Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

message: I think social networking service sounds too formal for a page of this tone.  I'm changing it to wikipedia is not Myspace. (oops, forgot to sign...) Rustyfence (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not myspace or not social networking service? 

message: I'm opening a new debate here, as the one on capitalization seems to have digressed WAY off subject...
What exactly is the purpose of this page?  in present form it seems to be nothing more than an extremely hostile rant, and one possibly violating a number of WP.
It is certainly unwelcoming for new editors.
I would also like to note that the page is simply a list of things that wikipedia is NOT; if it's to be kept in its present form, perhaps it should be re-named?
Lx 121 (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its the short version of not. If a new user is directed to read this, perhaps they are not here for what wikipedia is. :)--Hu12 (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why don't we just call it the short version of not? or balance the "NOT"'s with a list of what wikipedia "IS" to make it a bit friendlier?  if we can't come up with a list of positives to match the negatives, i think we're all in trouble here...  ;)  Lx 121 (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is rooted in tradition, much lke the debates at WP:IAR, consensus won't be for a change.--Hu12 (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's give it another try. I want to see if just maybe the long consensus has a flaw somewhere, just to see. First off, what is the reasoning for only having what it Wikipedia is NOT, and not what Wikipedia IS? mike4ty4 (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  The current content is quite wrong as it just recapitulates WP:NOT.  As it is presented as the converse of WP:NOT, this page should obviously contain positive statements upon what Wikipedia is.  Since we have an adequate quorum agreeing that almost all the current content is inappropriate, we should be bold and start afresh. I shall make a start soon. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Three people agreeing with each other on a talk page is nothing like a quorum.  Even if it was, Wikipedia is not democracy.  Consensus has historically been that this page (as it is) serves a purpose.  There is absolutely nothing keeping anyone from creating a different version that serves some other purpose.  Rather than trying to force this page to be something else, work on creating something that serves its own purpose.  For example, WP:BRIEF might be more your style.  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 17:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly what DragonHawk said. Well explained summation. -- Quiddity 18:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is a question of policy. What is an article, what is a definition, and what kinds of article names are encyclopedic. Just simple stuff like that. There's some odd stuff kicking around in WP:ISNOT and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The former says that articles on numbers are considered encyclopedic (under #1 is not a dictionary section- but why there???) and there's a definition of what an encyclopedic definition is in the latter policy. These are positive statements. But it's all scattered in random places among a whole bunch of is not's. It's completely weird. It seems to be an unwritten policy that only is nots are policy. Or perhaps I should say that it's not the case that is not's are not policy is not written anywhere, surprisingly. ;-)- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this page for? 

message: Over the years, I've seen various contention about this page.  A lot of it seems to center around the fact that this page does not explain what Wikipedia is about, or what an encyclopedia is about.  (This page is about something entirely different.)  This leads me to wonder if, perhaps, this page might be better under a different title.  The title "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" makes sense when one envisions bludgeoning a POV-pusher or fancrufter with this page, but that is not terribly apparent to uninformed readers.  Putting aside the questions of "Should we rename the page?" and "What should go in its place?" for the sake of this discussion, I'm brainstorming other possible titles for this page.  Again, in this section, I'm not addressing the "should" questions.  My hope is that, perhaps, some light will be shed in the process of thinking up alternate titles.  So, anyhow: WP:The short version, WP:Wikipedia bluntly, and WP:Cluebat come to mind.  Any other ideas? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 05:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Terse, WP:Bludgeon, WP:Short-NOT. Hmmm. And good brainstorm plan :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

text: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" is a good name. Anything less misses the point completely. DreamGuy (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate page titles 

message: What is the status of this page? Is it official Wikipedia policy, or just somebody's opinion? It is clear that some of it repeats policy as found in the WP:Five pillars and in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, but other bits do not occur there and are possibly more contentious. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mu.  :)  Not everything in the project namespace breaks down cleanly into "random essay by an individual editor" vs "official policy, enshrined forever by the creator".  This page basically just contains a list of links to selected policies, and so in theory everything derives directly from policy.  That doesn't make this page policy, though.  But it doesn't mean linking to this page makes a policy argument invalid, either.  ·  I generally think of Wikipedia policies as descriptive, rather than prescriptive: Consensus establishes policy.  Policy pages document that consensus.  ·  See also: WP:IAR.  ·  I'm curious what parts of this page don't occur elsewhere? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the status of this page? 

