Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia in brief

message: Anyone for a 10 word version?
:Wikipedia is a communally created, neutral and unbiased compilation of notable, verifiable facts.
FT2 08:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 10 word

message: It seems to me that "unbiased" is largely enclosed within "neutral", and that that that is "unbiased" but not "neutral" is not particularly significant.  Maybe "unbiased" should be moved from the list to be part of the explanation of "neutral".
This would yield: "Neutral compilation of notable, verifiable facts".  Sounds much better to me.--Anthony Duff 02:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: demote unbiased

message: We are told in this entry: "Remember, Facts are never subject to consensus". This is, of course, itself a consensus view. I would argue that facts are often simply that view of a specific aspect of reality with which most people agree. Robma 13:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Status of "facts" 

message: *agree strongly. redundant. and erroneous (11 words). completely superfluous. --Quiddity 05:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: :Re: the merge tags, and discussion, here's my synopsis:
Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia content criteria links to it as the main article, but summarizes it in 5 points. (wp:npov, wp:nor, wp:not, wp:verify, wp:cite)
The definition statement has 6 key-words (neutral, unbiased, compilation, notable, verifiable, facts). (or 7 words with 'Wikipedia', or 11 words if counting everything)
It contains these good links:
*4 policies from List of policies#Content (wp:npov, wp:nor, wp:not, wp:verify)
*1 style-guideline (wp:cite) (already in the nutshell description for wp:verify)
*1 essay (wp:nn) (mentioned throughout wp:not)
and these poor links:
*a link to the article Bias (which has a selfref to wp:npov; the article itself is short and US-centric)
*a link to the article Fact (which is in dire need of tag-related attention)
*a link to the dab Fringe. (possibly fringe science would work, but that has a "sources needed" tag)
I think it should either be merged with, and redirected to, Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia content criteria.
Or, we could rename the page to something like Wikipedia content criteria
I'd be grateful for feedback. Thanks :) -Quiddity·(talk) 02:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms

message: The notability parts were unclear at best and do not reflect any sort of consensus on wikipedia. As such the many subcases were not warranted on a page that could and should be extremely simple. The removed sections are below.
:* Notable: A view is generally considered notable if it is potentially information of value or interest in some way to a significant number of people, or to some perspective, or its omission would leave a significant gap in historical human knowledge of a subject. Even minority, controversial and discredited views are often notable. Often it is valuable to see how people thought, or competing views of the time. By contrast many fringe views are not notable by this definition, because they are not sufficiently significant or had little or minor impact in their field as a whole.
"For information to be included in Wikipedia, it should at a minimum be both notable and verifiable.
:* If it is verifiable but not notable, it is by definition below a certain threshold of importance, and will not usually merit recording, no matter how true.
:* If it is notable but not verifiable, it is effectively hearsay.
"Unimportant matters or hearsay are usually outside the scope of Wikipedia. Notability is a subjective decision formed by consensus of editors when they try to characterize human knowledge and history of a subject or field, in a balanced manner.
"If a view is both notable and verifiable, and not original research, then it may be appropriate to record it in Wikipedia, in which case:
# Wikipedia:Neutral point of view ("WP:NPOV") is the core policy that informs how facts must be represented and articles written.
# Wikipedia:Verifiability ("WP:V") and Wikipedia:Cite your sources ("WP:CITE") are the twin statements explaining how verifiability should be checked and documented.
# Other policies and guidelines cover ancillary matters such as appropriate user conduct, style and content, and copyright compliance."
Ansell 09:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My removal of notability mess 

message: Wikipedia's aim is to be a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How about this?

message: With the recent changes in BLP, I think WP:BLP now is part of the article inclusion/exclusion criteria and should have a spot in Wikipedia in brief. -- Jreferee (Talk) 03:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like this page is just meant to be a short, single-sentence description of Wikipedia's goals and policies.  Does BLP need to be shoehorned into that sentence?  This isn't a heavily-referenced page anyway: the largest number of links to here come from a single person who cites it (along with many other pages) in her "Welcome, new user" message.--Father Goose 06:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I use Wikipedia in brief at AfD sometimes. Lately, BLP has become more significant there. However, I don't see how BLP could be worked into 'Wikipedia in brief.' The thought has been posted here in case someone else want's to consider it. -- Jreferee (Talk) 23:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP

message: I just finished a big edit.  I dropped "unbiased" as a synonym for "neutral" ("brevity... is wit").  I dropped "it judges the value to users of neutrally representing different views" as complicated and unclear on a page which is trying to be simple.  I made a few more wikilinks, and added the principles template, in an effort to give newbies more traction.  I added a bullet point for "previously written", and moved NOR into that.  Hopefully others will agree with me that this is an improvement.  Comments, commendations, condemnations?  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another change: "Previously written" → "established".  I didn't like "previously written" because I can easily see newcomers interpreting that as meaning they must reproduce previous writings word for word.  Obvious copyright problem there.  I think "established" conveys the intended meaning much better -- information has to be established somewhere else first.  My only concern is that "established" can also mean "orthodox" or "accepted by the community", which could lead to problems with interpretation about NPOV.  If somebody has a better word, or other ideas, please comment!  :)  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 15:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplification 

message: Would anyone object to setting up MiszaBot II to auto-archive this talk page, in incremental mode, with an "old thread threshold" of 30 days, and have said archives indexed by HBC Archive Indexerbot? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archving