Wikipedia talk:Five pillars/Archive 8

Accessibility and equality

NO CHANGE:

No consensus for modifying the third pillar to include an aim for Wikipedia to meet web accessibility guidelines. It was felt to be outside the scope of the project. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I believe we should modify the third pillar (adding "read"), to "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can read, edit, use, modify, and distribute", and append to its description two sentences, along the lines of:

Readers and editors are welcome, regardless of ethnicity, creed, gender, age, sexuality or disability. Wikipedia's content and tools will aim to meet industry-standard web accessibility guidelines.

Or, alternatively, we should add an additional pillar to that effect. (I discounted making that change in the fourth pillar, because that is about editors, but not readers). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Disclosure: I have asked on the talk pages for Jimbo Wales and Sue Gardner, for support for this, from the board and WMF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• A massive yes to this proposal. We should be setting the standard for accessible information. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• I'm generally on board with accessibility. I'm not on board with this initiative. I wish I had more time to discuss it, but I'm up to my eyeballs in work. - Dank (push to talk) 17:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Sorry, but no. The ability to read Wikipedia is outside of the scope of control of this project. We cannot require that all persons be given the education (or capability) to become literate. We cannot require that all persons have internet access. We cannot require that all persons be able to read English. We cannot require that all users with reading handicaps have access to the technology that may make the project accessible to them. While we can encourage countries to permit access to Wikipedia, we cannot require it. Adding and incorporating features that support the differently-abled is a positive and worthwhile effort. But we must not confuse that with the ability of anyone to read the project.

  We don't even have enough editors at this point to maintain the project in its current state; just the work of adding appropriate and useful alt text to the millions of images we currently have in the encyclopedia would take tens of thousands of editing-hours. I agree that features that make Wikipedia more accessible to the differently-abled are a definite positive, and these should be encouraged; but they are not a core value of the encyclopedia. Indeed, the Vector skin was intended to make Wikipedia more accessible; instead, it makes it less so for a lot of users because of its comparatively much slower loading time (many people experience "time-outs" when loading large articles) and the tiny-ness of its fonts which makes it difficult to read on smaller computer screens, or if one has less-than-perfect vision. I believe you are using a very "Western" concept of accessibilty when you are raising this issue. Risker (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

  • IMO, "We don't even have enough editors at this point to maintain the project in its current state;" is irrelevant, if true. (I don't have an opinion on whether it's true, or evidence either way.) Implementing accessibility is overwhelmingly software-related (skins, Javascript, and other user-interface components), not a matter of article content. I heartily approve of that addition to the 5 pillars. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

    Mandating Javascript? Given the major security concerns about Java, I believe that would make the site less accessible, not more so. Risker (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

    On a technical point, JavaScript and Java are not the same. Be careful to the use the one you mean. --Izno (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sympathetic toward the principles at hand here, but to go along with what Risker said, I just don't think we can afford to make this a priority right now, so no. To consistently uphold such a pillar, we would also have to massively resurrect the spoken article project, and I frankly think that at the level of editorship we're at right now, recording nearly every article we have would be an inefficient use of our time (not to mention said articles would quickly become outdated anway due to the nature of a wiki). Against the current (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think "we aim to meet accessibility guidelines" doesn't necessarily include recorded articles at all; it would be more straightforward/efficient (and not have the problem of becoming rapidly outdated, as you mentioned) to attempt to make Wikipedia play nicely with screenreaders. (Not to mention that there's other accessibility concerns that don't revolve around audio at all.) It seems to me that it's better to say, "We want everyone to be able to contribute, and we'll do what we can towards that end," rather than, "It would be inefficient to record every (or nearly every) article, so we shouldn't even state that we want to be accessible." Cheyinka (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • There is absolutely nothing in WCAG (or other web accessibility guidelines worth their salt) requiring the audio recording of articles; simply that they be capable of being read by assistive software, which is mostly the case already. Other than such clarifications, I'm refraining from commenting on responses, for now, to see what views emerge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• I don't agree that our current limitations in resources justify rejecting this proposal. That this is a valuable objective is undeniable, and its presence in our "constitution" can inform the decisions we do make even if we cannot afford to make it a priority. This has my entire support, as stated, since it explicitly states what our aim should be (not create a burden we cannot hope to meet) even if we can only take baby steps towards it at this time. — Coren ^(talk) 19:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Absolute 100% support. Wikipedia is about the reader and we should take every step we can to make sure that everything has the ability to be read. Ryan Vesey 19:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Certainly we should aim to make Wikipedia as accessible as possible, but not everything that's good and useful needs to be mentioned in the Five Pillars as a "fundamental principle" of Wikipedia. So I'd rather not.  Sandstein  19:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• No accessability is all well and good and all, but guaranteeing that everyone everywhere can read WP is well out of our scope, not to mention impossible (should we tack on 'world peace' and 'a chicken in every pot' while we're at it?) Even setting that aside, if we promise that everyone can read WP, it could be used to justify censorship and bowlderisation if some country threatens to block Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• I see accessibility encapsulated in "use", so I'm not sure that we need to call out accessibility specifically.

  Side note, the bulleting by the above users was horribly inaccessible. :) --Izno (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for fixing my comment. (Am I doing it right this time? Or better, anyway?) The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

  Yup. (That said, you could have used either type [my edit was primarily for the spacing between bulleted items]; I just prefer the look of ":" myself when it is a reply to a previous comment and am vain enough to make that amendment when I'm doing something else of higher import.) The fact we use lists in general to indicate response is not particularly accessible, but it's what we have for now. --Izno (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

  I've fixed your fixes ;-) (use "**" or "***"; not ":*" nor "::*"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

  Twitch. "*:" and "*::" are fine. As long as the list elements are consistent, life is okay. --Izno (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support we should have a statement about accessibility right there to force examination of the issue at the developer level. There is no justification for limiting our potential readership by not bothering to test whether things work. For those suggesting universal availability is an unrealistic aim, leave out the "Readers and editors are welcome, regardless of ethnicity, creed, gender, age, sexuality or disability." part of the explanation and simply add "read" and the statement about endeavoring to meet accessibility standards. That is an entirely reasonable aim, indeed it's shameful we don't say that and do that. (I only just learned that we don't.) Leveling the playing field for the disabled is one of the things the internet is for. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• No. I support the spirit of wanting to include everyone, but just saying Wikipedia is an encyclopedia covers that. No one writes an encyclopedia that is not accessible by those visually impaired (intentionally). Just saying "anyone" covers everyone, including those who are not included, such as those who are blocked, and it is the spirit of anyone that is meant, eg for all practical purposes anyone (I can not read the ru encyclopedia, and I suspect some who read ru can not read en), so adding read is redundant and illogical. Adding a sixth "pillar" is a non-starter. Apteva (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Here's what we often see at the foot of emails from WMF:Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. - a quote from Jimbo. If we really believe that it is what we're doing, then we ought to be taking seriously the "every single person" part. That means that we don't just pay lip-service to accessibility, but enshrine it at the core of our principles: the five pillars ought to be six. --RexxS (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, per Yngvadottir, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - it should be implicit that we want this anyway. It should be a condition of featured articles, strongly advised for good articles and encouraged elsewhere where possible. Beyond that, you cannot do anything more than hope people use good English for the current state of affairs. Do we have any studies for the visually impaired using Wikipedia? Would you advocate the deletion of otherwise perfectly free images if they affect those with epilepsy (possible with an animated GIF) or would you claim WP:NOTCENSORED? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Absolutely not - Making this function would mean drawing a considerable chunk of our dwindling regular editor base to throw them at what I see, at best, to be a vanity project. In practice, this is like putting out a campfire with ones own face... Sure, it'll work, but now you have one @%@#ed up face. T.I.M^(Contact) 23:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe (perhaps incorrectly) that the brunt of the effort would be dev. time, not editor time. As an example, the poor accessibility of this discussion itself, as Izno mentioned above, is due to the lack of a threaded discussion system, not whether we use ** or *:. (Izno, if I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting what you said, please let me know.) This is typically something that devs, not editors, would need to work on. But you're the 2nd person I saw apparently claiming it would put a disproportionate burden on editors, so perhaps I'm missing something. Can you elaborate why you think it would be an editor effort? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Am I not understanding this right? It sounds like we'd be ensuring a golden gate that all people should be able to engage in the project, which I am an absolute proponent of, but we're talking about overhauling the MediaWiki system and asking the diehard editors to completely relearn the interface? I don't want to sound like a massive dick for saying that we should be focusing on maintaining the status quo, but I do. I just don't think the community can survive that sort of a shakeup right now... We're approaching the point of Endangerment, this seems like a gamble with what's left. Please tell me I'm wrong, because I would actually be thrilled to implement this if it is practical. -T.I.M^(Contact) 03:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
      • No, you don;t understand it right. There would be no requirement for "overhauling the MediaWiki system", nor for "diehard editors to completely relearn the interface". The prosed worsding simplay describes current best practice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
      • No, I don't think it would be overhauling the UI. (If my choice of threaded comments as a desirable accessibility feature gave that impression, I mentioned it because it came up in discussion above, and I have no basis for an informed opinion on how it should rank compared to other not-accessible or poorly-accessible features, since it doesn't affect my ability to read and take part in discussions.) What I meant by my comments above about the share of effort wasn't meant to imply a huge dev. effort in absolute terms. (Also, for the sake of clarity and to prevent snarky replies, you should probably make the referent explicit in "but I do" above.) The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Moved to support, thank you for educating me! No objections to what the above authors describe now that I'm sure it won't blow up Wikipedia. :) -T.I.M^(Contact) 15:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Wholehearted support (I said so before, repeating it here in case it needs to be a toplevel comment to be taken in account.) The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• No, not until someone can show how this would help. Is there an article where editors are arguing for a style that is not accessible, and is that being justified on the basis that accessibility is not mentioned in 5P? Of course a lot of content would be extremely difficult to access for some readers, and of course its accessibility should be improved—but how would this proposal help that? It is important that 5P be kept lean and focused on practical principles that apply to editing, and adding world aspirations is not useful because a suggestion that certain ethnic groups are not welcome would be immediately rejected regardless of 5P, and the same applies to the other listed groups. One problem with adding a list is that it would attract other possibly desirable outcomes like opposition to totalitarian governments—we're not going to add that we welcome readers and editors regardless of their political position, or that we welcome those fighting for human rights. If someone from a totalitarian government were to make pointed edits, those edits would be opposed due to violations of the policies mentioned in the current 5P—they would not be opposed because of the person's position. The same applies to the editor's age, sexuality, creed, and so forth. If this proposal is aimed at MediaWiki development, all that is needed is an RfC to make a suitable recommendation. Johnuniq (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unless clarified. From the original text, I think the proposal is using "accessibility" to mean, say, that we want to accommodate readers who have limited vision, or something like that, right? I certainly don't have anything against that, though I'm not sure it rises to the level of a "pillar". But I'm afraid this will be interpreted to mean we can't have content that's too difficult for some readers to understand, and will be used as a stick by editors who don't think Wikipedia should contain difficult material. --Trovatore (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I won't vote in general, because I stopped editing Wikipedia years ago, but I do want to address your concerns. First, the proposed second sentence clearly states "web accessibility guidelines", and links you to further information that should clarify that term, if you're unfamiliar with it. Nowhere in that sentence does it say that text at Wikipedia should be simple; it merely says it should be web accessible, meaning that a screenreader can render it and allow the user to respond. That is already true of the vast majority of the text on this site. The major holdouts are image alt texts (though not as many as have been claimed hyperbolicly in earlier comments) and certain software implementations, such as the page rating system, which I have never been able to use despite being lucky enough not to be blind, dyslexic, or lacking functioning hands. I hope that helps allay your concerns. 68.163.108.192 (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The fact remains that the word "accessible" is often used in this other way in Wikipedia debates. There's a guideline that used to be called Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible, since moved to a different name. (It's actually a rather good guideline by now, after much Wikidrama; its burden is that articles should use the simplest and clearest language permitted by the inherent constraints of the subject matter, but should not dumb anything down. Or at least that's what it seemed to say the last time I looked at it.)
    • So I think any guideline, policy, or (especially) pillar, that mentions the word "accessible", needs to be very careful to specify in what sense the word is being used.
    • All that aside, I'm really not convinced that the concern about disability-accessibility, as important as it is, quite rises to the level of a "pillar". --Trovatore (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Hence the link to web accessibility guidelines. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Wikilinks count for precisely nothing when it is necessary to make oneself clear. I mean precisely nothing, zero times zero times zero. You can't assume people will follow them or even see them. Always assume that the page has been printed out, the links do not appear at all, and ask if it is still unambiguous. --Trovatore (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Your stated concern was "any [...] pillar, that mentions the word 'accessible', needs to be very careful to specify in what sense the word is being used". The wording proposed is not "accessible", but "industry-standard web accessibility guidelines". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the first part about "regardless of ethnicity, creed, gender, age, sexuality or disability". Why limit our acceptance to those areas - just say "everyone" and leave it at that. Neutral on the second part about accessibility, though. My particular worry here is that most of the things I've seen referred to as "accessibility issues" are not really integrated into the software and take such an extreme level of wiki-savvy to implement that most users don't/won't implement them just as a matter of "It's too complicated to figure out/remember". – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose any wording along the lines of "regardless of ethnicity, creed, gender, age, sexuality or disability" as redundant to the simpler and even more inclusive "anyone". Kilopi (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose PC shenanigans... Carrite (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support addition of "read" - that's the key purpose after all.

