Wikipedia talk:Five pillars/Archive 9

Text proposal for 1st, 2nd and 4th pillars

I would like to discuss the text of the first, second, and fourth pillar. I see some problems with them. For example, while this page should describe the fundamental principles of Wikipedia to new users, some pillars are just a long and boring enumeration of policies. It's tiring for a new editor to read through a sea of links to policies, and we already have all important policies and guidelines in Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines at the bottom of the page, so let's keep the pillars simple.

In the sections below I would like to propose and discuss a new text for each pillar. Here is how the complete page would look like with the proposal. What do you think? How can it be improved? Thank you. Atón (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I expect that I am one of several hundred people who have the older text mostly memorized and can spout it off on request. I am up for discussing changes and I can think of parts of this which I think need modification, but there is some shared culture here. This is foundational text that everyone reads and this would not change quickly. I see every phrase in this as a declaration of civil rights. If anyone takes a right away, they need to have a thorough explanation.

Instead of proposing changes to so much sensitive text it would be easier for me to discuss a change to any part of it. If you ask a more narrow question then that might advance the conversation more readily. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Blue Rasberry, I'll try to keep it narrower. And excuse me if I sound too critical, I just remember how frustrating I found this page was when I read it as a total newcomer, and I just want to improve it. My biggest concern is the first pillar. It has become a long, not really inviting to read enumeration. Besides, I think that it's not very useful to throw 15 links at a new editor before even mentioning WP:VER and WP:NOR. In other words, I'm afraid that the first pillar doesn't accurately reflect our priorities and doesn't define what makes Wikipedia an encyclopedia, which is more confusing than clarifying for a new editor. I think one link to WP:NOT is enough, and I would prioritize WP:VER, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. Am I off the mark? To make this a bit more concrete, I would propose a return to how the pillar was up to 2010 but shortening the enumeration of WP:NOT clauses at the end. Would this be a bad idea? And what are those parts you think need modification? Atón (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I think your first pillar is putting too much into it. WP:POLICY has a quick summary of why we're here, to 'further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia'. The current first pillar has the aim of explaining what an encyclopedia is. I would prefer it to be less negative but I don't want things like verifiability or original research mixed in.

As to the second pillar, what you have said is wrong. We do have to take sides rather than trying to give equal weight to quackery and stupidity like some television presenters do.

On the fourth one, yes perhaps there is a point in metioning that bad behavior will have consequences though 'discouraged' sounds a bit like test your limits to me.

Overall I do think shortening a bit would help. We want the important points and any others just detracts from them and I think overall the current words have passed the point of diminishing returns. Dmcq (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

First pillar

First pillar current vs. proposal

Current: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents, although some of its fellow Wikimedia projects are. Proposal: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia All information in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, that is, attributable to reliable, published sources. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research; articles may not contain any new analysis or conclusion beyond what the individual sources say. Likewise, all content should be encyclopedic. Material that you wouldn't find in an encyclopedia, an almanac, or a gazetteer, is probably inappropriate for Wikipedia (see What Wikipedia is not), although it might be suitable for some of our fellow Wikimedia projects.

The current first pillar is especially uninspiring, as has been said before. It looks like the table of contents of WP:NOT more than a description of the first principle. In the proposal, the most fundamental policies are named first and with clear links: WP:VER, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT (WP:NPOV has its own pillar). These are the policies that define Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, and the most important to know for a new editor as well. Atón (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Above, Aton said "My biggest concern is the first pillar. It has become a long, not really inviting to read enumeration. Besides, I think that it's not very useful to throw 15 links at a new editor before even mentioning WP:VER and WP:NOR. In other words, I'm afraid that the first pillar doesn't accurately reflect our priorities and doesn't define what makes Wikipedia an encyclopedia, which is more confusing than clarifying for a new editor. I think one link to WP:NOT is enough, and I would prioritize WP:VER, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. Am I off the mark? To make this a bit more concrete, I would propose a return to how the pillar was up to 2010 but shortening the enumeration of WP:NOT clauses at the end. Would this be a bad idea?"

I am reposting here to centralize discussion of this pillar.

Yes, I would like changes to this text, and yes, I do think that we can do better than multiple links to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The 2010 version said, "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references." I think saying that could be worthwhile, or at least, maybe we should communicate this somehow.

The major complaint that I have about all proposals - 2010, current, and yours - is that none of them define encyclopedia, and instead all take for granted that the reader will understand what an encyclopedia is and that Wikipedia is exactly that concept. Instead, I think Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia and that we should articulate some difference. I would like to define the term "encyclopedia" then say what is special about Wikipedia.

Perhaps I would like some phrase like "An encyclopedia is a summary of established knowledge from other sources", and then clarifying to say that Wikipedia is different from some other encyclopedias for requiring VER and NOR. Thoughts? How would you feel about changing the "what Wikipedia is not" text to "what Wikipedia is" in some way? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Bluerasberry and Dmcq. The pillar could start with a definition, as Bluerasberry has said. What defines an encyclopedia is that it is a reference work. Its aim is to compile existing knowledge, not to create new one. As I see it, that is VER and NOR in a nutshell. I don't see both policies—which are two sides of the same coin: content must be attributable—as something special to Wikipedia, but something that defines all reference works and therefore all encyclopedias. This is why I think they belong in the first pillar. I also like that the emphasis is made on verificability and reliable sources from the very start. A case could be made to keep VER and NOR in the second pillar, so all three "core policies" are together, but I think NPOV deserves a pillar of its own. The first pillar could be about why WP is an encyclopedia (attributable content and a specific scope), and the other pillars about what makes it special (NPOV, free content, collaborative editing, and IAR). I've come up with the following text, which I think it is an improvement on the previous proposal:

“ Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
Simply put, an encyclopedia is a summary of established knowledge from other sources—our aim is to be a high quality reference work. To that end, every article in Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements attributable to multiple third-party reliable sources. Our no original research policy means that Wikipedia articles shoud not advance any fact, idea, or interpretation not explicitly stated by the sources themselves. For an outline of which content doesn't fit within the scope of the encyclopedia, see What Wikipedia is not. ”

What do you think? Atón (talk) 12:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