message: I have added an important point that gets lost on many editors who do not work on fringe articles. You can see the version here. I leave this up for comment for 24 hours. If people cannot explain why this version is problematic, I will restore it. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "unduly"?  I would take that out. People shouldn't be using Wikipedia to promote anything. Period. However, I think the last three ideas, before yours, already explain what you are trying to say. ABlake (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in agreement with ABlake here. Wikipedia is not about "promoting" anything, except, perhaps, its own principles as defined in the WP:Five pillars. Any useful content in what ScienceApologist proposed is already covered by "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SOAPBOX". SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that some people think that Wikipedia is a place where Fringe Theories can receive more attention or "better treatment" than they would in another kind of encyclopedia. Since Wikipedia is a mainstream reference, this sentiment is not true and is an important part of the encyclopedic aspect of Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your intentions, but is there something in the last three ideas that is lacking? I also agree that Wikipedia is a mainstream reference, but that doesn't mean that it only covers mainstream subjects. "Better treatment" is subjective. If an article doesn't meet the standard requirements, it shouldn't be included. Period. If it does, it should be included and referenced appropriately. I think you are concerned that articles on fringe topics are getting more attention than they merit, or they are being displayed in only a positive light. That constitutes promotion, and an encyclopedia is not about promotion. It is about description. So, back to the question of whether to include your line, does it say something that the other ideas don't include? If we do include your line, I still recommend taking out "unduly". ABlake (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what "better treatment" means.  As for "more attention", it is very likely that a fringe theory will receive more coverage (words written) on Wikipedia than in a traditional encyclopedia (see WP:NOTPAPER).  I suspect that's straying from the matter at hand, though.  ·  The goal of this page is (as I see it) to hammer home fundamental aspects of Wikipedia.  Things that apply to all aspects of all articles.  Special cases belong elsewhere.  I suspect WP:FRINGE is such a special case.  This doesn't make WP:FRINGE any less valid; it just means that if you're dealing with some loony who thinks the Earth is flat, you should link them directly to WP:FRINGE, and not here.  That's what WP:FRINGE is there for.  ·  Should consensus indicate that WP:FRINGE should be mentioned here, then I would argue that we should stick to one link per line.  This page is intended to be crude and unsophisticated, for those times where elegance and subtly are inappropriate. · All my opinion, of course.  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What we need, however, is a place to indicate that Wikipedia isn't a FRINGE encyclopedia but rather a MAINSTREAM encyclopedia. I think that this is the appropriate place to mention this succinctly, clearly, and bluntly. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? Are you suggesting that an encyclopedia that covers fringe topics is not able to be considered mainstream? I think the extensive public use of Wikipedia as a main source of information already demonstrates that it is mainstream. Perhaps you mean that (as your proposed line indicates) that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for fringe ideas. I agree, but Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for any idea, even mainstream ones. Soapboxing and POV pushing are not allowed. Does your proposed line cover any idea that is not already covered, or just hammer the previously described ideas home to a particular group? ABlake (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ScienceApologist: Wikipedia is neither a "fringe" encyclopedia nor a "mainstream" encyclopedia.  "The sum of all human knowledge" is the explict goal.  So for myself, I am not swayed by that argument.  I'm generally far more convinced by arguments built around established Wikipedia consensus, as documented in project pages.  But again, I think that's leading away from the real question here: I'm not really understanding why sending a fringe-POV-pusher to WP:FRINGE wouldn't do a better job than sending them to WP:ENC would.  WP:FRINGE addresses your goal head-on, and doesn't concern itself with unrelated stuff (such as WP:BURO). —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems that because of the discussion here, an immediate edit-war erupted at WP:FRINGE.  Any editors interested in changing that guideline are encouraged to discuss things first at the talkpage, thanks. --Elonka 17:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Better version

message: It would be better to be positive, rather than a series of nots.  I would have thought a redirect to Wikipedia:Five pillars would be a vast improvement over the current page. --Rumping (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. I would at least remove: "Wikipedia is not censored." I know few places that are as heavily censored as Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored. When you say on Wikipedia earth is flat or sharks live on land it gets reverted by people that use relaible sources not own fantasy, that is not censorship. See you can say what ever you want but you can not expect it will stay there unchange for always and say censorship when it does not. RetroS1mone talk 06:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not censored in the sense that content is not removed when people find it obscene/taboo.  Content is sometimes removed for other reasons -- generally lack of sources.  You may call that "censorship" is you like; that's not how the term is used here.  Can you suggest a better wording?
* I agree that we should focus upon positive statements since we have a separate page which details what Wikipedia is not.  The NOTs here are therefore redundant and, in their presentation, seem uncivil in tone.  What I would find useful is a statistical presentation which breaks down Wikipedia's current content.  I have seen this done in jocular form but the correct figures would be enlightening.  For example, I gather that about 1% of the articles are about professional footballers and the lists of asteroids are almost as numerous.  And the stats for the most hit pages are enlightening. Such a factual presentation of Wikipedia's content would be better than unsupported and prescriptive bellowing which fails WP:NOTLAW and WP:CIVIL. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