Oppose addition of extra text. KISS and NPOV. Rich Farmbrough, 04:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC).

• Support. Wikipedia gets the bulk of accessibility right anyway, and the technology to fix the rest has been around for a decade or more. It's not rocket science.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• Note that while "regardless of ethnicity, creed, gender, age, sexuality or disability" sounds all cuddly and PC, it's not actually true, nor is it likely to become true in the future. Several people have been (quite rightly) banned for pro-pedophile comments. Some disabilities are going to raise WP:COMPETENCE issues. Age is a complex issue: if we really decree that people of all ages can edit, that may run afoul of COPPA and other laws, and besides, do we really want seven-year-olds editing articles on fetishes and sex positions? The degree of seperation between this proposal and reality is staggering. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • While we may have banned people for paedophile PoV pushing, there is no ban on paedophiles (nor any other category of person) who edit responsibly in other areas. Likewise, competency bans relate to a person's behaviour, not their disbility. Even then, people with a competence issue are welcome to read Wikipedia; and to edit through a proxy/ mentor, or via requests on talk pages. If the alleged incompetence arises though a failing of our tools; we should modify our tools where possible. There is no age prohibition on Wikipedia (do cite one if I'm wrong). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    • That's not true. See Wikipedia:Child protection: "[Editors] who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be indefinitely blocked." Are you saying you're okay with pedophiles editing Wikipedia as long as they're NPOV? Because that's what your comments here could be interpreted as. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Thank you; I wasn't aware of that page; I don't believe that the proposed wording is contrary to it, but I would be interested to hear alternative suggestions. I'm saying that we have no way of identifying who is a paedophile (unless they self declare), if they edit responsibly "in other areas". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment As Cheyinka says above, we need to make Wikipedia play nicely with screenreaders, and improve other accessibility issues. This is understood in the WMF mission statement's use of effectively: "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." I'm not opposed to recognising accessibility in the five pillars, but I'm not sure any of the above is exactly the right way to do that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The word "effectively" in that statement refers to enabling people to disseminate, not read or edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Effective dissemination is dissemination that effectively communicates, and in my opinion that means every language and every mode. I'm not necessarily opposed to your proposal, just not sure. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral, leaning towards Oppose - The proposal strikes me as being a 5 Pillars version of "Instruction Creep". I might support if someone were to clearly explain WHY we need to include language like this, but without such a clear explanation I can not support. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose "regardless of ethnicity, creed, gender, age, sexuality or disability" is an unnecessarily cumbersome and verbose way of saying "anyone". And as others have noted we could add economic status, internet access and who knows what else. Agree with Rich - WP:KISS. How can anyone argue against "aiming to meet "industry-standard web accessibility guidelines"? But the implications need much more careful thought, and it does not need to be in the five pillars. Edwardx (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment while the goal seems most laudable, I'd rather reserve judgment until I've seen the practical implications. If this is to be used as a club to force changes in template and alt text policies, and similar matters, I'm a bit hesitant, especially if it's going to be time consuming. Technical matters consume my writing time.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Call me cynical, but I suspect this is ultimately a bludgeon for MOS worshippers who hate the fixed sizing of graphics in article layouts, with the crushing tool hidden in verbiage about the goodness of puppies, trees, butterflies, and flowers. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Since WCAG says nothing about the sizing of thumbnail images, your strawman argument fails. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Perhaps it wasn't the best example, but there is already enough "accessibility" silliness (that doesn't actually make things more accessible) and the point about this potentially making it worse is well taken. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment If there is to be any normative oomph behind this, it mostly won't affect us as editors, it affects the MediaWiki developers. Think about it. If someone cannot read Wikipedia because it is inaccessible with screen reading software, who is at fault? The editors or the Foundation's technical people? The answer seems pretty obvious to me. And if the Foundation were to not comply with, say, the recommendations of WCAG, how is that anything we could change? As for the right to read Wikipedia? Again, what does that mean in practice? If someone's government decided to block access to Wikipedia, in order to uphold our pillar, do we have to make Wikipedia available to them in some other manner? Fax them a copy of each article they want, perhaps? Set up Wikipedia-over-Tor or something like that?

  The point of the five pillars is they set up a nice simple framework of what we expect from editors: we expect editors to be civil (although, when they aren't, we don't actually seem to do anything about it...), we expect editors to edit with a neutral point of view, we expect editors to participate with the end goal of producing an encyclopedia (and we politely shuffle them off to Wiktionary or Wikinews or Commons if their goals are more to write a dictionary or newspaper or help collate pictures), we expect people to license their edits appropriately, we expect them to learn the slightly anarchic "no firm rules" culture... but what does requiring accessibility and equal access oblige an editor to do? If it doesn't oblige them to do anything, why would we suggest that they ought to pay particular heed to it when reading the five (or, rather, six) pillars. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

  • There are many things editors can, and should, do (and often do do, but sometimes fail to do) to make articles accessible; proper headings, alt attributes for images, proper list markup, avoiding colour alone as a distinguisher, etc. I fix such issues daily. MOS:ACCESS has more, and should perhpas be linked from the new wording. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• I like this idea, but I don't think it's necessary to have a "sixth pillar"; the current five have served well in the past and probably will be sufficient in the future. Appending the statement to the third pillar would be an excellent idea, in my opinion as it would publicly demonstrate our commitment to being "the free encyclopedia". dci | TALK 18:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Carrite and Risker. Also, I share Trovatore's concerns that we already have people degrading content, particularly on the main page, because of concerns about accessibility, which they impose without policy warrant. This proposal would make dumbing-down in the name of "accessibility" even worse. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Question Has anyone consulted with the development team about how much effort this represents? As a developer, this sounds like one of those awesome requirements users make that end up being impractical to implement. No judgement here as to the merits of the proposal, just pointing out that it will probably require a lot more than goodwill and discussion around the pillars. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• No! Accessibility is very important, but it's mot quite a pillar--it's an important rule for how we should do things, but not one of the foundations of the system. At present, not all features are readily made accessible, though it's come a long way in the last few years. Much of the blame is not on the programming but the editors--the use of garish and unnecessary color in tables, for example. (And, of course, the listing of protected categories is not a good idea--I can see how some parts of it will lead to arguments for censorship. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support better editor awareness of Wikipedia:Accessibility guidelines, particularly the need to use language templates around foreign-language text embedded in English Wikipedia. LittleBen (talk) 10:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support if amended per Risker's reasoning that Wikipedia cannot control accessibility, literacy in English, etc. However, the proposed text could be amended to say that we will maintain accessibility and equality inasmuch as we can control. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Firstly, this encyclopedia does not aim to be age-independenmt. We purposely have articles and images which ar not appropriate for all ages; and making this a child-open site would require that we not have these. And English Wikipedia isn't open to all adults, either - only English speakers, for example. I do think that we should aim to be gloabally accessable by adults who have internet access and understand English - but there are still practicle issues, some beyond our control and some that weould requirwe a lot of effort for little gain. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Hmm, it's been repeatedly stated above that this isn't about reading comprehension. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Then it probably shouldn't use the word "read". We ought to be much more precise in our use of language here. Risker (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Pillar #2 has the word "written" in it, and I don't think anyone reasonable would expect it to include a requirement that Wikipedia accept submissions in longhand on paper. By your own reasoning, though, Pillar #2 should be changed to use more more precise language. What would you suggest? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"Write" does not have the same level of ambiguity; it is understood that using a keyboard to create words is a form of writing. However, "reading" implies the ability to understand the written word. Risker (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Question: WMF is a tax-exempt non-profit corporation operating under US and California law. Which obligations regarding accessibility does it incur as a result? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• No: Since the 5P are simply a summarization of our policies and not a Constitution or a policy itself it is meaningless to add to the 5P something that is not already codified in our policies. Adding this PC manifesto to the 5P would not provide ammunition in any argument since stating the fact that "the 5P says xxyxxz" has no meaning in any discussion, the 5P are non-binding and if someone wants to discuss policy they need to quote policies or guidelines, not a welcoming essay.Camelbinky (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Camelbinky. I wouldn't object to adding the word "read" to the sentence though; that's just the most significant example of "use", which we already support in principle. It's silly to say that means we're promising that every person will be able to read English. The Wikipedia:General disclaimer explicitly disclaims the idea that people can "use" the encyclopedia, too: shall we quit saying that we want it to be useable in principle? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Does the current usage of punctuation marks, accents and diacritics that are not available on a standard English keyboard have an effect on accessibility? Risker (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Not that I'm aware of. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

So, do you know whether or not they affect accessibility? Have you done any tests? How easy are they to reproduce on mobile editors? Remember, our future is in mobile/tablet editing. Risker (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support ---Nouniquenames 17:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Note This recent article by Sue Gardner (third paragraph in particular) is pertinent. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

In what way is it relevant? It simply talks about people Sue Gardner has met who *already edit*. It says nothing about "right to edit" or "accessibility". It's a nice article, but it has nothing to do with what you're proposing here. Perhaps what is worrying me most here is your equation of accessibility with equality, two concepts that may intersect but are not properly addressed here. Risker (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• neutral (leaning on oppose) I wholeheartedly agree with following web accessibility guidelines - that's mostly why I dislike the proliferation of links to here - but I think WP and the WMF already have that obligation. Otherwise WP would not be (as much as possible) free to use by anyone; also I presume that "read" is implicit in "edit", to edit you must read (or you should :-) - Nabla (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• oppose support - It's all very well being politically correct, but setting up standards which are impossible to meet (at present) will do Wikipedia no good. I would support a statement along the lines of "Let's aim towards...". David_FLXD (Talk) 05:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC) I'm an idiot. This is a "Let's aim towards..." statement. David_FLXD (Talk) 05:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: Needless verbiage; "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is sufficient and should be kept per "KISS". "Editors are welcome, regardless of ethnicity, creed, gender, age, sexuality or disability" encourages POV pushers to join even more than "anyone can edit", since it gives them extra assurance that WP:FRNG and similar things are welcome here. Toccata quarta (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Miniapolis 03:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Risker. There is simply no way that we can guarantee universal access to the encyclopedia. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 17:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This proposal does not purport to "guarantee universal access"; it says who is welcome; and identifies how we aim to be accessible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No, but you've got three separate and not-really-related proposals at the top of this thread. One says that anyone can read Wikipedia, which we know is well beyond our scope; the next proposes equality for all kinds of things that we don't actually subscribe to (we don't welcome those with a paedophilic sexual orientation, for example, nor do we welcome those whose creed requires them to pursue their beliefs to the exclusion of other pillars); and the third says we will follow web accessibility guidelines, which are (a) partly outside of the control of this individual project if they depend on software, particularly software for which there is not an open source or free use option, and (b) not imposed on editors (e.g., no mandatory spoken word version of all articles, no mandatory alt text on all images).