That is jumping straight in the how without defining the what. We need to say what Wikipedia is or what its aims is, not how it is produced, in the first pillar. WP:POLICY gives the aim well as 'a free, reliable encyclopedia'. Wikipedia consists of linked articles summarizing knowledge about topics which have long term notability. Dmcq (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I have some trouble visualizing what you mean. I think I understand it (make the first pillar something like the first question of wmf:FAQ?), but I don't see how it fits within the overal structure of the five pillars. As I see it, the five pillars form together a definition of Wikipedia: An encyclopedia written from a neutral point of view that anyone can use and edit, built by consensus and civility and, if necessary, ignoring all rules. And in turn each pillar describes the main policies implied in its part of the definition. Would you mind writing your idea of the pillar into a concrete proposal? In the meantime I've tweaked the proposal above a bit (added our aim is... and minor copyediting). Atón (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Atón: I like the part saying, "an encyclopedia is a summary of established knowledge from other sources". Wikipedia now defines the concept of encyclopedia. How would you feel about using this definition to go deeper into the current "although some of its fellow Wikimedia projects are" phrase and call out how we connect the encyclopedia to Wikidata's database, Commons' media repository, and the other supplemental illustrative information repositories? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I'm open to exploring all possibilities. The problem is that I like my last proposal, so right now I have problems thinking from scratch about alternatives. It would be helpful if you could translate your idea into a sketch of a proposal, and we could work from that. Atón (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

If we had five pillars for a car manufacturer then the first pillar would say what a car was and what they wanted in their brand of car. It would not say what the employees should do or how they should behave or even what type materials they would use in building a car. "All information in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, that is, attributable to reliable, published sources" is part of editors being neutral, what the first pillar should say instead is that it aims to be a reliable encyclopedia. Anything that goes in the first pillar should be about what a user would expect or not expect of what is produced. It is important that editors have a very clear idea of what their aim is and the other pillar are about how to go around doing that. The second pillar is about how editors should select and write up information for the encyclopedia. The third pillar covers the legal aspects of what is produced. The fourth is about the social aspect of Wikipedia editors and the fifth reiterates the first that the aim is to produce an trustworthy reliable encyclopedia and everything else is secondary. Dmcq (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dmcq and Atón: I am unable to suggest something better but I can say that I am willing to consider striking the entirety of the current text of pillar 1. Like dmcq, I think that the first pillar should be a definition. The current first pillar text is using the Hindu neti neti definition for saying what Wikipedia is not but avoiding statements about what it is. but I think we can actually define encyclopedia somehow. I further agree with Dmcq's delineation of the pillars and their descriptions. It is hard for me to build on any proposal for change which does not introduce a definition. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose removing this sentence from the beginning: "It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." I believe that this sentence is important to make it clear that we definitely "encyclopedia" broadly rather than narrowly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I feel that Almanacs and gazetteers are obsolete technology. The science function of almanacs is replaced with National Weather Service data and Google Maps and services like Yelp are the gazetteer. Can you say something about how you feel almanacs and gazetteers are more relevant to include in the definition here than some updated concept?

I think we have passed the point where "encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" define Wikipedia and now Wikipedia is the basis for anyone else deciding what to put in their updated variations of that kinds of paper-based technology. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Obsolete technology, Bluerasberry? Only if printed books in general are obsolete. The 150th anniversary edition of the World Almanac and Book of Facts 2018 is on sale now in printed and Kindle versions, and all major atlases, which are still published, include a gazetteer. Google Maps is very good for roads, rivers and basic physical features but notoriously inaccurate regarding settlements. I can see at least half a dozen glaring errors within ten miles of my home. As for Yelp, I use it all the time for finding the best local pizza parlors and seafood restaurants when I travel, but the notion that it is useful as a gazetteer is unsupported by any evidence. I want to keep that sentence in the first pillar because I often use it to support inclusion of articles about topics such as schools, since almanacs have historically included long lists of colleges and universities. I use it to support inclusion of articles about villages because gazetteers have historically had listings of villages including map coordinates, population figures, state or province, and so on. It is a very interesting exercise to sit down with an almanac, whether contemporary or decades old, to see how comprehensive and sweeping the information is, in the context of a single printed volume. I find the sentence under discussion to be a useful corrective to deletionist arguments. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I do not have data to prove it but I expect that Google Maps accounts for 80% of all consumer consulting of maps and 50% of commercial map consulting as well. Not all printed books are obsolete but yes, for the purpose of finding the shortest route between points and identifying places of general interest, I will claim that printed books are obsolete. Perhaps paper counts for 1% of map consulting, but I doubt even that.

I am from the US and I know the World Almanac. Based on the info in the Wikipedia article that publication probably does not meet WP:N. So far as I know it is the most respected and popular almanac in the world. I also agree that it is interesting but I think that it has niche value to people who are interested in old-time concepts of reference works.

I do not dispute that these sources have value but "almanac" and "gazetteer" are not familiar contemporary concepts and using them as concepts to explain Wikipedia already is a dated choice that is becoming less relevant every year. Most contemporary US college students have never touched a paper encyclopedia, whereas probably 99% of US college students born before 1985 had at some point in their lives. Even fewer now ever touch an almanac or gazetteer.

As it has turned out, Google is sort of the legacy of almanacs and gazetteers and somehow they became a major world political, cultural, financial, and every kind of power in that field. I think that it would be more meaningful to compare Wikipedia to something that is common in many people's lives as compared to something which was common in the near past.

What is your general feeling about this? Suppose we were to look for sources - what do you think we would find? Would you not agree that most people are using online services rather than the old paper sources? Why do you think we should mention the paper ones but not the online ones? How relevant do you think the paper ones are in comparison to their competition? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I simply cannot think of three words that taken together would better describe the breadth of what Wikipedia ought to be than "encyclopedia", "almanac" and 'gazetteer", Bluerasberry. None of these concepts are bound to paper, since many examples of all three of them can be found online these days. Anyone who does not know what a gazetteer is (I admit that the word is relatively uncommon these days) can simply click the blue link. In a minute, they will have a much better understanding of what Wikipedia ought to include. I do not favor severing ourselves from the history of reference works and how they have been structured. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: It is not proper to use a less familiar concept to define a more familiar concept. The best way to define "encyclopedia", "almanac", and "gazetteer" is to say "Wikipedia". Wikipedia is the simple and familiar concept, not the other way around.

I have fond memories of these old reference works also but Wikipedia is different in some key ways. An aspect that appeals to me is that Wikipedia is not an authority, but instead cites and credits authorities. Those traditional models all claim authority in themselves and do not provide citations to third parties or a way to verify or argue their claims. Wikipedia has never tried to be an authority in that way, and yet the comparison with encyclopedias etc has led to terrible criticism of Wikipedia on the premise that paid staff authorities who do not cite sources are more reliable than a system of citing sources without the paid staff. For the differences and for the sake of Wikipedia being a failure according to the expectations of those old models, I would like to seek consideration of comparison to a base definition common to all of these things rather than saying that "Wikipedia is like an encyclopedia, except the definitive encyclopedia does this... which Wikipedia fails to do.".

