Wikipedia talk:No Instruction

message: Various nations, subnational states and municipalities have established agencies which are intended to assist persons in the mitigation of the threat of terrorism. One example of general guidelines for such mitigation follows:
* Be aware of your surroundings.
* Move or leave if you feel uncomfortable or if something does not seem right.
* Take precautions when traveling. Be aware of conspicuous or unusual behavior. Do not accept packages from strangers. Do not leave luggage unattended. You should promptly report unusual behavior, suspicious or unattended packages, and strange devices to the police or security personnel.
* Learn where emergency exits are located in buildings you frequent. Plan how to get out in the event of an emergency.
* Be prepared to do without services you normally depend on—electricity, telephone, natural gas, gasoline pumps, cash registers, ATMs, and Internet transactions.
* Work with building owners to ensure the following items are located on each floor of the building:
:* Portable, battery-operated radio and extra batteries.
:* Several flashlights and extra batteries.
:* First aid kit and manual.
:* Hard hats and dust masks.
:* Fluorescent tape to rope off dangerous areas.
Source: Are You Ready? An In-depth Guide to Citizen Preparedness US Department of Homeland Security (2005).
Now here is why this is OK - these guidelines are sourced from a competent authority. The author has not attempted to place Wikipedia in the role of a canonical advisor. In fact, one could argue that placing instructions in the imperative without citing a source could constitute original research and thus it is already disallowed; however, if that is the case, it would seem necessary to clarify that policy. --Mm35173 about 04:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mitigating the threat of terrorism

message: See WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information a FAQ. -Splash 20:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say add links to the appropriate projects, particularly Wikibooks. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOT]] 

message: Wikipedia does not address how to perform various actions. This causes NPOV disputes and the information is very often incorrect. Not only is false information a bad thing, but also the nature that it is presented in encourages its use and often harm to anyone who takes the advice.
However, this isn’t to say the information is useless. It may have a use on Wikipedia’s sister projects, however, it is not relevant to Wikipedia.
Obviously it's not ready to be put in an article. Go ahead and critique but please do not criticize. HereToHelp 12:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say add links to the appropriate projects, particularly Wikibooks. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not an Instruction Manual (version 1.0)

message: Here's my take on the issue:  Articles that are 100% instruction should be transwikied, and usually are.  For example, an article entitled "How To Varnish Your Outdoor Deck" would be purely instructional, and not appropriate for wikipedia.  But a section with instructions that's part of an overall encyclopedic article, like the condom article, is okay because the instructions aren't the main point of the article. --Icarus 22:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But how are we to determine that instructions given in an article are the absolute right way? That doesn't seem to quite be the job of the encyclopedia. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean how do we decide on a standard format, or how do we know they're accurate?  If it's the second, then, well, the same way we make sure any information in an article is accurate.  Sources, discussion when there's a dispute, etc. --Icarus 00:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is almost always more than one way to do something. Specifying a specific set of how-to instructions in a specific order is therefore almost always an arbtitrary choice - unless if you think you can determine a "best" choice, which is likely to be the "best" only in one particular Point of View.  Short series of instructions, explicitly quoted from specific sources, are the only real exception I can think of where the "How To" style may be appropriate. Bunchofgrapes 02:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I support limiting any instruction to cases where it's quite clear that there's a right way and a wrong way.  For example, the condom article.  The wart article, on the other hand, has already been changed so that it covers folk remedies in an informative rather than instructional way.  In most cases, I think the wart article's way is better.  But I oppose an over-all "no instruction" policy because of the few cases where it's appropriate. --Icarus 04:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Icarus. Usually articles can be re-written in an informative way, but not always, and this shouldn't be a reason to delete the article. ··gracefool |☺ 23:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Instruction Without Content