The problem with including this is that it goes well beyond the scope of this specific project. The adherence to web accessibility guidelines is a WMF engineering issue not specific to our project, and needs to be addressed at that level. The ability of all people to gain access to "read" English Wikipedia often is dependent on political issues outside of the control of the editorship; indeed, it is my understanding that not even the WMF is in a position to attempt to affect these decisions.

I could support a well-worded proposal addressed to the WMF strongly encouraging the development of simple-to-use tools that allow the project to move toward meeting web accessibility guidelines, but that does not belong in the Five Pillars, nor is the use of such tools required in order to participate in this project. Risker (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, outside the remit of the encyclopedia. KillerChihuahua 19:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose -- this isn't a pillar of Wikipedia, this is something basic that every well-designed website should do. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

  While your statement that this should be a design goal of all websites is correct and, as a rationale for opposing, may make sense to Vulcans, I'm afraid it doesn't to this Earthling. Could you explain the cthia of it in more detail? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

  I'd say that it means that readability is important for every website, and doesn't need to be codified as a 6th pillar. For example, websites definitely shouldn't host malware, and neither should Wikipedia, but it would be silly to propose that not hosting malware should be our 7th pillar. 8th pillar: no BLINK tags! 9th pillar: no MIDI file of The Macarena looping in the background! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

  What? No Macarena loop? ;-) Risker (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• oppose High-sounding, but ultimately out of our control. Mangoe (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Accessibility and equality (continued)

(break for accessibility as section-edit)

• Support as "anyone can display": As noted above, the word "read" can imply literacy, so I would support with the more neutral word "display" even if users have difficulty reading some subjects, or viewing tiny details due to eyesight problems, or red/green color blindness, etc. When I started the initial thread (see talk "More_pillars"), I wanted to elevate the concerns of readers, as well as elevate the issues of Performance and Progress (as in "continuous improvement"). The concept is to emphasize that pages should be displayed, or edited, quickly by any user, not just an elite group with the latest browsers from 2 years ago, while browsers installed in 2009 lock-up on CSS-class markup or shift map locator-dots 40 pixels onto a different town (or out to sea!). I wrote new Template:Location_map_all to begin showing map-locator dots in the same locations for all browsers. However, the lockups in (IE 7 or perhaps IE 8) should be treated as a violation of "anyone can display" text, without a 6-minute delay when a browser hangs on a CSS class. In many cases, people can "edit" the text but it will not display the same (or at all, as with titles dropped from many pages). I am thinking developers might create skin "IE_monobook" as always tested to run on IE 7 or IE 8 without lock-up of the mouse. Perhaps 20%-30% of the world's browsers have trouble, but they cannot easily edit to leave messages about why they cannot edit. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, "interact with"? Even when reading a page, you may want to rate it and give feedback. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• oppose Again, this is really beyond our control. Mangoe (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Per my comment somewhere above. While I wholeheartedly agree with the concept of making Wikipedia accessible to all, and would welcome this as an aspirational goal, I fear it would be used to pound people over the head on things like alt text, which are not fully accepted. I don't think this can be built from the top down without a lot of ill-feeling and wasted time.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

  Can you elaborate? Specifically: which things, not accepted by whom, and why that lack of acceptance is relevant? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. For Pete's sake, we don't let the fact that some people are banned from editing Wikipedia make us remove the word "edit" from this pillar; likewise, we shouldn't let the facts that a) some people cannot read (or cannot read English), and b) increasing our accessibility is limited by personpower resources, keep us from adding "read" as an aspirational goal. Powers ^T 22:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I support the aspirational goal of making Wikpedia as accessible as practical, but I don't think it rises to the level of belonging in the Five pillars. Monty₈₄₅ 17:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support We can hardly pretend to be providing information for all if users requiring assistive technologies or with mild disabilities are unable to access significant details that we could easily make better. On WikiProject Succession Box Standardisation we used to use background colours that made things difficult to read, we now use a thick border above the row and standard blue-and-black on grey; hardly a massive, contentious change but a significant improvement. Personally, I don't see the problem with strong encouragement for better accessibility in articles (including alt text: it's already required for GA status). Sure, not every article is ever going to meet decent accessibility criteria. That's fine, all kinds of policies are overlooked from place to place. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make those policies universally-applied. (Also, what Powers said.) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  Full disclosure: I have a strong astigmatism and frequently make edits to improve bad emphasis, particularly all-caps and small-caps.
• Oppose, this is, as mentioned above, unnecessary verbage and the 5 pillar version of instruction creep. The KISS principle should apply in full force here.Tazerdadog (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I'm concerned that accesibility could become code for "things I don't want to read or see". For example Muslim views on homosexuality could be unbelievably upsetting for someone not from the Muslim tradition, but should it be censored? Until this can be safeguarded against, I'm going to be opposed. JASpencer (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Such matters have nothing to do with accessibility; and are not mentioned in the accessibility guidelines cited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strawman The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• I agree that readers should be mentioned more frequently in key places around Wikipedia. But I can't see where it can fit here. The original proposal by Pigsonthewing doesn't convince me. --NaBUru38 (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: My read on the change to the third pillar is that it implies that Wikipedia will devote developmental effort to evading regional access restrictions-- for example, making it possible for users behind the Great Firewall of China to read Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. Is that the intent? The Editorial Voice (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That is neither the intention nor content of the proposed change (just as we don't "devote developmental effort to evading regional access restrictions" to allow people to edit, even though the 3rd pillar already mentions editing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Then the proposal is to introduce a factual inaccuracy into the third pillar? It's a demonstrable fact that not everyone can read Wikipedia. My point is that the language you chose doesn't seem to mean what you want it to mean. The Editorial Voice (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
      • No: just as it is not a "demonstrable fact that everyone can edit Wikipedia". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't really get your point. Regardless, I support your goal, and encourage you to consider different ways of achieving it. The Editorial Voice (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Changing to oppose, not because it's a bad idea, but because the execution is overly vague and overly broad. The Editorial Voice (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Risker, and Risker's comment under WikiPuppies' oppose, also as instruction creep. Comment - the Five Pillars are so fundamental that, as with a constitutional change in many political systems, I think more support than a simple majority at RFC should be required for a change. JohnCD (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. In fact, I don't think we should mess with the 5 pillars at all at this point. Wikipedia recently had its 12th birthday, so we're not exactly just getting started. By now, something is either a founding principle or it isn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The pillars are the "fundamental principles" of Wikipedia, not its "founding principles". Are you arguing that accessibility and equality are not among Wikipedia's fundamental principles? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    • If you're interested, this essay's history is outlined in the /FAQ at the top of this talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• oppose I agree that "use" already says it all. I also think that intimidating opposers by calling them anti-accessability is not nice.75* 17:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I also think that intimidating opposers by calling them anti-accessability is not nice.

    (I agree with the sentiment, but I don't see any comment that matches the complaint.) The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: improving accessibility is a laudable goal, and it's hard to imagine anyone opposed in theory, but there are multiple issues with this approach.
  1. Redundant: WP:FIVE is a concise overview of the most important principles of Wikipedia. "Anyone can edit" is already there. This is instruction creep.
  2. Application: There are tradeoffs in most accessibility concerns. In most accessibility discussions I've seen, Graham87 (talk · contribs) (who uses a screen reader) rarely comes down black-and-white on any issue. He more typically answers along the lines of, "on a scale of 1 to 10, I'd rate the importance of these issues about 5". He is a screen reader user and a prolific and experienced editor who understands that accessibility has to be weighed relative to other issues at times; that is precisely why it's a guideline (editor discretion is involved, and tradeoffs must be weighed).
  3. Elevation above content: the only content-related pillars relate to neutrality and sourcing. Issues are sometimes presented as accessibility issues in ways that elevates accessibility over content issues (infoboxes and some others come to mind). I'm concerned about how this would be applied. If accessibility were a pillar (or even a policy), some standardized information that is at variance with nuanced, sourced text would be muscled in to infoboxes and navboxes.
  4. Audience: I've seen accessibility as an argument to change non-article space pages in ways that wouldn't necessarily benefit most of our readers, but would make page maintenance more difficult for the few editors that do have to maintain the page (and where Graham87 has never objected). Again, I am concerned about how this would be applied: most accessbility discussions involve trade-offs, and oft times discussions revolve around forcing accessibility to the exclusion of other issues.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose As not the right venue to work on real problems, and as opening up 5P to too much gaming. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Gaming? Please clarify. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary expansion. "Use" is sufficient. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Blah blah motherhood and apple pie is not what's needed here. We want the specific things which distinguish Wikipedia from other places and so editors should know about here. Accessibility etc are not that. This is just sanitation stuff like saying a community hall has a disabled toilet which is what they all have rather than that they have a good dance floor or a stage. For a hall that sort of thing is only interesting if they have to say they don't have disabled access. Dmcq (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm unsure what you mean by that analogy. Are you claiming that if a community hall has accessible bathrooms, it doesn't need to have an accessible stage or dance floor? Also, which components of Wikipedia are the analogs of the dance floor/stage, and which are the analog of the bathrooms? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
    • He means that everyone ought to have an accessible toilet (or an accessible website), so it's not worth singling out. On the other hand, most places shouldn't have dance floors or stages, so if you have something unusual or unique (like a dance floor, or a crowdsourced encyclopedia), you should tell people about your unusual features. If you were advertising a community center, you wouldn't bother listing things like "has a roof, has electricity, has glass in the windows, has a wheelchair-accessible toilet", etc., because these are basic, normal, expected, unremarkable features. But you would, if your community center had a dance floor or a theater stage, be sure to point this less-common feature out. Dmcq seems to believe that web accessibility ought to be just as basic and just as unremarkable as saying that a public building has a wheelchair-accessible toilet. All of them ought to be that way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
      • If that's what they mean, I don't think the analogy holds. Wikipedia's website is its dance floor (that is, the purpose of the whole project), not its bathrooms. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Such is beyond the capabilities of an on-line enclyclopedia, and not appropriate as a pillar. North8000 (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Which is beyond the capabilities of an on-line encyclopedia? Welcoming people to read it; or aiming to meet accessibility guidelines? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as too extreme, but would support a more careful formulation. I'm a strong supporter both of making Wikipedia accessible to as wide a class of readers and editors as practicable, and of WP:COMPETENCE. I am afraid that this proposal would upset the current bias balance [typo fixed discussion was closed]. For example, we can't judge whether it was disability and/or age-related problems that made one particular editor unable to communicate other than through incomprehensible sonnets and walls of text full of eccentric markup, or whether it was just trolling. But the editor ultimately had to be banned due to lack of competence. This must always remain possible. The editor community does not primarily exist to be an international, widely open community. Primarily it is a means to a purpose: The creation of an encyclopedia. Hans Adler 16:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't need to go PC on it. That's the issue in a nutshell. A pillar of editing is how one edits and what Wikipedia is, not who you happen to be. Sorry, but oppose WP:CREEP of what I feel would be dilutory messages. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Update: Also "per Hans Alder", we are WP:HERE to author and curate specific kinds of content to certain standards, so while we need to hear many representative views, the participatory editing process within articles will require WP:COMPETENCEs. Last, users with disabilities often seem to be quite able to edit, we have administrators with severe disabling conditions [1], and WMF and the community seem quite able and willing to help them. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The equality proposal is unneeded, as anything that it would accomplish is already summarized as "anyone can use" in the third pillar. Accessibility, while important, does not rise to the level of importance that WP:NOT, WP:NPOV and WP:C currently have. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion about Ignore all rules at the Village Pump (policy)

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Update to policy for Wikipedia:Ignore all rules about updating Wikipedia:Ignore all rules to reflect the 5 generally accepted exceptions. Please take some time to offer comments. Kumioko (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: Thread has already been closed/archived. (Just fyi for other onlookers) –Quiddity (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Is "mercilessly" really the correct term?