I am not finding the historical baggage useful to advance understanding. Considering that Wikipedia is by far more popular, keeping the historical baggage is making less sense to me every year. I sympathize with your position because I am old enough to have used encyclopedias then started with Wikipedia. When I talk to college students now, though, they understand that encyclopedias are like Wikipedia and not the other way around. Can you think of a standard of relevance or popularity that Wikipedia would have to attain for you to recognize it as the definitive encyclopedia, almanac, gazetteer, etc? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Defining Wikipedia as Wikipedia is circular reasoning, and I think that I have made my wish to keep the three words in the Five Pillars quite clear. If consensus goes against me, so be it, Bluerasberry. I will certainly refer to this essay far less often as a result, and I will be sad about that. I think that my 50,000 edits are evidence that I recognize Wikipedia as "the greatest thing since sliced bread", as I say on my user page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The "almanacs and gazetteers" text expresses nicely the broad scope of Wikipedia—if you know what almanacs and gazetteers are. In my case, I had honestly never seen those words before. It's never too late to learn, but it would be distracting to have a blue link for each term. Besides, the five pillars are meant to summarize Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but nowhere else is the "almanacs and gazetteers" reference to be found, at least not in WP:About or WP:NOT. We could express the broad scope of Wikipedia in other ways. As a compromise, would a summary of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia be a bad idea? Or maybe it could be used to introduce WP:N and WP:NOT: Wikipedia welcomes all topics as long as they have gained substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources and are not outside the scope of the encyclopedia (see What Wikipedia is not). Atón (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

PS: Or we could use "atlas" instead of "gazetteer". They are more or less the same thing, are they not? And atlas is a more recognizable term. Wikipedia has a broader scope than traditional paper encyclopedias, including elements of atlases and almanacs, but some content restrictions apply (see What Wikipedia is not). Something like that could be a nice compromise as well. Atón (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: It is not my intent to draw you into a discussion you do not wish to have. If you have said enough then your point stands and neither would I dismiss it nor would I allow anyone else to do so. I agree with you about the circular reasoning, only I do not take for granted that people understand what an encyclopedia is, and I do not think that we establish mutual understanding by saying "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". Even leaving aside the part where anyone can edit, the text alone of Wikipedia is so unlike any other encyclopedia that anyone expecting a traditional encyclopedia will fail to understand what is happening here. I know who you are on wiki, would never question your wiki-engagement, and hope you are enjoying this conversation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

alternative 2

Aton asked for my own suggestion. I have not thought this through but here is a first draft:

Proposal:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

An encyclopedia is a summary of the best published, reliable sources which anyone has identified and shared in Wikipedia articles and discussion forums. Wikipedia presents all the context which readers would need to begin their understanding of any topic already covered in published, reliable sources along with citations to the original sources of that information. While the focus of Wikipedia is the text of the encyclopedia, it integrates with other Wikimedia projects as a multimedia reference work incorporating non-text media from Wikimedia Commons, data statements of fact from Wikidata, source texts from Wikisource, and a range of other complementary illustrative media.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd aim even more at what a user sees. I'd say: The Wikipedia project aims to produce a wide ranging, free, and reliable encyclopedia on the net. It is a multimedia encyclopedia but text content is at its heart. All topics and their content should be based on reliable sources and chosen using objective criteria. Users can look up these sources by following the citations in articles. Related topics can be accessed via links. Dmcq (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Now I get what you are proposing. It seems like you see the five pillars as a general introduction to Wikipedia, and as such your proposals look nice. As I see it, however, this page is a quick introduction to the main policies and guidelines for a starting editor—who doesn't feel like reading much. It's all about the policies and guidelines. The first pillar should at least introduce WP:What Wikipedia is not somehow, as that has always been the policy associated with it. Atón (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree it should link to WP:NOT. However I do think it is extremely important for a person starting to edit Wikipedia to be told in very clear terms what it is they are supposed to be trying to produce. The number one key to a successful project is to know what the aim is. There is a problem with the current first pillar in that it says too much about what Wikipedia is not rather than what it is supposed to be. Knowing the policies and guidelines is not the most important thing to know before editing Wikipedia, in fact it is not necessary to read any policy or guideline before editing Wikipedia. But one really should edit in line with the aims of the encyclopedia. If an editor can do that they can mostly avoid wasting their time on the policies and guidelines even with years of editing. The rest of the pillars are for the rule oriented people, and. dare I say it, the trolls who just want to see how to screw things up for everyone else. Dmcq (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

How would you link to WP:NOT? Is something like "As an encyclopedia, not all kinds of information belong here—see What Wikipedia is not" insufficient? Atón (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Something like that sounds fine to me. I think going on too much about what doesn't belong is edging towards WP:BEANS. Dmcq (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dmcq and Atón: I would like to push you both harder at this. Why do you feel that encyclopedias need to be defined in terms of what they do not contain? Why can we not devote most of the explanation toward saying what Wikipedia is? Incidentally - I disagree with a lot of "not". Wikipedia is a dictionary - at Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a court source we have lots of instances where legal systems look to Wikipedia to define concepts. While Wikipedia is not a paper newspaper, unlike when these pillars were developed paper newspapers are no longer the standard of what people imagine as a news source. Wikipedia is the single most consulted source of information for practically all news topics in the English language. Google News, for example, links to the relevant Wikipedia for many major news stories and most of them (like plane crashes, military action, etc) where readers need broad context. I will not readily agree that someone can say "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" and expect that most of our users have the same understanding of what news is, or that they will all have a shared understanding of what we mean if we say that Wikipedia is not that. I do not object to linking to WP:NOT but I do want to push against relying on NOT as the definitive explanation of what an encyclopedia is, or what Wikipedia is. Are either of you willing to define the concept of encyclopedia, assuming that the first pillar is "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia"? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Second pillar

Second pillar current vs. proposal

Current: Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view We strive for articles that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong. Proposal: Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Articles must not take sides, but instead should describe—accurately and without bias—all the significant viewpoints on the topic published in reliable sources, giving due weight with respect to their prominence. Argumentation or advocacy does not belong in Wikipedia articles.

The idea is to dedicate the second pillar only to a description of WP:NPOV. The other core policies (WP:VER and WP:NOR) are already described in the first pillar's proposal. By making it only about WP:NPOV the second pillar gains clarity and strength. Atón (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This pillar is basically about the how of actually writing. I would include notability of articles, and the verifiability and original research policies for the contents. They also ensure a neutral point of view for the contents of Wikipedia. It does need to be emphasized that WIkipedia neutral point of view is different from television presenter neutrality which putts pseudoscience quacks on the same footing as professors. Dmcq (talk) 12:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe that BLP policy should be mentioned and linked to. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

What can I do when the principles of the second pillar are violated? --Nymir (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Nymir, the wonderful thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, including you! I would suggest changing parts of articles that you feel violate the principles of the second pillar so that they better conform to Wikipedia's policy, but just remember not to violate the principles yourself! :) (For future questions I would reccomend visiting the Wikipedia:Teahouse, they tend to be very kind and respobd quickly!)—T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 00:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Fourth Pillar

Fourth pillar current vs. proposal

Current: Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and don't engage in personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages, follow dispute resolution procedures, and consider that there are 6,824,094 other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve and discuss. Proposal: Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility Be polite and respectful at all times and assume good faith on the part of other editors. In case of disagreement, seek consensus on the appropriate talk pages and follow dispute resolution procedures. Personal attacks, edit warring or any other disruptive behaviour are highly discouraged.