text:  Colonel Warden, Sir: At least twice previously, you have posted objections to the corresponding project page.  (2 July 2008) (29 Sep 2008) I and others have tried to respond to your comments, but you never respond to us.  I even went so far as to personally ask you to comment.  (2 Oct 2008)  Still no response from you.  Wikipedia works by consensus.  Consensus requires you to participate in a dialog, not simply post monologues.  I'd like to try and understand where you're coming from, to see if we can reach some agreement.  Are you willing to do the same, please? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consensus does not require a dialogue - it requires numerous contributions to establish the general opinion.  I therefore prefer to engage with the issues rather than personalising the matter by focussing upon a single editor's comments.  But, reviewing your contribution to the edit history, I note your statement that, "This page is supposed to be in ALL CAPS. It's supposed to shout. It's supposed to BITE.".  I disagree with this goal since it is obviously contrary to the relevant guideline and our general civility policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  First, thank you for responding.  ·  On consensus and discussion: I'm not trying to personalize the matter, nor attack you -- but I am trying to engage you in discussion.  If you simply post your opinion, and I post mine, and neither of us responds to the other, we're deadlocked.  Progress can't be made in that situation; we've got a suite of opinions but nothing more.  "Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal." (Jimbo) ·  I'm actually going to address your point on WP:ENC in the above in a separate section, because I think it is an important issue. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Rumping: There are pages which are phrased as positives, such as WP:5 (as you note) or WP:BRIEF.  Let's assume we rename this page, and put a redirect to one of those in its place.  Would you then be okay with the content, under a new title?  I'm trying to understand if the issue is solely the name/title of this page, or if the content itself is objectionable (regardless of title). —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't particularly think it is a helpful page, but I would not object if it was called something like Wikipedia:Summary of what Wikipedia is not--Rumping (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Be positive?

message: This is a long one, for which I'm sorry, but I think this deserves a through treatment.  If this fails to get significant input from others, I'll prolly try inviting discussion from WP:PUMP or WP:RFC.
Colonel Warden has raised a concern which I think really should be settled.  If I understand properly, the issue is that the content of the project page (currently at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia) may violate WP:CIVIL.  In particular, the issue is not with the page name -- the content would be objectionable regardless of page name.  Further, changing the content to avoid that would change the fundamental character of the content; it would have to be something very different.  Am I understanding this correctly?  If I'm wrong, please correct me!
If my understanding is correct, then the only thing to do with this content is delete it.  We might start over from scratch with a page also named Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  Or perhaps we simply redirect it to WP:BRIEF or WP:5 or some other convenient page.  But the existing content would need to be deleted; it couldn't simply be moved to a new name (e.g., Wikipedia:Bludgeon), because of the WP:CIVIL violations.  Right?
Reason why I'm beating this particular horse so hard is that some people (myself included, obviously) think this content serves a purpose.  That purpose is ill-defined.  It might be humor.  It might be something we direct flagrant, persistent spammers to, just prior to restoring to a ban.  It might be something never to be used seriously, despite being serious in content.  Most likely, some combination of all that.  But if the content is a total loss, the only appropriate thing to do is WP:MFD.
The page has been to MFD once before, back in 2006.  I'm not entirely sure it would survive it again.  Consensus can change, after all, and the community has become less accepting of certain things over the years.  Perhaps that's the best course of action.
But before we go that route, let me try and explain my take on this.  I don't see this page as uncivil.  The way I read WP:CIVIL, the policy is concerned with attacks on Wikipedians -- people.  I should not call someone a jerk just because I disagree with them, or even if I think they are a jerk.  Incivility is counter to consensus.  Makes sense.  ·  The content here isn't about that.  It's about people who are not interested in consensus.  It's about spammers who keep adding links to their sites.  It's about people who continual edit war to push their opinion.  It's about people who keep putting up vanity pages.  The common theme is that good-faith does not need to be assumed, because persistent evidence demonstrates its absence.
I think it could actually be argued that sending someone to this page would always be uncivil.  If so, one might be able to say this page should never be used (i.e., linked to in a serious discussion).  But it still has its value to those who "get it".
I strongy believe that WP:BITE does not apply here.  A newcomer should never be directed here.  The act of sending a newcomer here would be biting, just as the act of sending a newcomer to WP:BAN would be biting.  But that doesn't make this page biting, anymore than the WP:BAN page is biting.  "WP:ENC doesn't bite newcomers, people do."
Based on past discussions (e.g., /Archive 1#All caps, part two), I believe others also think this way, but of course, I can only speak for myself.  See also Humour v. Policy for some relevant discussion.
What do people think of all that?  Do any of my ideas make sense?  Is this just too "zen" a concept, too much an WP:IAR, to be of feasible value?  Does anyone agree with me?  If this is a minority viewpoint, I'm happy to bow to consensus.
—DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I don't think the page is in any way uncivil. What I do think, though, is that it fails verification on at least 8 counts. :-) Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Hope that covers everything. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