Under the pillar heading "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute" (within wikipedia page Wikipedia:Five pillars) it states that "any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed" (emphasis added). I'm not sure 'mercilessly' is really appropriate in the context. It isn't really a situation evoking an absence of pity or compassion. Perhaps 'dispassionately', or 'impartially' would be better use of English. Or 'without prejudice'? Would anyone else discuss alternatives? El srettiws (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

That depends on whether you expect the 5P to describe what may (and in some cases, will) happen to someone's edits and contributions, or what should happen if WP:DONTBITE was strictly enforced. I think that as it stands, "mercilessly" is an accurate description of reality, regardless of whether or to what extent mercifulness is desirable. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks PauAmma. The term 'mercilessly' implies an element of cruelty, Draconianism and severity, and might be expected to be heard from someone/thing seeking revenge or punishment, rather than enlightening, sharing, correction, improvement and the pursuit of consensual accuracy. May be then 'forthrightly', or 'sincerely' (as in 'without hypocrisy or pretense') better describe Wikipedia's approach to editing and redistribution? There is nothing wrong with replacing 'mercilessly' with two or three words which capture the tone and intent Wikipedia wishes to embody. I find it hard to believe that its participants intend to be merciless, or that mercilessness is the rightful principle or fundamental ethos of an encyclopedia? El srettiws (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes thank you. The cheeky imagery of cruelty and battle grounds throughout wikipedia governance could be cleaned up, albeit at reflection of our minds. The simplest solution here is to remove the word. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

No, the word should stay. It is a warning to potential contributors that this is a collaborative project, so they do not own their contributions and must expect their words to be edited, and should not suffer from hurt feelings or wounded pride when they are. Being polite and welcoming to newbies does not mean that others should refrain from editing their work: they must expect editing to be "merciless" in the sense that other editors will not, and should not, be restrained by consideration for their feelings in making changes that will improve the encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

A less loaded word word, and I think equally descriptive, would be "relentless(ly)". I'd support using that or an equivalent word instead of mercilessly. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Great discussion and fair point John, some appreciation of dispassionate resolve by contributors and editors is appropriate. Can I propose as a replacement something like: “ … any contributions can and will be edited with relentless scrutiny and without prejudice, and redistributed without hindrance or restraint.” El srettiws (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Mostly support as written, but I'd prefer something less verbose, like "… any contributions can and will be relentlessly scrutinized and edited, and may be redistributed at will." (Also, leaving out the "without prejudice" bit, because although it would be true in an ideal world, it's often enough not the case on Wikipedia that it doesn't belong in a sentence that tries to describe harsh facts.) The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to add some history in that the term is somewhat historical in that it has roots in c2wiki's "refactor mercilessly". Until some time in the fairly recent past (the last year or so), it was also displayed in the "save page" space below the edit summary. --Izno (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Relentlessly suggests that your contribution will be continuously modified (e.g., getting a new change every day), which is not true. I think that mercilessly is approximately right. It constitutes fair warning that people aren't always going to accept and build on your work, or even necessarily be kind about its destruction. (There is a significant gap between "kindness" and "civility": "Rm massive copyvio" is civil, but not a kind or pleasant explanation.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing that is incorrect. 'Relentlessly', in the sentence proposed, is an adverb modifying the verb 'scrutinise'. It does not state that 'contributions and edits will be modified relentlessly'. If it did your interpretation would be founded. The phrase 'mercilessly edited' is far more suggestive that your/a contribution will be continuously modified, because editors have no mercy. It appears clear though that a punitive attitude wishes itself to be expressed by the community. That might be better addressed separately. But I believe the word 'mercilessly' is out of context - unless I am missing a cultural point here and the word has taken a modern usage in a similar vein to the way 'awesome' has? — Preceding unsigned comment added by El srettiws (talk • contribs) 04:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC) El srettiws (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The current text is:

...and any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed.

and the proposal is to change it to:

...and any contributions can and will be relentlessly edited and redistributed.

or perhaps:

...and any contributions can and will be relentlessly scrutinized and edited, and may be redistributed at will.

The aim of using precise language is admirable, as is the desire to not use words that may be confrontational. However, the original wording is much better in the context of 5P as it succinctly and accurately describes the situation—good edits will be mercilessly edited (and will be packaged by freeloaders who hope to sell "books" to the naive). If a new editor cannot stomach that wording, think how they will feel when confronted by editors with a different opinion, and POV pushers, and trolls. One aspect of "mercilessly" that has not been mentioned is that the word is used playfully and with humor in ordinary discourse—it does not mean pitiless torment in this context. Take the proposed change as an example: if someone were to make that change it would probably be reverted, but there would be no "relentless" involved—it's just a difference of opinion, and editors do not consider the feelings of the person making the edit when wondering whether to revert. Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Then it's more like "impersonal", but correctly, it's not "merciless". The sentence really is not clear as it is; 'redistributed' is also conjoined with the adverb 'mercilessly' which I'm not even sure makes sense. Can written script be mercilessly reallocated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by El srettiws (talk • contribs) 08:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You are reading too much into "mercilessly". It doesn't necessarily imply torment or punishment: what it is saying is that someone contributing material must not expect that others will allow pity or sympathy or consideration for his feelings to prevent them modifying it to improve the encyclopedia, or to stop them exercising their CC-BY-SA rights to redistribute it.

I would add that the Five Pillars are so fundamental to Wikipedia that (as with constitutions in many political systems) they should not be lightly or easily changed. The word "mercilessly" has been accepted there for nearly eight years (actually introduced May 2005). Even if consensus appears here, it should at least take a formal RFC, advertised at WP:CENT, to make a change, and I would even argue that it should take more than a simple majority. JohnCD (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, but merciless is still not applied correctly. There are other words synonymous with an absence of pity that do no imply cruelty. It's clearly not intended to be figurative, it is meant to be literal, and so doesn't accurately apply. Surely a better way of expressing the intent can be found, regardless of whether or not it has been accepted for a long time? Also, the French language page doesn't refer to mercilessness. I'm beginning to think that " ... reviewed without sympathy, edited without prejudice, and redistributed without hindrance" is an improvement. El srettiws (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

In all irony, I can assure you that whoever placed the word "mercilessly" there in the first place is now being given kind and deliberate consideration to having it edited and distributed. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

User:JohnCD- The Five Pillars are not a constitution, nor fundamental TO Wikipedia, they are a non-binding DESCRIPTION of what happens to be fundamental about Wikipedia. The Five Pillars flow from the combined different consensuses that happen in Wikipedia, not the other way around, note that the majority of the most important policies predate by years the invention of this page. With that mentioned the fact that this one word has appeared in this page for over 8 years means nothing. This page is an essay, not a policy, not a constitution, not a law, not a government. Simple consensus here based on logic with proper weight given to the arguments pro and con are all that are needed; this is not a vote, whether here or at a RFC, and an RFC is never needed to change such a minor word in the 5P.97.85.242.177 (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

How about "unsparingly"? 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 19:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I see no need for any word. 'contributions can and will be edited and redistributed' seems fine to me. Dmcq (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

A random recommendation

We define "encyclopedia" by use of WP:NOT, which could be stronger. It should be (not saying it is!) that one of the pillars of what we do is that we are writing for the readers, not for our own agendas, and that the readers come first. While most of the pillars are honored more in the breach than the observance, having a positive definition of what we mean by "encyclopedia" rather than just a definition by exclusion would seem to be useful for the page. Just a thought from a former editor. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

A nice feature of WP:5P is that nearly all of it provides actionable advice—saying "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" provides guidance, whereas most positive statements that have been suggested don't really help. Of course readers come first, but that's not quite as direct as saying "not soapbox" (and the other nots). Johnuniq (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Aesthetics

I don't mind the recent aesthetic change to the page overall, but could we get some white space between the points? White space makes the page easier to read, especially for people with dyslexia or limited English skills. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. Before and After diffs, fwiw. –Quiddity (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that some white space between the points (the five pillars) would make the page more pleasant to look at and easier to read. Invertzoo (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I prefer a bit of white space too. The page looks more like small print saying I agree to my email being used for spam now rather than something we're hoping people will read. Dmcq (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added some padding to the bottom of the divs, which hopefully implements this thread's consensus acceptably. :) –Quiddity (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Five pill....what???

Five pillows of Wikipedia ;)

• 
• 

scnr --BR, .js (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I think someone is trying to have some fun here. -- Kndimov (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2014

Edit articles Dusty2013 (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. I've left you some links on your talk page that should help you get started. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Real Information

I think it is important to mention in the pillars that information are real information. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by "real information". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

There are different information in literature, some real, some imaginary, some false, some true and mixture. Usually in our work the authors and editors seek real and true information. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

That is already covered in the second pillar. Verifiability matters more than truth on Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, modify, and distribute:

I think adding modify is unnecessary and confusing legalese at this level so have removed it. We are not covering everything allowed and this does not totally delimit restrictions. If somebody is doing that they should check further than here.

The link also point to WP:Wikipedia is free content which is not a policy, and more to the point seems a pretty useless nothing pointing to free content which is a Wikipedia article instead of s policy or guidelines. I changed the link should be to Wikipedia:Copyrights. I also linked Wikipedia:Editing policy for the mercilessly edited part and Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content for the reusing bit. Dmcq (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

I propose that the phrase "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" link to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia instead of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. When I made the change earlier today, I was (appropriately) reverted and asked to raise the issue on the talk page because it has come up multiple times before, most recently in July (diff).

The arguments for linking to WP:NOT appear to be:

1. WP:NOT is, unlike WP:ENC, a policy.
2. WP:NOT contains a lot of useful content.

The arguments for linking to WP:ENC include:

1. It is counterintuitive for a positive statement (Wikipedia is X") to lead to a list of negative statements ("Wikipedia is not X, Y, and Z").
2. WP:ENC is neither wrong nor controversial. It contains a definition of the term "encyclopedia", a modified statement of the first and third pillars, and a link to WP:NOT.
3. The first pillar currently contains two links to WP:NOT, as well as multiple links to individual sections.

Changing the link from WP:NOT to WP:ENC does not, in my view, take away anything since WP:NOT will remain prominently linked both on this page and at WP:ENC. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't see the point of linking to something that says nothing new, in fact says practically nothing, and isn't a policy or guideline. Dmcq (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

See my comment at "02:23, 23 August 2013" in the preceding section. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm the one who did the reversion and requested this be brought here, as I recalled a previous discussion about this very topic. I agree with Dmcq. Even though the 5P itself is only an essay it should link important ideas to the nearest relevant policy or in specific cases guidelines and not have links going to essays. Which by definition essays may not even be accepted by a substantial minority of the Community, let alone a majority.Camelbinky (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that linking to NOT helps new users more than linking to ENC. Andrew³²⁷ 19:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Despite the Title, WP:NOT actually describes what Wikipedia is in the first sentence, and in the nutshell. It then elaborates on that premise, with answers to common FAQs around the root-question "Is Wikipedia a ... ?"

In addition to that, WP:ENC served a completely different purpose for many years (2005 till early 2013 it looked like this). It is still a very oddly conceived page, that is placed at a prominent title - ifwecoulddoitalloveragain, we'd probably just make it redirect to WP:NOT, and/or retitle WP:NOT to "What Wikipedia is and is not".