Just a shorter and more structured version of the current pillar. Atón (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Highly discouraged" is much too weak to describe our policy positions regarding personal attacks, edit warring and disruptive editing. Certain personality types will immediately think, "OK. Discouraged but not forbidden. I will do it anyway, since it is not forbidden." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly agree, it should say forbidden or something equivalent to be consistent with wp:no personal attacks. On the other hand, in practice we gave up on that policy years ago IMO, and to our great cost. And any attempt to revive it meets with a barrage of enforcement is not Wikipedia-like objections. What we are overlooking is, people who are here for the right reasons should want to obey the rules anyway, especially those they don't like. IAR should be seen as empowerment, rather than a blank check to disempower others. Andrewa (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

    +1 to that Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Objection

• I think any proposals to significantly alter this page should be advertised at WP:Village pump (policy). It is always better to get more views on matters that pertain to the community as a whole. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• I couldn't possibly agree more. No changes to the pillars should even be considered without an RfC with the widest possible community advertisement. Four editors? I don't bloody think so. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

There's 913 watchers for this page so it is not as though it is some guideline on list formats that no-one is interested in until suddenly it makes a difference. Dmcq (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, this has a huge impact; would need a RfC on VPP advertised on CENT to change it. VPP has 3000 watchers. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

913 watchers (how many are active?) do not constitute a community venue, any more than 2,033 do at WP:MOS. Even MOS issues often have an RfC at WP:VPP—or at WT:MOS advertised at WP:VPP—and I daresay changes to pillars need more community involvement than MOS issues. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Just now saw the watchers comment. Like Mandruss stated, how many are active? When it comes to talk page watchers, many or most are not active due to the accumulation of watchers over the years and the fact that most people who try to be a Wikipedia editor don't stay around for long. For some, it's a week, others a month, and others one or a couple or few years. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

This totally does belong on the village pump.  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

LGBT adverts

If Wikipedia claims to "avoid advocacy", then why do I keep seeing LGBT adverts at the top of pages? Isn't that advocacy? Sometimeswrong (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Even if that were advocacy (I am skeptical given the actual message), it is not advocacy that the community has control over. --Izno (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The advert ends with #wikilovespride, how isn't that actively supporting that cause, thus advocacy? Do the pillars only apply to the community (you mean contributors?) and not those controlling the site? Perhaps this should be clarified in the article. Sometimeswrong (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Could you give a link to a page with an ad and say exactly where a ad appeared on it thanks, or better copy the ad so people can see it. Dmcq (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It comes up randomly on all pages. It links to this page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Pride_2019 Sometimeswrong (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Dmcq, I assume you have "block all banners" checked? meta:CentralNotice/Request/Wiki Loves Pride 2019 is displaying to everyone AFAIK, as someone posted it despite unanimous opposition and refuses to allow it to be removed. ‑ Iridescent 21:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

If it is coming from meta, that means its likely stemming from WMF action, and there's little on en.wiki we can do about it. --Masem (t) 21:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

No I don't block banners, I just click x to say I'm not interested in something and it goes away and doesn't come back again. I think I understand now, that was probably some edit session meeting to discuss and improve the articles. The OP should just dismiss the call or if they are so interested in minimizing such coverage they should go along and discuss their concerns and reasoning at the meeting. Dmcq (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a widescale initiative on Wikimedia projects. We've had banners for e.g. Wiki Loves Monuments. How is this different? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I've no idea why this discussion is taking place here, but Wiki Loves Monuments etc needs to get consensus each time around as well: Banners for things other than the fundraiser should be submitted for discussion on meta for at least one week (and the discussion advertised on foundation-l if necessary). Consensus should be achieved for the proposal itself (should there be a banner at all?) and for the actual design of the banner (does the message warrant taking up a huge amount of prime screen space for 3 words?). is global policy. ‑ Iridescent 21:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is taking place here because on this page it states that Wikipedia "avoids advocacy", even though the advert is clearly advocacy. Sometimeswrong (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It isn't advocating anything, it is simply asking for people who are interested in improving some article to come along to a meeting about that. Or do you consider the fact that Wikipedia covers such topics as advocacy? If so may I point you at WP:CENSOR. Personally I don't feel the slightest impulse to become lesbian, gay or whatever the other letters stand for just because some people are going to try and improve articles on such topics, might I suggest you adopt a slightly thicker hide. Dmcq (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

It was an advert for a photo competition run by Wikimedia that ended with #wikilovespride ? Wasn't asking anyone to improve an article. It was clearly advocacy for what *should* be presented as a neutral article. --Sometimeswrong (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Shortcuts

This page is linked from the graphical welcome templates, one of which I wanted to use today because of its clear link to the Teahouse. But all the shortcuts listed on the right are effectively broken: they are soft redirects right back to here. Where is the new editor supposed to go for a fuller exposition of each pillar? I seem to recall a page with pictures of actual pillars (capitals, actually); is that a parallel page to this with working shortcuts, or is this page an interim rewrite and there isn't anywhere to point those shortcuts to? Either way, this needs fixing so new people can read more about the principles of Wikipedia rather than being pitched into a project discussion. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, could you please link the welcome template you are referring to? All seven shortcuts listed at the moment are regular redirects: WP:5P, WP:PILLARS, WP:5P1, WP:5P2, WP:5P3, WP:5P4, WP:5P5. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Earlier versions of this page had images of pillars/capitals. That could not be allowed to last in today's world of flashy icons. The shortcuts like WP:5P2 are to tell people they can use WP:5P2 on another page to link to pillar 2. I think they are unnecessary distractions. Johnuniq (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The Simple English Five pillars page still has the capitals. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:W-graphical and derivatives link to this page—Wikipedia:Five pillars. Beside each explanation are shortcuts such as Wikipedia:5P2, which lead to uninformative soft redirects. For the purposes of a welcome template, links should go to fuller explanations of WP:NPOV, etc. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, to make sure we're on the same page: here's how a soft redirect looks like:

Wikipedia:Sandbox
This page is a soft redirect.