text: With the obvious next step that your own essay gets censored. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that obvious? All sorts of essays exist here without being censored. DreamGuy (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The content and civility 

message: No move Parsecboy (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
* Mixed.  Let me start this off right by refusing to polarize my response into "Support" or "Oppose".  I  do think renaming this page would solve the persistent problem of this page being misunderstood due to its current title.  However, I oppose the title Wikipedia:Summary of what Wikipedia is not.  This page is not a summary of WP:NOT, and never has been.  This page is a subset of WP:NOT, aimed specifically at vanispamcruftisers who deliberately resist understanding why their vanispamcruftisements keep getting deleted.  Parts of WP:NOT which have no bearing on that mission (e.g., WP:PAPER, WP:BATTLE) are deliberately omitted from this page.  If this page is moved to Summary of what Wikipedia is not, we will end up with the same problem all over again, as people try to make this page into what the title says it is, rather than what the page is.  Wikipedia:The short version, while also appealing, suffers from the same problem.  If I had to pick one of the suggested titles I've seen, it would be Wikipedia:Bludgeon. That completely conveys the idea behind this page: Making a vital and fundamental point, but in a purposely uncivil way. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  May I ask why you are opposed? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The current title seems to fit the page best. If the page said  "George Bush is President of the United States.  George Bush is NOT Speaker of the House.  George Bush is NOT Vice President. and so on" I would favor "George Bush is the President of the United States" as the title.  I can see the opposing view, this is mine.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

text:  Hmmm.  My thought is that whatever title we use should make it clear that the "shouting" nature of this page is intentional.  Those titles seem like titles for a polite page.  Maybe we should have a page like that, but that's not this page.  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

text:  What would you like to see here instead?  I was thinking a redirect to WP:BRIEF might get the job done right.  (Full disclosure: I've edited heavily at WP:BRIEF.) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments:
* FYI: I posted a notice at the village pump. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
* Mixed.  Let me start this off right by refusing to polarize my response into "Support" or "Oppose".  I  do think renaming this page would solve the persistent problem of this page being misunderstood due to its current title.  However, I oppose the title Wikipedia:Summary of what Wikipedia is not.  This page is not a summary of WP:NOT, and never has been.  This page is a subset of WP:NOT, aimed specifically at vanispamcruftisers who deliberately resist understanding why their vanispamcruftisements keep getting deleted.  Parts of WP:NOT which have no bearing on that mission (e.g., WP:PAPER, WP:BATTLE) are deliberately omitted from this page.  If this page is moved to Summary of what Wikipedia is not, we will end up with the same problem all over again, as people try to make this page into what the title says it is, rather than what the page is.  Wikipedia:The short version, while also appealing, suffers from the same problem.  If I had to pick one of the suggested titles I've seen, it would be Wikipedia:Bludgeon. That completely conveys the idea behind this page: Making a vital and fundamental point, but in a purposely uncivil way. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  May I ask why you are opposed? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The current title seems to fit the page best. If the page said  "George Bush is President of the United States.  George Bush is NOT Speaker of the House.  George Bush is NOT Vice President. and so on" I would favor "George Bush is the President of the United States" as the title.  I can see the opposing view, this is mine.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

text:  Hmmm.  My thought is that whatever title we use should make it clear that the "shouting" nature of this page is intentional.  Those titles seem like titles for a polite page.  Maybe we should have a page like that, but that's not this page.  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