Therefore, I believe the pillar should continue to link to WP:NOT. It's a bit WP:ZEN, but then so are a lot of things around here (eg. WP:IAR). –Quiddity (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Surely this could most easily be resolved by renaming (i.e. moving, and leaving a redirect) Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is and is not? Given the opening sentence described above, that would seem to be a more appropriate name in any case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd support that. –Quiddity (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

So a month later and the move still hasn't happened...Camelbinky (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

If you're moving/rename NOT, you would need to gain consensus to change it there. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually the WP:VPP would be the more appropriate place as a larger audience would have a say and be a more neutral area, whereas on the WT:NOT would be heavily influenced by those with a bias to keeping things the way it is.Camelbinky (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Irregardless, the point is that the page that is being moved needs to be notified; the decision can't be made elsewhere without mention there. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and 'the sum of all knowledge'. Wikipedia is a compendium of secondary sources that meet certain rules. Sure, primary sources are allowed occasionally, but this thing is really aiming to be 'the sum of all reputable, published, summary of secondary source knowledge'. If they're not published somewhere reputable then it doesn't rate a mention. If that message got out I think there'd be many less new editors wondering why their new articles were deleted. AnonNep (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The link should stay to WP:NOT. The goal here is to communicate what (some of) the policies are (at least in theory). ENC says next to nothing and it's just going to be some chaff to distract the new user from clicking on the underlying WP:NOT policy that the admins will throw at them chapter and verse if god help them they try to add something controversial. Wnt (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Fundamental principle

Considering this page is fully protected I don't think anyone should be making edits without talking about it first. Otherwise there is a risk of this being an admin only page. Chillum 16:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You might have checked your premise before you take sideswipes at "anyone" based on it. The page is semiprotected. Bishonen | talk 16:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC).

I was not naming names to avoid being rude. I misread the protection and read the move protection. My apologies if I have offended you.

Regardless of the state of protection if you are reverted then you should discuss it and not remove the same text again.

The text you removed did not claim this page was a fundamental principle. It says it summarizes our fundamental principles. The 5 pages linked are indeed the founding principals of the project, at least that is what I was told when I joined 8 years ago and they have all stood since. So I don't think the line should be removed. Chillum 16:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok - while we're all here, we can vote on whether we keep or remove. clearly it's at 1-1 - Chillum says keep and Bish says remove - let's get consensus on this. I could take it or leave it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Remove please. Not necessary. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:PG first para. last sentence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Alanscottwalker, I was the most recent person to edit the particular sentence you refer to. I assure you that when I wrote that 5P is "a popular summary of the most pertinent principles", that I did not mean "5P is a policy". WP:Principles and WP:Policies are not the same thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • • The intro sentence does not say it is policy, so your point about whatever you meant does not address my argument. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not wrong, and concise introductory text is a hallmark of good writing. Lagrange613 05:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Remove per... the fact we've had this discussion so many times and it is always a vocal minority that continues to oppose removing/ r at least rewording the sentence to make it clear, as What states- these are just SOME of the principles.Camelbinky (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

On the general question of what to say (by way of introductory sentence), it's been discussed a couple of times in the last couple of years. One of my favorite formulations runs something like "Some of Wikipedia's fundamental principles..." What I like about this is that it does not claim to be a complete list. In the current formulation, if what's important to you isn't on the list, then some people read this page and conclude that "_____" (fill in the blank: accessibility, education, not getting sued into oblivion, personality rights, user privacy...) isn't actually important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

'Some' is especially bad as it makes it sound like a hotch potch. And by the way the things you mentioned are not fundamental principles of this part of Wikipedia. For instance the education aspect is really part of the foundation's aim for what to do with what we do, we're here to get the information organized. Dmcq (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

"Some" is worse than no introductory text at all. 5P is not a place to be wishy-washy. If there's another fundamental principle then it's time for 6P. Lagrange613 23:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles (from 2001) lists eight principles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

There's significant overlap between those eight principles and the five pillars, except maybe for principle #4, which is less a fundamental principle than just sound software engineering for a large, open project. Feel free to propose it as the sixth pillar if you disagree, but I don't think you'll get very far. Lagrange613 05:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Well I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition - "Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our four...no... amongst our weapons.... amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again." ;-) Dmcq (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

What is this page?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There is no clear consensus as to what this page is, though there does appear to be general agreement that it's not really a policy, a guideline, or an essay in the sense that we normally use those terms on Wikipedia. Several people question the need for any such classification, so, without wishing to enter a supervote, might I suggest that—as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy—we leave it the way it is? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Right, looking at the history I can see it was created by Neutrality on 4 May 2005, but am trying to figure out where the discussion for it arose. Looking through Neutrality's contribs at the time (sorry for invasion of wiki-privacy), I can't see where it was discussed prior. It has no classification, so it isn't clear whether it is a policy, guideline or essay. So we may as well settle this now with a big RfC hug-fest, and folks can comment below and add some reasoning. I'll ask Neutrality to comment as well. Cheers and wikilove, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Policy

1. No. You can't be sanctioned for violating this page, even though you can be sanctioned for violating any of the five pillars. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
2. According to Policy, it "is a popular summary of the most pertinent principles." Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Guideline

1. No. You can't be warned for violating this page, even though you can be warned for violating a guideline. (In some cases, you can be sanctioned for violating a guideline, but not for this, only for the rules that it cites.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Essay

1. Probably. Since there is no definition for what an essay is, it appears to fall within the non-boundaries. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
2. This is an essay that very ably summarizes most of our important Wikipedia:Principles and Wikipedia:Policies (and some guidelines, too) for newcomers. It is the most important and most widely accepted essay, and it needs WP:NOTAG to be useful, especially since some people think that 'policy means you get blocked', so adding the correct tag might mislead newbies into thinking they can violate it with impunity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
3. I don't oppose it being tagged as an essay. However extra clarification would be needed so that new users are not confused. After all it is summarizing and linking to policy which is not optional. Chillum 16:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Yes, that's where it sorts. Many, maybe most essays guide the reader through some relevant policies and this is no different. Wikipedia notoriously has a proliferation of policies and any time we can clearly show one is not on the list that makes it easier for someone to get started. Fewer policy pages make for "more maintainable code", you might say. If you want, make up a sentence like "this is an essay, but accurately summarizes the policies it refers to." Wnt (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

   note, on reading comments below, I think Template:Information page is a good markup for this page. I assume information pages are at most a subtype of "more popular" essays, even if Category:Wikipedia information pages isn't currently a subcategory of essays... if it's a fourth type, well, the whole idea of having a fourth type and what that means is a headache. Some items like WP:Power don't seem different from a garden variety essay at all. Wnt (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

5. Yep. Essays can and do point to policies, but that doesn't make them policies themselves. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Something else?

1. Maybe. In view of the vagueness of what an essay is, it probably doesn't have to be something else. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

   I would call it an "Official Policy Summary," although there is no such thing under our structures and creating the new category is more trouble than it would be worth. Carrite (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

2. No tag. It is a helpful document that links to our core policies that he show new users. Calling it an essay will confuse new users as it points to strict policies. Calling a guideline or policy is erroneous. I suggest we leave it untagged. Chillum 15:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
3. This is a brief summary of the Five Pillars. You should refer to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines for specific standards in making decisions. But I rather doubt that has to be said. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
4. No tag, per Chillum essentially.--cyclopia^speak! 17:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
5. I don't think this should be tagged, but technically it appears to be an essay in origin, which has become a highly official very short summary of policy for newcomers. It's definitely more than an "essay" now even though its elevation to policy has never run through the appropriate process. Carrite (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
6. Just leave it like it is, I guess. Everything in life doesn't have to fit into a box or need a little tag. It's fine. (Expanded on this in the following section.) Herostratus (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
7. You're all wrong! This page is an aptitude test. People who believe everything must follow a predefined rule fail because of IAR. People who believe arguing over which decoration should be at the top fail because of NOT. The page is fine as is. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
8. People who come here are not seeking induction into the hierarchy of the WP: namespace. They are trying to understand what Wikipedia is, or at least purports to be. This should be a gateway to the stuff it's actually about, not to the policy/guideline/essay multichotomy. There's a striking symbolism here: Is Wikipedia about the five pillars, or is it about arguing over which of the arbitrary and ever-growing categories of regulations the five pillars belong to? I think the fifth pillar has the answer. Lagrange613 05:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
9. It describes best practices, cultural norms, and other important principles of Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what you categorize it as, such categorization doesn't make it less useful or important. All the wonks who need things in neat little hierarchies to decide if they need to follow them or not are just going to have to learn to be OK with not being able to do that. --Jayron32 19:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
10. It is was it is, and it need be no more than that. (If I must be more explicit, I'm more or less agreeing with the "preamble" conception, as well as the idea that this doesn't need a tag.) --j⚛e decker^talk 22:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
11. It is not a policy, guideline, or essay.  It is "fundamental principles".  Tag it.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
12. While we're looking at this we should also include WP:NUTSHELL; that being said I think it's fine as is.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
13. Leave it untagged, like WP:42 (which, incidentally, has the line This is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline; please defer to such in a case of inconsistency with this page.). It's a useful summary, but the actual substance lies in the links. Ansh666 09:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

    P.S. the bikeshed should be green. Ansh666 09:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

    You are wrong, Ansh! The bikeshed must be blue! WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Discuss away, folks...one of the issues is I have is that the FAC declares that it is not a policy or guideline, yet is then (presumably) treated like it is one, or some sort of fiat or something. Not really happy with that ambiguity. Each of the pillars is a policy, so is it automatically a policy too? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I always assumed it had something to do with the Seven Pillars of Wisdom but when Wikipedia started the proto-geeks were too wasted to remember the other two. AnonNep (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It started life as only three at WP:TRIFECTA. Perhaps a seven-point version will follow some day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a summary of our 5 most fundamental policies. It links to policies. If the text of this page and the text of a policy it is linked too differs then that needs to be resolved.

If someone is saying that because this is not a policy they don't need to follow it then refer them to the actual policy.

By the way, this is the document that made me want to edit Wikipedia. Chillum 15:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cas, this has been discussed repeatedly in the archives.

One of the problems with this is trying to get people to agree on what it means to say that something policy is a policy. That is, are we talking about "policy", lowercase, meaning the standard practice, or are we talking about "An Official English Wikipedia® Policy™", uppercase, an official description of same? Here's the difference:

• When we're talking about "policy", then any statement, even a talk page comment, that accurately describes proper behavior is a policy statement. Under this model (think British constitution), this page (and hundreds of others) are "policy", and so is every single (accurate) talk page message left for people telling them to please not violate copyrights or add unsourced material about BLPs.
• When we're talking about "An Official English Wikipedia® Policy™" (or Guideline™), then only a page that has been formally (bureaucratically) approved and labeled as such is "policy". Under this model (think American constitution), this page is "just" the most popular and well-written essay in the history of the English Wikipedia.

All of this adds up to: It is not really possible to answer your question. Formally, this page is an essay; informally, it is the best policy statement for newbies that we've got. Both the people who say that it's a policy and those who say that it is not a Policy™ are absolutely correct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• {{Information page}} seems like the best option since it summarizes policies and guidelines without being one itself. --Jakob (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That looks perfect. I would support that. Chillum 17:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"Information Page" sounds right. It is a summary of main policies for newcomers, the details of which are formally explained elsewhere. I don't think the page should be tagged at all, however. Carrite (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I got to thinking about similarities between this and Preamble to the United States Constitution. There's a few similarities... it'd be easy to overstate this, but:

• In the United States Constitution, everything is either an Article or an Amendment and has a number, except the Preamble which is outside that structure,
• Similarly here, every page has a overarching category (Article, Essay, Policy, etc.) except this one which is outside that structure.
• The Preamble is not really actionable. No court is going to overturn a law solely on the ground that it doesn't "insure domestic Tranquility" or whatever if it passes constitutional muster in every other way. So (unlike everything else in the Constitution) it's not really a law, exactly.
• Ditto here, you never going to see "Blocked for violating WP:5P". This page is not really a policy, exactly.
• And of course both the Preamble and this page could be described as "summary of what we're about, here".

So that's fine. I haven't seen anybody run around screaming "OMG, we have to rename the Preamble to Article 1 because everything has to fit into a structure of numbered laws!". It works fine. I guess that's my point: it's OK the way it is for this page too, it doesn't have to be called an Essay or a Policy or whatever. It just is what it is, a thing in itself. Herostratus (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Hi all. I'm the one who began the 5P project page, some nine years ago. I never envisioned that this page would take off as it has, with translations on nearly every language version. I am gratified that so many have found it useful.