A real example: Wikipedia:GNE Project Files. And you're talking about the links inside the boxes on the right hand side of the subject page. These are proper redirects with a redirect=no parameter. These boxes are there to inform editors about shortcuts, available for linking to this page. As for fuller explanations of WP:NPOV, these are wikilinked from the prose of the actual content of the page. For example, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is the first wikilink in the second section/pillar. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. I've been using mainly welcomeg and welcomeh, which don't link to this page, so I've apparently missed a major rewrite. I think sending newbies to a page that features shortcuts prominently like that is misleading—it misled me, it looks like a link to a fuller explanation of each pillar. I see now that the intent is to link to the fuller explanations in the text, as you say, but I note that the WP:IAR link comes fairly late in the paragraph, and I am not sure the focus is clear in the paragraph on copyvio, either; as I understand it what needs to be explained is that everything with few carefully marked exceptions is assumed to be free to reuse for any purpose, and that needs to be clearly explained to new editors as it is almost certain to be a surprise. Also, WP:V is a policy that I have frequently needed to draw new editors' attention to, and it's rather buried here, but that may be a problem stemming from the original formulation as 5 pillars (I'm aware that it has been emphasized much more since about 2007). So, thanks, and I now see that it's the norm for the welcome templates to link here. I'm sorry to have troubled you folks, but I think the summaries could use some work to make them clearer for new editors, and I presume they are the main audience? Yngvadottir (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It may be useful to focus on good English articles

I am Wikipedia volunteer since 2006. More humbly helping here and there with a good offline source a typo or and update as I own a library of very useful rare books. Just the other day I picked up book about the harbour in Hamburg from 1930 with lots of figures about the trade and excel-spreadsheet like graphics. I have recently decided to focus on the English Wikipedia for many reasons:

Google translator translates best from English to other sources. I have made use of this in all my volunteer work in the intercultural world but also with homeless people. It feels a bit strange, but even for a 90 % audience I write in English. Practically the German Translation of such a text is fine and I can share it in 100 other languages way beyond any "traditional" approach.

Translations of my simple English seem to work very well or at least will works very well as the AI is boosting the progress to a level far beyond those humans can achieve. And no institution worldwide has the budget to provide 100 translations.

What do you think? Is there place where this can be mentioned or recommended? Don't get me wrong, I do not want to promote one big english wikipedia that this just google-translated to rest of the world, but we all know that there is a lack of volunteers of my type that do all the nitty gritty stuff to keep articles up to date. And while this is maybe the biggest challenge of the futur of wikipedia (5.000.000 articles = xxxx hours of volunteer work to just keep them up-to-date... Thomas Österheld (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I would be happy to assist you in your future project. Missypippy (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I am interested in this and I can do this Tushar221989 (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

5 pillars, is it a reference?

Is it really respectful for muslim people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not a reference, though you're welcome to check in the talk page archives. --Izno (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Is it really disrespectful for muslim people? Tushar221989 (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

w.wiki/5

@Johnuniq: For linking when not already on wmf. Plus, this wasn't generated with the special page, it was manual, so there must be a reason for it. Computer Fizz (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for posting but the purpose of that is to get input from others so, for them, the question concerns this edit which adds w.wiki/5 as a WP:Shortcut. A shortened URL might be useful for thousands of pages at Wikipedia but I see no consensus about prominently displaying them. Let's see what others think. Johnuniq (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

This special page was generated for linking WMF plus.so there is a reason for it. Tushar221989 (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Change IAR link length?

I think that the length of the link is too long. Currently it reads:

The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions.

I think it would be better if the link were shortened, like this:

The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions.

Thoughts? Leijurv (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It's strange. Looking at the above, it seems obvious that the change would be desirable. Yet, when I look at the fifth pillar, the long linked text stresses the fact that IAR is only for improving Wikipedia. Somehow, the shortened link text might encourage the clueless to think that there aren't really any rules. At any rate, the change could be tried. Johnuniq (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I suspect whoever made the link was an adherent to MOS:EGG and felt that the longer link was less "eggy". I don't disagree, and I'm not aware of a "keep linktext short" principle at Wikipedia. One could argue that MOS does not apply here, and one could counter that there is no cogent reason to restrict the principle to mainspace (per Pillar 5, it's not about written rules). I lean toward status quo here. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

That is, I lean toward the former status quo. I see the change had already been made before I commented. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Fifth pillar be deleted or rewritten

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.

---

While project page Wikipedia:Five pillars creates false impression, on unsuspecting readers, that it is official policy page of Wikipedia when it is not.

Specially principle of "Wikipedia has no firm rules" is most exception than rule the way Wikipedia is practiced.

"..Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone.." is this statement truly practiced in Wikipedia other than few twisted examples if not then why do have it ?

Delete it or rewrite it

Bookku (talk) 07:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Recommend speedy close. Proposal is not coherently written, and has a snowball's chance of leading to modification of this page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Bookku: is correct, the "no firm rules" pillar, like the "ignore all rules" policy, has yielded to reality. It is still an ideal to strive for, but there are rules, such as policies related to copyright, real-life personal safety, and other legal issues, where there is little or no "wiggle room." In other words, some of our rules are, out of necessity, firm rules.

That said, we shouldn't change the existing text. However, we should consider writing an explanatory preface to the document stating up front that the entire "Five Pillars" embodies the ideal of what Wikipedia would be in a perfect world, and that all editors should strive to maintain them whenever possible, but acknowledge that there are times when "reality" trumps "idealism." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:20, 23 September 2020 (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 1 February 2021

The "mercilessly edited" part should be changed to just "edited". To prevent violence. To prevent war. 24.197.221.86 (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Seagull123 Φ 16:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I concur on deferring until there is a discussion. Sometimes hyperbole is useful. I think it is in this case, but that's just me, others may disagree. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Pronoun Issues

I haven't read the Five Pillars in forever. Happened to fall upon them today and noticed some pronoun consistency issues. The first two pillars use first person pronouns (Our encyclopedia..., We strive..., We avoid..., ...we describe...), while the remainder are written with 2nd person pronouns, even if the words "you" and "your" are not directly used. As an example, Pillar 3 says Respect copyright laws..., which can more fully be written as You should respect copyright laws....

That said, I propose that all of the pillars be converted to 2nd person pronouns, thus the following would occur (removed words are struck out, revised words are underlined):

• Pillar 1 would be written as We Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers...
• Pillar 2 would be written as We Strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence. We Avoid advocacy, and We characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, multiple points of view may be described, with each being presented accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view"...

Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No thanks. It's true that MOS:YOU says to not use we and you but WP:5P is not an article. In fact, WP:5P is not like almost all other pages and the fact that it uses exceptionally direct and engaging language is its strength, not something that needs to be fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq, sorry if I wasn't clear. I really wasn't concerned about any MOS issues. Mostly confused at why the first two pillars are written differently than the last three. I even specifically suggested the use of "you", so I am not sure what exactly you are trying to say. Regardless, I really don't care if what pronouns are used, just think that they should be the same across all of the pillars, and am happy for any suggestions that meet those ends. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood. I still think that we works well where it is used. Any thoughts from other watchers? Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Saw your discussion and took a look, and tossed in Wikipedians in place of the first 'We'. Seems a good fit. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No, that doesn't work with the rest of the paragraph, which uses "we", not "they". "We Wikipedians" would be at least consistent but I wouldn't say it's better than the previous wording. Nardog (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

That's why it works, because the 'we' denotes 'Wikipedians', and with more of a look at it change 'for' to 'to write' as a better descriptor, and then toss a couple s's in there, and the section would begin "Wikipedians strive to write articles in an impartial tone that documents and explains major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them." How's that? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No, that sounds like "we" and "Wikipedians" are different groups of people. Nardog (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I just want to bring this back to my original proposal. The main question is whether these are statements made by Wikipedians about what we do, or whether they are directions about how others should act. Either one is fine, we just should be consistent across all of the pillars. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

the 5 pillars of Just us: the WikiWay

1st time 5p reader + 1st ever comment: @wikiGonzo is right, A single narrative should be in a single consistent tense, unless you're intentionally getting weird and taking a deliberate departure for some clockwork orangeyish purpose.

My real reason for commenting is that I believe the article is significantly weakened by the addition of the 'We's'! I cannot emphasize this enough. This is a cornerstone document. It details the core values of a world famous website, that's one step below mission statement. It's as if Wiki herself, speaks directly to you. Kind of a big deal, and instantly my favorite part while reading it btw. So I say please - let's lose the we's.

@wikiGonzo @NartDog187 @RandysRoom @JhonnyUnik Oo7 Dan13 (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Not every language edition has adapted these principles

In the first line should be specified that this article is about the engllish language Wikipedia and the principles do not apply for all language editions. The Dutch edition for instance (fifth biggest in amount of articles) did not adapt the principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and did not adapt the principle that all articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources. Readers worldwide must be made aware of these differences. De Internationale (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Nearly all policy and guideline pages on en.wiki use "Wikipedia" to mean "the English language version of Wikipedia", and so that these do not apply to the other language Wikipedias, nor do those Wikipedias apply to English Wikipedia, is taken for granted. --Masem (t) 06:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@De Internationale:, While I really do appreciate your sincerity, want to understand your point in respect of point stated by User:Masem. I have also complained earlier that this page misrepresents creates an image what Wikipedia in reality is not, because no one practices some of those pillars even on English Wikipedia. And I can understand that such unreal image building can be problematic. Do you mean your language Wikipedia is facing problem of misconceptions in public mind due to unreal image created by English Wikipedia pages. English Wikipedia being biggest must be unknowingly sending false signals to the public, it is very much possible. But convincing English Wikipedians majority most difficult Bookku (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2021

Dylan1496 (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Add the following to an external links section:

This is a spoken version of the article, as of the night of 5/23/2021.

 Done TGHL ↗ 🍁 18:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Help me to Create Biography article page

I want to create my biography article page, kindly me to create this page— Preceding unsigned comment added by K.Mukherjee1996 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@K.Mukherjee1996: The Articles for Creation process can help you out with that! TGHL ↗ 🍁 12:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You can move User:K.Mukherjee1996/sandbox to the name of the subject by using move option.(note that this may not work properly on mobile you can use desktop view instead.)Ratnahastin (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Layout change

I've been working on a slight layout update for a bit now in User:Izno/Sandbox/pillars. It uses CSS flex. Benefits of the layout change include:

1. Div-based layout.
   • The current layout is a table, which even though it has a role assigned to it that it is for presentation, it is still generally better to use a div-based layout.
   • Tables don't scale. Right now the table does not do so hot on mobile resolutions.
2. The headings should be marked up as headings but are not.
   • It would also be good for the headings to match the general skin within reason (you can see I've removed the border from the standard heading).
3. Removal of some purely aesthetic CSS that I can see no purpose for.

The new implementation uses WP:TemplateStyles (User:Izno/Sandbox/pillars/styles.css) so the presentation aspects need to be changed in only one place in the future.

Really old browsers that WMF still serves (IE9 basically, the other oldest browsers WMF serves do fine) don't understand CSS flex, so that is a slight loss, but it degrades gracefully to a column of blocks. And the gain on mobile more than makes up for it.

Please let me know what you think. Izno (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me! I tried it on my laptop at various window sizes and my phone, and it overall is an improvement over the previous. I particularly like the font change to the headings.

If I could make one tweak, it would be how it displays on mobile. I don't feel strongly about this but it might be worth considering having the icon image display to the left of the heading, while currently it displays above the heading. The current CSS squishes all the text (not just the heading) to the right to make way for the image though, that should be avoided. I'm not sure how that would work with the "5PX" shortcuts though... Just a thought.

Overall, thumbs up from me! Leijurv (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

"Icon on the level of the heading" was something I had considered before the current iteration; I liked the look of it at desktop resolution when the headings are single liners but not so much at smaller resolutions, where the heading wraps around the icon (or at least did so with float; it would be a little more cooking to get the icon not to be wrapped around than what I had played with). You also then end up with a lot of whitespace for the shortcut boxes. Izno (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC Notice

Your input is welcome at an RfC at WP:VPP. The proposal is specifically related to a change to this project page. Firefangledfeathers 18:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

"combines many features of . . . almanacs, and gazetteers"

I know almanacs was included in the first version, and "gazetteers" was added in a later WP:BOLD edit by UnitedStatsian in 2008, but what I have not seen discussed here is the actual reason for including them beyond "defining 'encyclopaedia' broadly". I entirely agree that "encyclopaedia" should be defined as broadly as possible. I do not agree that it should be defined as something that is not an encyclopaedia as this contradicts the entire purpose of Wikipedia as being an Encyclopaedia, and not, say, a dictionary.

In reality we have anyway not tended to include subject matter that is not encyclopaedic. Absent notability such that an encyclopaedia article can be written about them, we do not include articles on the classic subject matter of almanacs such as Old Moore's Almanac (planting times, tidal ranges and times, phases of the moon, time of races, bus and train timetables and routes, predictions about the future etc.). We also do not include, absent a pass on WP:GEOLAND that is at least supposed to be tied to WP:GNG, articles on the kind of subject matter that typically populates gazetteers such as the National Land and Property Gazetteer or GNIS (e.g., street names and house names with long/lat references, names of geographical features and height above sea-level) which are anyway primarily used as a companion or index to a map. we may of course include this information inside existing, already notable articles, but only as additional information alongside the actual encyclopaedic subject matter.

Indeed, particularly the inclusion of Gazetteers here may have led to harmful editing, such as, for example, the mass inclusion of features from GNIS and GEOnet Names Server that has required a massive clean-up due to these sources not actually discriminating between conceivably-encyclopaedic notable locations, and those which cannot pass WP:GEOLAND, and also due to the fact that both those sources contained inaccurate information about whether a place was populated or not. A similar situation arose with articles mass-created based on the Iranian census (arguably a gazetteer) due to a misunderstanding of what the nature of the places in it actually was (i.e., many of them were merely farms, pumps, houses, factories etc.). Gazetteers are also examples of something Wikipedia is explicitly not, as they are "geographical dictionar[ies] or director[ies]".

