should have a link to the Babylon 5 Lurker's Guide, which has been the definitive fan site on Babylon 5 since before the series began (and has even been referenced in the series itself), but someone else who is hoping to get more traffic by linking his own B5 fan site from the article doesn't deserve a link.
"External Links" should not contain links to:
* discussion boards
* web sites which happen to be on the same topic as the article but are otherwise not definitive sources of information
* advertising sites
* small personal fan pages (especially ones hosted on a free account like Geocities)
* news articles which only cover one small aspect of the issue at hand (these should be linked in the relevant part of the Wikipedia article itself)
- Brian Kendig 17:07, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a link repository 

message: I have reworded this:
:It's always sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honour them. Of course, you are free to write articles about notable people who have died.
Because the existing accent on "notable" struck me as quite rude, implying that people you know who have died are, "of course", not notable in any way except by sheer coincidence. I replaced it with this:
:It's always sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honour them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives.
The intent is not in any way to remove the aspect of notability, merely an attempt to reword what is there. You are, of course, free to improve upon it. 82.92.119.11 20:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also find anon's edit to be an improvement. Would you like to form a user account? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both for your kind words. I will only make piecemeal edits to policy pages and never without putting a notice on the talk page, for obvious reasons. And Sam, thanks for offering, but on my user page and my talk page I've already declined Wikipedia's kind offer. The gesture is appreciated, however. 82.92.119.11 18:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a memorial, but we could be friendlier about it 

message: I've noticed that some people pay far too much homage to perceived rules and guidelines, and some people oppose ideas merely on the ground that the idea was not submitted by proper procedure. I believe Good Faith is more important, and an idea should be judged by its merits instead. WP is not a court of law. I've added a paragraph to reflect this, but it could use some feedback and revision. Radiant_* 09:33, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
*I like it. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not an experiment in bureaucracy 

message: Kingturtle edited the page to state that an article on Paris shouldn't include the address of your favorite hotel.  I agree, but what if the hotel itself merits an article?  For example, we have articles on many of the major Las Vegas casinos.  Some of these articles provided the street address of the subject of the article.  The issue arises because Kingturtle's removal of the addresses from those articles was questioned on Talk:Wynn Las Vegas.  This page seems as good a place as any to solicit comments from people who don't have any casino articles watchlisted.  My view is that a street address is perfectly acceptable in an article on a particular building. JamesMLane 08:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Addresses are used in many places, like Amtrak stations so that begs the question of where do you draw the line on what is acceptable.  I agree with JamesMLane in not using addresses in city articles, but when you have an article about a specific building, a different policy needs to prevail.  I think that the city guideline would also apply to a discussion about a corporate office in a company article.  No mention of an address in the company article, but if the building deserved an article on it's own, then an address would be acceptable.  That allows someone to easily locate the building being discussed.  If you look at the Condé Nast Building AKA NASDAQ's MarketSite, it lists the address as Four Times Square.  There are even two redirect pages for this building one at Four Times Square and another at 4 Times Square.  Now, I know that One Times Square is worthy of several mentions since people know it as that from the New Years eve broadcasts, but how many others? Vegaswikian 19:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Street addresses

message: WP is not a place to write about your personal experiences.  Should this be added to the page?  We also need to mention not to use the word "I" in articles.  Also PLEASE write in the 3rd person in articles.  This drives me crazy, as many newbees make this mistake.  I think this needs to be made clearer on this page. --michael180 22:32, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
:How about "Wikipedia is not a blog"?  I think this is a neat way to put it.  smoddy 22:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP is not a place to write about your personal experiences. 

message: An important policy discussion has started concerning ways in which our content-related polices, such as NPOV, No original research and Verifiability could be better enforced. I've made a proposal to give the Arbitration Committee the ability to consult Wikipedia users who are knowledgeable in   subject-areas that apply to cases before them. Such consultation is needed due to the fact that the ArbCom does not by itself have the requisite knowledge to easily tell what is NPOV, original research, or a fringe idea in every field. Please read my proposal at  Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RFC#Alternate solution #9 by mav. Content subcommittee and comment. Thank you! --mav 02:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RFC]] 

message: Given Katie Holmes, this perhaps should be added? john k 20:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a gossip column?