I claim no special insight on how to classify this page (i.e., as an policy vs. essay vs. some third option), but I would submit that the specific classification is not all that important. At core, this is a summary and a point of reference. I would submit that there is wisdom in thinking of this page as a preamble (as Herostratus suggested), or, as an abbreviated table of contents. It may be wise to intentionally not categorize this page as either a policy or essay. Not everything must be labeled. Neutrality^talk 03:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Not label it?? what a heretic! Next you'll be telling us to ignore all rules! Thanks for WP:5P—we all love it, even those who haven't yet been assimilated. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2014

I am trying to learn wikipedia to contribute arictles for educational propuse.

thanks a lot Muuse12 (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done That is not a request to edit this page
May I suggest you look at the links on your talk page - I'd start with Tutorial (just click the blue text) but the other links are good as well. - Arjayay (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarifying for new editors the difference between "Wikipedia editorial consensus" and the "General English language" understanding of the term

I have recently been surprised to find out that very few Wikipedia editors seem to know the difference between the Wikipedia editorial consensus process and what is generally understood as the Consensus process in the general English language. This confusion has caused a number of misunderstandings in my own particular case, as I always assumed that when it said "consensus" in the 5 pillars, that it meant "consensus". It turns out that the "Wikipedia consensus process" we are talking about here is not at all the same as the larger world's understanding of the word "consensus". Read about the larger world's understanding of the word in our Consensus article to find out for yourself if you don't believe me. Our process is kind of like a stripped down go cart version, while the larger world's version is more like the Cadillac version. They both get you there, but not really the same thing. I would propose improving the language of the five pillars to read: "Civility.... Seek Wikipedia editorial consensus and agreement, avoid edit wars." Instead of what seems to me to be its current rather misleading wording: " Seek consensus, avoid edit wars." Scott P. (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have read the article about consensus and it is in line with the Wikipedia meaning. Why don't you devote your energies to something like original research which is a bit surprising. Dmcq (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dmcq:, One method only allows the taking of the action after the consensus is arrived at. The other says you can take the action (the edit) first, then sort of have the edit war, discussion, administrative action, or whatever after, as a sort of an afterthought. I like your original research. Scott P. (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a distinction if a new source is introduced to an article, vs just editing existing materials? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@ZuluPapa5:, thanks for looking this over. How then would you suggest rewording the sentence "Seek consensus, avoid edit wars." in order to avoid the possible confusion? Scott P. (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

As a matter of article style it's fine as as is, since the other links aren't specified like proposed. Maybe the point should be made in the Wikipedia editorial consensus article. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@ZuluPapa5: the reason I think it should be clarified in 5P is because there are two very different definitions of consensus, the first is the "Simple Dictionary Definition" which Wikipedia is now using for its purposes. The second is the "Professional Group Facilitator's Definition" which is described in Wikipedia's article under Consensus. The Group Facilitation Definition is the style of consensus that Quakers have been using for 300 years. It is also specifically designed to reduce or eliminate conflict, and generally does quite well at this. But maybe this article is not the best venue to be trying to begin explaining this concept...... Thanks for your help though. Scott P. (talk) Comment first edited at 02:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC), last edited at Scott P. (talk) 05:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop pinging people if you are just replying to a point. A ping is for something that is personally relevant. This is not an appropriate forum for pushing your ideas about what consensus is. Get agreement at WT:CONSENSUS that it is not consensus as normally understood and then you can point at that agreement here. If you can get no satisfaction on there you can complain at the village pump which can agree a change is needed in multiple places. Otherwise you wasting people's time here with your multiple discussions on the same subject. Dmcq (talk) 08:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone needs to brush up on how not to be a dick and then come back to discussing topics of relevance before continuing to be a bully and shout people down. Civil discussion is the manner in which we have threads, not this half-ass dismissive crap which accomplishes nothing but ill-will and incivility. And anyone may ping anyone they want.Camelbinky (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Well I reverted that last contribution and another editor also reverted it, and it was put in yet again a third time. I complained at WP:ANI but seemingly the admins there think that is reasonable comment in Wikipedia rather than a personal attack and say I was asinine in my responses so it pretty well reinforces for me why I have gone to semi-retired on Wikipedia. It seems to me that 'Editors should treat each other with respect and civility' is perhaps an unnecessary pillar since one has to do something pretty unusual to go against it. If someone would like to say how I should have responded so it was less asinine be my guest. Dmcq (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Camelbinky's appeal to civility is way less civil than the comment of yours he was responding to, but I'm not sure it rises to the level of a personal attack requiring admin attention. My response would have been to just let it stand; it speaks pretty well for itself. Regardless, it would probably be best if you both backed away from this particular horse while it has a chance at recovery. Nothing productive is likely to come from this slow-motion sniping. Lagrange613 03:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its own working definition of "consensus" as it has its own unique definition of "notability". Despite whatever theoretical weaknesses these definitions may have, according to some pedantic editors, they have enabled Wikipedia and its volunteer editors to create the number 6 website in the world. The Quakers have failed that challenge, and therefore have little to contribute to this conversation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get your idea of 'failed' from. I just see the Wikipedia ideas of consensus and notability as being pretty much in line with the common sense ones. Consensus doesn't have to be unanimous as for the Quakers and we don't have precisely identifiable interested parties for a consensus but that's okay as far as the common sense view and the Wikipedia article on it are concerned. The Wikipedia terms I see as being confusing by their divergence are original research and verifiability which are always being misunderstood because they don't correspond closely enough to common notions. Neutral point of view also keeps being interpreted as like on television shows 'balancing' the sides. I am also concerned by Wikipedia's idea of what civility is which I don't think corresponds with any common notion of the same name. Dmcq (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the Quakers set out to build a popular website. You know everything, Cullen! Let's get our lessons from you instead of a community that's been practicing civility and consensus-building for hundreds of years. Lagrange613 04:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who wishes is welcome to take lessons in civility and consensus-building from the Quakers, who in my experience, are mostly wonderful people. They are a religious denomination while we are an encyclopedia building project. Our definition of consensus works for us. I see no evidence whatsoever that any of our problems are due to shortcomings in our definition of consensus. Perhaps my formulation "failed that challenge" was rhetorical excess. But I feel confident in saying that Wikipedia is far more important and useful to hundreds of millions of people on an every day basis than is Quakerism. Other than the Quakers themselves, that is. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The question though was whether the Wikipedia idea of consensus was close enough to the usual understanding of the term to be used straightforwardly without causing problems. I don't doubt that Wikipedia has more impact nowadays but that does not mean no improvement is possible, only that one has to be careful about possible improvements as one may not have figured out the full implications. As to the Quakers their way of working contributed greatly to the Midlands Enlightenment which was a principal basis for modern industrialization, plus of course they were major movers in Abolitionism. Dmcq (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

My cousin Richard Nixon was a Quaker, yes I believe he could, as a Quaker, have taught us about consensus, civility, and (expletive deleted) teambuilding.Camelbinky (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Why noinclude tag before WP:5P5's ending div?

The wikitext for this page has a noinclude just before WP:5P5's ending div tag. Is there a reason for this? Presumably if transcluded, this would leave WP:5P5's div tag open. I don't immediately see why we'd want this. (And if we did want an open div tag for some reason, we probably wouldn't want WP:5P5's but a div tag surrounding all the pillars.) Jason Quinn (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Digging into the history it appears that the current nesting of tags was introduced with this edit by Gutza on 14 June 2013. My guess is that it is simply a mistake. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't had the time to investigate this properly (I obviously can't remember if there was any logical reason from two years ago), but it appears that the noinclude tag was actually present before my edits (search for it in the diff, and you'll find it in both the left and the right side). It might be that my edits have changed the document structure, and it ended up nesting differently, though (again, no time to investigate this properly right now). --Gutza ^{T T+} 14:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Me again – I took a second look, and yes, it was most certainly a mistake; I don't see any possible reason for adding it there. Please address this as you see fit. --Gutza ^{T T+} 14:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Gutza for looking into it. I didn't word it so well but it isn't the noinclude but the div's added in your edit which ended up being improperly nested. I'm going to just switch order of the two conflicting tags to get the nesting correct. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed. I made the change on June 11, 2015 with this edit. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Protect this page

I think this page should be semi-protected or maybe even "'fully-protected'". It's a very special page and it should be correctly looked after. 120.151.205.179 (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

We don't protect pages because they're special. We protect pages because they've been targets of frequent vandalism. This page is doing fine on that front. Full protection would mean only administrators could edit 5P, which would violate the spirit of 5P. Lagrange613 11:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Would it?120.151.205.179 (talk) 10:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a process page not part of the encyclopaedia, and personally I'm much happier if some vandal comes along and defaces this page first - then they can be banned before they cause any real trouble. Perhaps we should set up honey traps for them ;-) Dmcq (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggested change on pillar #5

Right now Pillar #5 reads Wikipedia has no firm rules , I'd like to suggest it be changed to Wikipedia has FEW firm rules Simply put, although 99% of wikipedia has no firms rules, office actions and copyright are both firm rules with no ability to override or supercede by consensus or interpretation, so they are , in effect, firm rules. Just a suggestion. KoshVorlon 13:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Inserting policy list template Suggestion

I wanted to add the Policy list sidebar to this page /article, but it just ruins the layout. maybe somebody with more layout skills can add it in a nice way. maybe the lead should be a bit longer to make it nice (add some of the history and a toc or so ) WillemienH (talk) 09:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The idea is well meaning but a major attraction of this page is its simplicity. I would not support adding any kind of navbox because it would distract from the core issues. Clicking almost any of the links at 5P leads to standard pages with lots of navboxes. While checking that, I noticed that the first link looks like this:

may be summarized in five "pillars"

That link seems unnecessary and I think it should be removed in the keep it simple spirit. Johnuniq (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

proposal

We should add a banner so the page is better divided..talking about short cut layout..best not to overlap or sandwiching main text. Something like below....what do others think?--Moxy (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The fundamental principles of Wikipedia may be summarized in five "pillars":

---

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a...................

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view: We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight......

Comments

Simple is good, and the current page is fine and does not need a box. Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm against it. I'd like to leave the page simple and friendly rather than formal and cold. Also it is wrong, the page just summarizes the ones which we generally think it is a good idea for new editors to be aware of. With them and a bit of common sense they should be able to contribute constructively. It doesn't matter if we're not fully correct if this is some principles which aren't part of the formal policy and guidelines system. What it says is good enough. Dmcq (talk) 08:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dmcq - What are you talking about its wrong ??? no change to text just a box added. You saying we need to change the text that is already there? -- Moxy (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Check the archives from last August if you want to read the background. It is technically true that Wikipedia's principles may be summarized into these five points; whether the existing summary is ideal, and whether it includes all of the important points, and whether it includes too much, is, however, is a matter of personal opinion. For comparison, this page was based on WP:TRIFECTA, which has only three, and one of the first important such statements of principles, written by Jimmy Wales, has eight. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, and that's why I created Template:Wikipedia principles many moons ago. This page, and those others, don't fit into tidy boxes, because they're older than the boxes. See also, WP:NOTAG. HTH. Quiddity (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Chiseling pillars 11/29 to

Heya @Risker, Johnuniq, Swarm, and Flyer22 Reborn: - Good to be working with alyawl on these pillars of ours. Sequence so far:

1. I misread the markups on Par 1, and "fixed" something that wasn't broken
2. Risker saved me from myself
3. I wikifed "impartial tone" and changed "major" to significant (which is the word WP:NPOV uses in its lede). Ironic and sad that we Wikpedians have developed our own jargon. But since we already have our own technical dictionary anyway, we ought to at least use our jargon consistently. We're confusing enough as it is.
4. Johnuniq reverted my edit: "written from a neutral point of view" is linked so another link to the same page is not needed; "the major" is easy to understand while "significant" is in the eye of the beholder
5. I don't agree, for reasons above, but left it alone. not a big deal.
6. I removed "carved in stone" from "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time." I noted it's a Cliché, and adds nothing to sentence. "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but their content and interpretation can evolve over time" says exactly the same thing, but shorter, and clear of cliché.
7. Swarm reinserted the cliche: Totally disagree, this is a simple and direct way of explaining this pillar. The fundamental cornerstone of all rules on Wikipedia cannot be made too clear in this context.
8. I agree with you on principle. Evolutionary change ought to be stressed. How to do that without cliche? How about "Wikipedia does have policies and guidelines, but our rules do change, with changes in consensus." (1) it's descriptive, not speculative, (2) it puts emphasis on our evolutionary process, (3) corrects the redundant "evolve over time", and (4) clearly states that we change our rules by consensus.
9. Flyer22 Reborn: Re-added WP:Due link. WP:Due is an aspect of WP:Neutral, and too many people mistake what being neutral means on Wikipedia.
10. I was thinking similar thoughts when I wikified "impartial tone, but Johnuniq reverted me. So I'll let you guys sort that out. no big deal to me. What is a big deal to me is that we understand each other.