Perhaps this can be finessed by saying that we only incorporate those elements of almanacs, and gazetteers that overlap with encyclopaedias? But then this is true of many other types of books (e.g., dictionaries, star catalogues, atlases, bestiaries, lists of species, business directories etc.) some of which are actually included as examples of what Wiki is Not. If we wish to define "encyclopaedias" broadly here, it seems we could simply say "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, broadly defined" or words to that effect.

So why do we include almanacs and gazetteers here? FOARP (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm wondering why we include these two things and not, say, a deck of baseball cards or a Pokédex. "Almanac", in particular, seems particularly out of place since almanacs are almost entirely unencyclopedic collections of charts, tables, etc. –dlthewave ☎ 17:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Reading the FAQ, I was surprised to learn that 5P has no formal standing and is just a description of our principles (which principles remains unclear). It claims to be based on WP:TRIFECTA; if that is truly the case, then much of the original version was created from whole cloth by Neutrality. –dlthewave ☎ 18:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that one good way that it works is to put a little bit of extra emphasis on the relatively higher enclyclopedicness of geographic topics in the complex fuzzy wp:notability ecosystem. Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works. But I agree that inclusion here does more harm than good. We need individually built articles, not mass-created stubs from databases that contain only what is in the database. While I support the change made by Dlthewave, from a process standpoint I question changing this prominent page without more consensus. From a process standpoint I'm just considering it a very minor and uncontroversial change (given that gazeteer was retained) and so won't revert on process grounds. North8000 (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I support removing "gazetteer" as well. There seems to be some precedent for bold changes to this page. especially since the existing content is neither consensus-based nor a policy/guideline, so it's probably fine to just remove it and then open a discussion if someone objects per WP:BRD. –dlthewave ☎ 21:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with DLthewave’s changes to the page. No-one has been able to provide a good rationale for the inclusion of Almanacs in this guide. This page is supposed to summarise some of our policies and guidelines, but absolutely none that I am aware of says that Wikipedia is an Almanac or contains aspects of one. Almanacs are resolutely unencyclopaedic! The category of this page should also be corrected per DLthewave’s edit - it is neither a policy nor a guideline. FOARP (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, I just want stress that the language says "WP has features of" these other works, it does not say "WP is a almanac/gazetteer" etc. I'm all for making sure we don't have circular policy arguments at play, but I think the arguments to remove here are claiming 5P says the later, when it really doesn't. And I would argue that in practice we do have features of those works, we just don't explain the bounds of that feature list. --Masem (t) 19:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

We also have features of other works that we explicitly exclude here (eg dictionaries). FOARP (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I think in the case of dictionaries, where we specifically state that in policy (WP:NOT), we have explicitly bounded what we've taken from dictionaries to use here. But we don't have similar explicit guidance against the type of content of almanacs or gazetteers, though there are parts of NOT that would make some parts of these works inappropriate (eg like the planting tables from a Farmer's Almanac) while others appropriate (like stats by country for a World Almanac). --Masem (t) 19:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems really strange to open our core set of principles with a sentence that has no clarifying documentation whatsoever, leaving it up to the reader to guess what "functions of almanacs and gazetteers" actually means. This has caused actual problems when editors argue that, for example, we must keep all geography articles because 5P takes precedence over all other policies. If it's truly one of our core principles, why hasn't anyone written anything about it? WP:NGEO could arguably cover the gazetteer side but when has anyone talked about our almanac function outside of 5P?

I would argue that any overlap with the World Almanac and Book of Facts is strictly on the Book of Facts side of things. This is reflected in other electronic encyclopedias as well: Without the restrictions of paper, Brittanica's entry on the United States includes information that one would find in a Wikipedia infobox or World Almanac and Book of Facts entry, but they don't include almanac staples like moon phases and tide charts. We don't really cover things that would be found in an almanac or gazetteer but not an encyclopedia, so there's really no need to include these. –dlthewave ☎ 04:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

One way to fix the problem of users taking 5P as overriding policy is to mark 5P as a guideline or something to point out it is not a policy page. But I will take an argument from the other side: WP is clearly more than just an encyclopedia (including what you may consider as the sum of generalist and specialist encyclopedias), and its hard to explain what those additional functions are without mentioning the concepts around gazetteers and almanacs. But to at least eliminate the concern, stating "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, and other reference works." and that still keeps where gazetteer functions of NGEO come into play. (Our almanac features are the fact we can keep World Book-type data that changes regularly up to date once sources exist to update it) --Masem (t) 06:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, somebody has to do it including stating the implied. So Masem's proposal is to replace Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." with "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias and other reference works."North8000 (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support Masem's proposed amendment (i.e., "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, and other reference works.") and clarifying that this is not a policy/guideline via changing the categories of this article. dlthewave also argues persuasively. This keeps the intent of defining "encyclopaedia" broadly without privileging one kind of reference work over another, and stops this article being referred to as though it were some kind of over-arching rule or source of rules, which, per the FAQ which is the result of a long-standing consensus, it is not. FOARP (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • You can probably nix that comma on second read :P Also, I would footnote something to the extent referencing WP:NOT, "However, there are many other types of reference and utility works that Wikipedia specifically does not replicate", or something of that nature (my wordings are rarely the best on first writings), so that taken as as whole, we establish there's bounds on that statement. --Masem (t) 14:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Masem, you should clearly make your exact proposal and identify it as such. North8000 (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• I was mostly tossing something out there, not so much making it exact. If others like that wording, then we can go with it. --Masem (t) 15:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm OK with the wording as-is (bar the bit about the second comma). I think we're already covering WP:NOT through the enumeration of WP:NOT in the second sentence, no need for more than that. FOARP (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The status of this page should be a general statement which is (to be) implemented in policies and guidelines. Wikipedia needs and and could use a few more. It's not detailed enough to be used as a policy or guideline, but IMO should NOT be deprecated. `North8000 (talk)

Agree this page should not be deprecated. I believe dlthewave merely intended to bring the categories presently on the page into line with the description in the FAQ (i.e., this is not a "Wikipedia policy or guideline). There is a misunderstanding that this is a constitution of sorts for Wikipedia, but it is not that - it is a general information page. FOARP (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly right FOARP, I'm just asking for an honest description, not deprecation. I understand the reluctance to apply labels, so perhaps we could just use language like "The Five Pillars summarize Wikipedia's key principles" instead of "The Five Pillars are Wikipedia's key principles" on this page and others that mention it. –dlthewave ☎ 15:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, it is what we make it to be. IMO, that should be something that drives policies rather than summarizing them. I know that we don't fully have that, but IMO we should, and this somewhat is that. North8000 (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support Masem's suggestion, "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias and other reference works." This reflects the view that we're more than just an encyclopedia without nailing down any specifics that could be misunderstood/abused. I notice that this is the only pillar where the bluelinks don't point to policies/guidelines; it would be ideal if we could find (or write) something to point readers toward for further explanation. –dlthewave ☎ 15:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Purpose is an information page but is pretty encompassing. TBH for the moment I am OK with just getting the wording changed though. FOARP (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