text:  What would you like to see here instead?  I was thinking a redirect to WP:BRIEF might get the job done right.  (Full disclosure: I've edited heavily at WP:BRIEF.) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
* FYI: I posted a notice at the village pump. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: SamuelTheGhost remarked that "bureaucracy" and "democracy" seem out-of-place in this list.  They deal more with Wikipedia as a community, rather than the content of articles.  I agree.  Indeed, I believe their addition is a case of instruction creep.  They were not there originally.  Bureaucracy was added fairly early on (3 edits in).  Democracy didn't show up until quite a bit later.  But if you look at the page history, the focus seems to be on vanispamcruftisments, i.e., article content, not community dynamics.  So yah, I say let's remove them from this page.  Objections?  Comments?  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They may be useful. Vanispamcruftisers do argue "but it says so in [obscure guideline page]" and "but look at all my friends who voted for it." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm, good point.  This wants more thinking about.  Anyone else have thoughts they'd like to share on this? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing bureaucracy and democracy from this page 

message: I love this page. --Brainmachine (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Love 

message: The article has been marked as an essay.  This seems a sensible clarification which I support.  Colonel Warden (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * It is not suddenly uncertain - it has always been uncertain, it seems, due to the lack of a clear status box such we find at the head of other pages of this sort.  There doesn't seem to be a tag which fits this - more uncertainty.  A merge tag might be best - merging the article into WP:NOT of which it is a fork.  But I'm not sure it matters - while it is in limbo, it is of little moment and so may best be ignored. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

text: This is not an article. Articles are in mainspace. This is a wikipedia: namespace page. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Essay

message: Wikipedia actually IS a bureaucracy. Carrite (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: But then again...

message: There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: MoS naming style

message: Just wanted to state how awesome this page is.. it's just beautiful. Simple, loud and clear, and straight to the point. Definitely my favorite in projectspace. :) And I wonder how many people also noticed that the words are arranged in the shape of a pillar (obviously the first) -- œ™ 10:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: I love this page

message: This page has a big problem. It says what wikipedia is not (and there's already a page with more detail on that), but not what wikipedia is. Yes, it says it's an encyclopedia, but not what does that mean. It would be better to replace the "nots" with defining characteristics of encyclopedias, applied to this project. For example, "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DUMPING GROUND FOR RANDOM INFORMATION" may be replaced with "Wikipedia keeps information organized in a hierarchical structure" and "Wikipedia has articles that follow style rules". "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT FOR UNVERIFIABLE MATERIAL" may be replaced with "Wikipedia is a reference work of information published by other sources". And so on... MBelgrano (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several pages about "what wikipedia is" among those listed at Wikipedia:Principles. -- œ™ 19:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: Why is it that Wikipedia:Encyclopedic redirects to the "in your face" Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while Wikipedia:ENCYCLOPEDIC redirects to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not? Shall they both redirect to the same location, and if so which one? Hyacinth (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They both redirect to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not now. Guy Macon (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia:Encyclopedia|Wikipedia:Encyclopedic]]

message: Here is my idea for "What Wikipedia Is:"
*Wikipedia is an encyclopedia composed of articles containing noteworthy information.  The encyclopedia is managed by a collaborative community of editors whose primary focus is on content.  These editors form groups and take on responsibilities that work toward bettering individual aspects of the encyclopedia.  
Please correct me if this is very wrong, but I think that, judging from my experiences here, that it is rather accurate.  Thanks, DCItalk 21:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes quite accurate. Except not all editors choose to join a wikiproject or any sort of group, nor take on any administrative responsibilities, some just enjoy being casual wikignomes. :) -- œ™ 07:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Thoughts 

message: "The short version:" on the very top is strange. First of all, after this I would expect a pointer to the "long version"; where is it?  Second, it is not so short. Third, what's the point or purpose? Finally without this phrase the text will be even shorter :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed! I've removed it. --Surturz (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The short version ? 

message: Why is this page shouting at me? - dcljr (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: — nerdfighter 02:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ALL CAPS 

message: Why do you say Wikipedia is not a placeto publish yyour ideas, so when you work in a community project don't you have to publish your ideas in the community project  Bianca Levine (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is an encylopedia, which is a compendium of facts, not people's personal ideas. Does that help? Click on "Talk" after my name to ask me more questions. Glad to help. We need more women editors. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Wikipedia is not a place to publish your ideas?  

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.   — Searingjet (talk//contribs) 18:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]