Summary and commentary by LeoRomero (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

For reference, before-and-after permalinks are 04:44, 17 November 2015 and 16:44, 30 November 2015, and the change is diff. I'll need some time to digest the changes but I suspect I could easily be talked into supporting the original because even removing "the" from "the major points of view" involves a subtle change of meaning. Much of the new wording is more elegant, but careful examination would be needed to decide whether it is useful here. By the way, the ping to me in the above did not work—don't know why. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia must survive

Based on my experience and understanding of the project, I'd say that the long-term survival of Wikipedia is an important goal that motivates several actions taken by the Foundation and the community, including maybe the foundation of the Foundation itself. Would you agree? Under what pillar would it fall? Or is it just taken for granted? --Felipe (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

This really isn't necessary to encode in the pillars, which are more about how the Wikipedia is and how its editors should operate. The higher level statement is the Wikimedia Foundation's Mission Statement, which already says "The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity." Jason Quinn (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Am so happy to be part of Wikipedia now,can't wait to give my first contribution Adebayo14292012 (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

What's Missing: the Reader Experience

What seems to be missing from the five pillars is anything related to the reader's experience. Sure we try to make sure it's neutral and accurate, but there's no focus on convenience, ease of reading, good writing style, and proving relevant information to the visitor in a thoughtful manner. As a consequence, we clutter up our articles with distracting banners, hatnotes, excess images, inconsistent formatting, disorganized presentation, meandering text, and lists of miscellanea. I know there's been an effort to address that with the FA criteria and the style guide, but it's still not a part of the Five Pillars. Just saying... Praemonitus (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

That's all covered by the first pillar. It is a reference work which means it must be useful to refer to. Dmcq (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The 5th pillar is problematic?

I find the 5th pillar a little wrongly worded. Written rules on an online encyclopedia should be regarded as having no interpretation. One thing is to say they can change over time, another is that they're subject to interpretation. What's the point with "The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording"? Does it mean there's always space for discussion? In such case it should say something like "Discussion means more than literal wording", otherwise it does imply aproximation and freedom to exploit it. SuperSucker (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it's curious to read that this page is supposed to be an improvement of this one. SuperSucker (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@SuperSucker. I think your comment is stemming from a false assumption. It appears you believe that written statements have a fixed meaning and therefore never need "interpretation" or forbid the need for "approximation". This is untrue. Interpretation of natural language, written or not, entails these things. There is no greater demonstration of this than the subject of law. Laws are written to be precise yet the diversity of real word edges cases frequently exposes the limits of those laws when interpreted too literally. Interpretation of law is constantly evolving and involves the balance between the "spirit" and "letter" of the law. We have the same problem with our policies and we've formalized the idea that the "spirit" of the policies is more important than what the policies actually say. This is a good thing. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

No that's wrong. Policies are not supposed to be contradictory, that's all. It appears you believe policies and laws are supposed to be interpreted rather than observed. If we're supposed to observe the spirit (?) of policies rather than their means, why don't we "formalize" that into policies? Spirit can't be formalized I guess? Everyone observes policies, there would be no wikipedia as we know it without them. There couldn't be a wiki, a project, a collaborative effort of this kind. Spirit? Whatever. SuperSucker (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

It is formalized that we observe the spirit of the policies rather than the wording. That's the fifth pillar, aka Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. The spirit of the policies is to make a great encyclopedia and we don't let the wording of the policies get in the way of that goal. And, again, it is pragmatically impossible to have a set of policies sufficiently complex enough to be applicable in real world scenarios yet that you can be sure will never be self-contradictory or strained by edge cases. This is born out by experience and is "especially true" when those policies are constantly evolving by the edits of many different people operating in uncoordinated ways. Law and philosophy students spend a great deal of time examining the limits of language and statements (for example through legal conundrums and attempts at moral standards) and and we have all the same problems here Wikipedia. The best we can do is hope to make the policies as guidelines as consistent as possible while aiming for acceptable brevity. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so we agree to observe the policies, write them, and then agree to observe their spirit instead? What is this? That's like formalizing bad faith. Tremendously wrong. SuperSucker (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

If you think so then WP:FIXIT. Wish you luck. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't fix anything without consensus. That's how it works, isn't? SuperSucker (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

(ec)No one is required to pledge allegiance to the the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what policies and guidelines are on Wikipedia, how they are formed, and how they function. older ≠ wiser 13:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Would you care going further explaining what you mean? SuperSucker (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I can explain it any better than others already have. Just look at the various essays linked at WP:IAR. older ≠ wiser 14:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I just clicked on this essay. What can I say? "Rules are for children" - "Be a sinner and sin boldly" - "Rules are for fools" - "Break the rules" ??? Do you realize these are found written in public toilets? SuperSucker (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, enough. We are not going to redesign the basic operating principles of Wikipedia just because a single editor (with a grand total of two article edits, both immediately reverted as inaccurate) doesn't like it. SuperSucker, if you have this much trouble grasping the the concept of Wikipedia you may find Citizendium better suits your taste; everyone else, don't feed him. ‑ Iridescent 14:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Far from me to suggest a redesign of the basic operating principles of Wikipedia. I'm just suggesting to have the 5th pillar fixed somehow. Anyway. SuperSucker (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This is starting to sound like troll baiting. older ≠ wiser 15:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I find that offensive. SuperSucker (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with Iridescent. As far as I can see your only edit is to stick in some bad example of your own into an article and then argue with another editor when they pointed that out. There is a policy WP:OR which says you shouldn't have done that, it is mentioned in pillar 2. Not being able to get a job because of not having the experience on the other hand is a well known example of catch-22, e.g. [2]. Dmcq (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to keep agreeing with myself against a plethora of distorted opinions.

Regarding my edit at catch-22 (logic): I thought the job example was fine, and even that it should be the first one (because it's well-known). I just wanted to add a more pertinent one. Instead I've been replied with pure confusion. SuperSucker (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Present Tense

I use Wikipedia frequently and I am very tired of reading about events from months or years past where the author has used present tense. This is a nuisance when someone wrote such and such is happening now, or such and such happened recently, when there is no reference time given within the sentence, paragraph, etc. It prevents the reader from fully understanding a timeline without viewing the source material, thereby adding countless hours of work to fix the issue.

e.g. As of the time of this post, 2016/12/05, "Stein petitioned for a recount in these states, which is currently underway in Wisconsin and scheduled to begin in Michigan; the recount effort in Pennsylvania was later dropped. The Clinton campaign pledged to participate in the recount efforts, while Trump backers are challenging the effort in court.[21][22][23]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016

This is a systematic problem of Wikipedia in regards to writing about current events and will become more and more of an issue as time progresses. I am unsure where to lodge the complaint other than here, but I think it should be added into the Second Pillar under the guise of 'neutral point of view', insomuch as it is neutral to time or date.Nemoscis (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the talk page of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style is probably best for that. Dmcq (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

8-fold path

Shall we have an RfC about a new Wikipedian way? Om. (IAR could thereby be represented by an eight-ball.) SashiRolls (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Om mani padme hum. with no reason this won't run. Dmcq (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

What's a typewriter?

I asked a question about the phrasing of the first pillar in the Village Pump. Please reply there. Will eventually be archived in approximately Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 130. – b_jonas 20:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

😯 Wethepeople2017 (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it Oxford paid actor to talk to His Queen the romantic view or the beauty of remaining anonimus to the test of time. Wethepeople2017 (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Is just ink and paper ...not a such of thing called typewriter 😀 Wethepeople2017 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

God bless Unicorn! Wethepeople2017 (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

As I was systematically going through the five pillars, I was shocked to find that the wikilink (in pillar 2) for

"citing reliable, authoritative sources"

goes to WP:CS rather than WP:RS. This peculiar result is from the evolution of the first original draft that said,

"Write from a neutral, accurate standpoint. Citing sources greatly aids in this..."

where WP:CS made sense, which quickly became

 "Citing authoritative sources greatly aids in this...".    

I propose we change "citing reliable, authoritative sources" to look like this:

"citing reliable, authoritative sources"

where "citing" wikilinks to WP:CS and "reliable, authoritative sources" wikilinks to WP:RS.

Can I make that change? --David Tornheim (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. --Fixuture (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Seeing no objection, I went ahead and made the change here. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks more like the 5 pillars of Islam

This page, the five pillars of Wikipedia, might look like someone has copied the 5 pillars of Islam. I wonder why.Uchoseitutakeit (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC) Uchoseitutakeit (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

See the third question in the frequently asked questions at the top of this page. And then the fourth question. Dmcq (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Why are you copying Islam

Seriously, you didn't just think of that yourself, you copied it from the Quran. Why though? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XS2003 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new discussions at the bottom of a talk page, not the top. If you look there you will see someone else had the same misapprehension. Dmcq (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

New icons proposal

Hi! I see some problems with the actual icons:

• They don't illustrate the content of each pillar, which is a missed opportunity. (It also took me some time to realise what the icons actually represent, it's not that clear).
• The use of color is problematic: green is normally attributed to something good, red to something to be avoided. To put them in chromatic order (blue/green-yellow-red) makes things even more misleading. The first impression might be that of a list 'from good to bad' (that was actually my first impression).

As a solution to these two problems I propose to use icons that illustrate each pillar in black and white. You can see how it would look in Wikipedia talk:Five pillars/icons proposal. The icons used are from The Noun Project, where there are thousands of icons in the same style to choose from (I also changed a bit the code to make the layout look nicer). Would anyone object? Greetings! Sgomag (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the proposal but people are sure to object for a variety of reasons. For example, some editors are used to the fact that Wikipedia:Five pillars#Green identifies the green pillar. Also, the current icons, while being meaningless, support the pillars theme of the page. The icons in the proposal are fine, but they do not add anything to the page—a fancy W is no more helpful than a blue pillar. Finally, since the page is short, having five completely unrelated icons is somewhat jarring. Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a change. The first icon doesn't really show the subject, it just says it is about Wikipedia. Perhaps a finger over a book showing a person looking something up would be better. I'm not sure a handshake shows civility, we want civility even when people disagree. Perhaps it was to show consensus? I haven't the foggiest what the icon for pillar 5 is in aid of. What we want to express is that the rules may be broken if that is best for the encyclopaedia content. Dmcq (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your comments and sorry for the late reply. I've taken your objections into consideration and changed the proposal. You can see it in Wikipedia talk:Five pillars/icons proposal. I hope you'll find it an improvement.

• You are right the "green pillar" has to be green so I've kept the colors but tamed them a bit in order to avoid the problem with the color code (e.g. red=prohibition). Also, the way the color is applied –as a circle– helps uniformize the icons and avoid the 'jarring' effect.
• I've changed or simplified the icons. The first icon is now a depiction of an online enciclopedia. The third pillar has become a jigzaw piece to represent content as it's a theme in the logo of Wikipedia (an alternative could be the logo of Creative Commons but in my opinion that'd be duller). The fourth icon speaks for itself and the last icon is a lightbulb to represent innovation. They can always be changed later for better ones, of course. (The actual icons in the page are supposed to represent pillars but many people mistake them with werid academic caps. A better option to reinforce the "pillar theme" would be the classical ionic capitel with its recognizable volutes, but I'd still find it a missed opportunity).
• I've tweaked the layout to make each principle stand out and make it look more structured. This "icon-title-text" layout is what many professional webpages use.

Keep in mind that newcomers are the principal target of this page and for them it is a lot of new information. Both the icons and the new layout present it in a clearer and more attractive way, which always helps. I hope you consider this a move in the right direction. Atón (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC) (PD: I'm Sgomag but I've recently changed my name to Atón).

The proposal is good but it may not be worth doing. Having five different icons in such a short page makes it too similar to the fluffy, content-free websites that many Wikipedians don't like. You can try it and see what happens because there may not be much feedback until that happens. The subheadings are helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Done, let's see what happens. By the way, as a finishing touch I've removed the links from the subheadings and integrated them in the body of text. That way the pillars won't get confused with the one policy they link, and it looks neater to me. Atón (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay I'm a stick in the mud but I've got over most of the jarring feeling and I think the new icons are fine. Thanks. Dmcq (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

New icons not viewable through mobile and app view. Anyone looking it to this.--Moxy (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I've never used a mobile with Wikipedia, but on sites I run I mark some pictures so they don't show up on mobiles to reduce clutter. I can't see any markup like that in the source here though. I just tried it with a mobile and got just the first icon on one browser and none with the other. It is an old an and crappy mobile I use though on the basis of if I can show things reasonably on that it'll be okay on later things :) Dmcq (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Atón: I just checked this page for a first time in a while, and the new layout looks great! I'd say it's a much needed update :)—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Not just the icons were changed--the links have been fiddled with

I just discovered the change in format. How can we call them pillars now? We should call them The Five Tenets of Wikipedia.
Problem: The shortcuts WP:5P1, etc., now redirect to the main pillar page! And the blue-links are confusing--how does one find the page that corresponds to the particular pillar/tenet?
My proposed remedy: Link the bolded title of each pillar/tenet to its respective policy page:

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia to WP:NOT, which, imo, should be renamed "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." Defining only by negatives is problematic.

Three little blue links intervene between the title and the actual link, which helpfully is in in bold font, but comes in the middle of the line.

• Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view to WP:NPOV

At least the first blue link is to the right page, but it's confusingly called "document and explain major points of view."

• Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute to WP:C

This is one of the most straightforward ones, but still--why not have the link from the bolded title instead of a bit of internal text?

• Editors should treat each other with respect and civility to WP:CIV

Ditto.

• Wikipedia has no firm rules to WP:IGNORE YoPienso (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Huh? The first link goes to Policies and guidelines. The link to the explanatory page is buried in a long phrase in the second sentence.

If we're gonna fiddle with something, let's tune our strings. Cheers, YoPienso (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It's "anyone can edit", not "anyone can demand that someone else edit for them". If you think the wording ought to be changed, then change it and see if your version sticks. (That doesn't go for your proposal to rename Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which would be hugely controversial and break something in the order of 100,000 incoming links). ‑ Iridescent 20:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but I prefer to discuss it first.

How is "My proposed remedy" a demand?

It's not the wording but the placement of the links.

I don't have the technical expertise to make the WP:5P1, WP:5P2, etc. shortcuts go to the policy pages instead of the main pillar/tenet page. YoPienso (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

If we say someone is a pillar of society people don't ask if they are Ionian, Doric or Corinthian. As to the links I prefer something more informal rather than pushing new users into a formal policy point of view about the enterprise. Dmcq (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The version of WP:5P just before the switch to the new format was 02:49, 5 February 2017. I think it was as described above. I also support the informal approach in WP:5P and suggest that any significant reworking should be drafted in WT:Five pillars/icons proposal (I would have used "sandbox", but the existing draft page may as well be re-used). I'm not a fan of tricked-up icons, particularly when they have no purpose other than decoration. However, the previous pillar icons were a bit obscure—it took me a moment to work out what they were when I first saw them. Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think you're mistaken. AFAIK the redirects have always gone to the individual sections on this page and are still functioning fine. I like the new format. It's a lot cleaner and more professional...and I don't think anyone will be confused if there's not a literal picture of a pillar next to every pillar. Secondly, I like that the pillars have been emboldened and de-linked. The pillars are supposed to be overriding ideals. They're not summaries of singular policies. They're just supposed to be idealogical principles that speak for themselves, from which our policies are derived. For example, the third pillar. Wikipedia is free. Free to edit, free to use, free to share. That's the ideal. You're not supposed to read that and immediately proceed to WP:C, a repulsively daunting and technical overview of international copyright laws and how they factor into Wikipedia. The vast majority of editors never need trudge through that page at all! These pillars are expanded upon below, and in much further detail by a multitude of different policies and guidelines, but at the end of the day, it's the simple ideas that speak for themselves! Swarm ♠ 01:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to each of you for your helpful input. I'm going to blue-link the titles, but not all with be the same as the ones I proposed above. Here's a summary:

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
2. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view
3. Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute
4. Editors should treat each other with respect and civility
5. Wikipedia has no firm rules

YoPienso (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Per Swarm, the current page is fine. I think the link for #1 has been argued over in the past and consensus (when it was a link) was for WP:NOT for reasons that are not relevant here since there are no links. Johnuniq (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I was adding the links while you were writing. I left the link to WP:NOT just as it was. The only link I removed was the one to civility, which became redundant when I linked the subtitle it. This makes the page more user-friendly, at least to me, and I imagine to many others the first time they come across this page. YoPienso (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The new design has been stood without objection all year. You raised your concerns, with which nobody has agreed. You're more than welcome to continue to try to make your case, but I'd strongly warn you against escalating the situation by ignoring everyone else and implementing changes that aren't supported by consensus. Swarm ♠ 06:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

All year being 4 months, on a page with surprisingly little traffic. But, as I wrote on my edit summary, I should have waited.

Like Johnuniq, at first sight I found the changes jarring. But after considering everyone's comments and just sitting on it a bit, I see they're an improvement. The only thing I don't think is an improvement is the missing blue links. Input here led me to change 3 of the 5 pages I had selected and put up for your perusal. I think my edit created appropriate, typical, and useful blue links. I'd like to hear from several editors what their specific objections are to the blue links--not just that you don't like them. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

(←) Huh? The new design was implemented in early February, after being proposed on the talk page without objection.[3] Not sure where you're getting this "4 months" figure. That aside, I did provide a very specific and well-reasoned argument to your proposal. You completely ignored what I said and labeled my opposition to be "I don't like it", and thus suggested that my input was invalid and that other editors needed to chime in. That's not how dispute resolution works, YoPienso. If you're going to engage in a constructive conversation, you need to actually address the very reasonable points I made rather than dismissing them without consideration. What's more, the onus is on you to overturn the existing consensus. You can't just ignore it. Swarm ♠ 06:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Five Pillars

My worries are that anyone can add anything to the wikipedia site. How do we know what is correct? My wikipage is or I hope I did this correct:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louann123 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

All knowledge is fundamental, we must see both the right and wrong thoughts of a person in order to better understand ignorance and intelligence of ourselves. Danielnwo (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

THE MORE I PRACTICE FROM WRONG TO RIGHT I UNDERSTAND BETTER THE SITUATION BASICALLY DNT OVER THINK GO WITH THE FLOW..... Rigaclew (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Any order of precedence to five pillars?

Is there any order of precedence to five pillars? Or parallel? Wordmasterexpress (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

we have Wikipedia:Principles--Moxy (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Well there is a pretty evident priority order: ;-)

• 4>5 Civility is more important than Ignore all Rules!
• 1>4 Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia is more important than just being a warm and cuddly forum.
• 2>1 It is more important to have the facts right than have a mess of peoples observations.
• 3>2 It is all very well collecting and checking facts but the whole thing is just a waste of time if nobody uses it.
• 4>3 It is all very well talking about distributing a free encyclopaedia but what is really needed is a community of people that can work on the project.
• 5>2 We're not idiots, we can't just stick in rubbish, fringe and the stupid sayings of politicians as fact just because most sources repeat it.

WP:POLICY say in the section about content "Maintain scope and avoid redundancy.", and "Not contradict each other.". Even if there is some priority it shouldn't matter much. It isn't as though this statement of main principles was especially onerous to read. Dmcq (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

"Merciless" editing

"every past version of a page is saved," Not true. When my assertion, thst a capacitor does not have a self resonant frequenct, the thought Poolice kept moving my hyperlink to where I make the assertion, saying it was "sekf sewrving and inflsmmstory", wjem I repeated restoration of myh hyperlink the whole Wik article on the subject was removed. So the real self rsspnsnt freq. of an inductor does is not lolnger aired in #wik because it is too close to the case of the capacitor. Ivor Catt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:C27:6700:A563:98D5:EE4F:D96D (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC) Doesn't this article itself violate one of the pillars? The word "mercilessly" in the third pillar isn't NPOV. It's a loaded word which takes a certain stance on the process of editing. Surely "edited" is enough without the adverb. Anyone mind if I remove it? Peaky76 (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

NPOV applies to articles, not policies and guidelines. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTPART documents that. Dmcq (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't even think it's POV. Poetic, perhaps, but expressive and painfully accurate and very helpful. Andrewa (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The person whom first wrote on this page has to watch their grammar. Missypippy (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Self-righteousness people need mercy and a self person needs Justice. Tmcandid29 (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers

A discussion at WP:VPP concerns whether "for the benefit of its readers" should be restored to the first pillar, as seen in this 8 March 2008 permalink. Johnuniq (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that. If rough consensus is reached there that the clause should be restored, would there be any objection here to the change being made?

So far there seems agreement that the principle is true and valid, and as far as we can see there was no consensus to remove it or even discussion. But there has been some debate about whether it's necessary to spell it out. See the discussion there, and contributions welcome of course. Andrewa (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for everybody, regardless of whether they read it, republish it, use it, listen to it, look at the pictures, etc. If you would like to boil all of that down to "readers" that's fine but pointless. More importantly, it's irrelevant to the first pillar, which is about what Wikipedia is, not who it's for. "For the readers" could be wedged into any of the pillars in some fashion, and just distracts/confuses from what it's actually supposed to communicate. There might be consensus to restore the phrase at some point, but I'd expect to see it open for quite a bit longer, and hope that you will avoid the multi-page posting of "people who oppose it actually agree with it in some way" summaries. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean to create multi-page posting of "people who oppose it actually agree with it in some way" summaries. I see what you mean I think. Yes, it does seem to me that you agree with the principle, but don't want it stated in the policy. Am I misquoting you there? Andrewa (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

This is not a discussion about general principles and wikiphilosophies. It's a specific proposal. Trying to find agreement on some underlying principle, abstracted from the context that alone makes it relevant to the present discussion, is a rhetorical move I'm not inclined to go along with. Perhaps your intention is not for it to be rhetorical, but given the context of your specific proposal, that's its function. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

No, this is a discussion about the whole section. It's a heads-up to interest people in a discussion they might otherwise have missed. Discuss the details there please rather than forking it here. (And I apologise for allowing that to happen myself above.) Andrewa (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

+1 on that last part. What I have agreed with is the self-evident principle (I agree with all self-evident principles). What I have opposed is the change to the pillars, and they are two completely different things. Don't conflate them, please. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are actually supporting a previously undiscussed change to the pillars, rather than opposing something new.

But exactly what is this self-evident principle with which you agree? Is it that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers? That's what is under discussion. I'm sorry if you think I'm misquoting you in some way. Andrewa (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Please stop trying to characterize an edit from ten years ago as though it was improper because a handful of people discussed a change a year prior. The edit was uncontested and stood for ten years. You are challenging it now and we are evaluating whether there is consensus to restore, but trying to force your perspective by characterizing the edit as out of process is not helpful. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers? Yes. That's what is under discussion. No. What's under discussion is a change to the pillars. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

See above. Andrewa (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)