That's partially why I suggested at least a footnote targetted WP:NOT (content policy). 5P is written in a "positive" tone so I'd be careful state "we are not these things" in the main prose. --Masem (t) 15:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support Masem's proposal North8000 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done - I've linked to reference works to show the potential scope of things that we may borrow features from. "Reference works" is also good as it highlights that they are things that we refer to when writing encyclopaedia articles. Of course this is still governed by WP:NOT meaning we may borrow features from gazetteers, almanacs, atlases, discographies (etc. etc. etc.) but Wikipedia is not necessarily these things per se. What to do about the level of this article, beyond adjusting the categories and adding the Information Page hat, I think is a subject for further discussion. FOARP (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

IMO there is an important and much-needed missing category in Wikipedia, which is highly consensused general guidance items like this. They don't have the specificity to be be used as policies or guidelines, but which have the clout to guide policies and guidelines. I think that the change that we just made brings it in line with "highly consensused" rather than violating it. I.E. correcting an unconsensused bold change made, which did not have heavy review, because back then this did not have it's current stature. In the bold "make no small plans" spirit, I would like to elevate this into that newly created "guiding principles" category, currently the only page in that english Wikipedia category. Which BTW certainly expresses an opinion on any discussion about deprecating this with disclaimers. North8000 (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• This was an absolutely horrible change. Wikipedia's functioned as gazetteer for over a decade, and that premise means that articles on verified geographic features are allowed. The problem removing this tries to solve isn't solved by removing this, plus this opens up the door that more geographic features may be removed in the future, and knowledge lost. Finally, I'm shocked something this important would be resolved by four users on a talk page and not taken to an RfC. SportingFlyer T·C 23:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I have reverted the change. Something so fundamental cannot be changed because a handful of editors want it to be. It needs much wider discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
    • This isn't even a guideline or policy page. It definitely doesn't need wider discussion particularly with the change proposed --Masem (t) 14:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid it does, otherwise the handful of editors who want it changed will go on to use it to change other pages which are guidelines or policies with no consensus whatsoever, but citing the change and discussion here. Oh wait, they already have done! The Five Pillars may not be "official", but they are fundamental and widely cited. See full discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC - change to Wikipedia's five pillars - WP:5P‎. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
        • As I understand it, the removed text was put in with little discussion; IMO that should weigh into consideration on how big of a deal it is to take it back out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
          • That would matter if we were having this discussion in December 2008. But this text has been in this page for 13 years and this page has been cited millions of times. That is testament to a far, far stronger consensus than anything we're going to achieve in a single discussion—involving four people or four hundred—and it should be respected when any change is considered. – Joe (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

        That removed text was always a circular reference anyway. Nothing about removing it in any way weakens the inclusion criteria for geographic features. WP:NGEO is the guideline, WP:5P is not. --Ahecht (TALK
        PAGE) 23:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

"Verifiable accuracy"

We should change this, because it's not an accurate description of our policy. I'd suggest changing this to read one of the following:

All articles must strive for verifiablity, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person.

or

All articles must strive for verifiablity, not truth, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person.

We do not strive for "verifiable accuracy", so we should not claim that we do. See also WP:NOTTRUTH. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out your real point. Are you equating "verifiable accuracy" with "truth"?

BTW, I've been around here long enough to miss "verifiability, not truth". -- Valjean (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm equating "accuracy" with "truth". As currently written, the pillar is hogwash. Our policies explicitly state that we do not look for "truth". As this is synonymous with "accuracy", the pillar's claim that articles must strive for "verifiable accuracy" is incorrect. Incidentaly, I would be far happier if we were to scrap WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:!TRUTHFINDERS. But I realize the chances of that are approximately zero. Since that isn't going to happen, we should at least cut out the false advertising. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Is the suggestion that articles should not strive for verifiable accuracy? Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

My preference is quite the opposite. I would prefer that we go for truth over sources. But at present, that's not how WP:V works. My first preference would be to adjust WP:V such that truth wins over sources. My secondary preference, which I am suggesting here, is to change the pillar to match how our policies actually work in practice. In multiple instances, there is a strong case that the truth of a statement is X, even though our sources state "Not X". In other words, our sources are in direct conflict with truth. In such instances, we go with the sources, not the truth. Examples off the top of my head:

1. MacKeeper will slow down your mac and give you a ton of other problems. Exactly which other problems likely depend on what version you install. Some versions would give you a lot of popup ads, for example. The article describes it as "utility software" which is sourced but is far from the truth. If you doubt this and you are a Mac owner, I dare you to perform the WP:OR experiment and see what happens. Don't say you weren't warned.
2. Murder of Hae Min Lee (Overwhelming evidence that the courts got it wrong. Furthermore, this evidence is contained in a source with plenty of WP:USEBYOTHERS. I'd put the odds that the person convicted is the actual murderer below one in a million. For practical purposes, this can be considered certainty.)
3. Daniel Holtzclaw (For some of the crimes he is convicted of, it is nearly impossible that the conviction is correct. For truth on this one, I would put the odds that all of the convictions are correct below one in a million. However, I am far less confident that he didn't commit at least one of the crimes he is convicted of. I'd put that at 25%, and I do recognize that reasonable people might differ.)
4. COVID-19 lab leak theory (By an argument which comes down to a real-world application of Bayes Theorem, it was a lab leak. This is a near-certainty, but not an actual certainty. The demonstration of this is lengthy but straightforward and would constitute a WP:WALLOFTEXT.)
5. Sourcing for the previous. (Our "academic sources" dismiss the lab leak idea based in part on emailed statements from a prime suspect, but consensus is against saying that in article space. This is a bit different from the previous four examples. Here we have consensus winning out over both truth and WP:V.)

Adoring nanny (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Due to anyone can edit, it is not practical for Wikipedia to have any procedure other than requiring that each assertion is verifiable with a reliable source. Nevertheless, it is good for WP:5P to say that we strive for verifiable accuracy. If someone says that because of the current wording they are entitled to tell the world what they know to be true, they will be enlightened. Of course the very brief WP:5P does not provide a complete summary of all policies. Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, then what about my top preference? Surely WP:NOTTRUTH is counterproductive, to say the least. Why not remove its WP shortcut and demote it to "bad-idea-that-we-have-abandoned" status? Similarly for WP:!TRUTHFINDERS. Another problem is WP:USERGENERATED, which contributes directly to the MacKeeper example I mention above. As a professional computer programmer, I routinely trust highly-upvoted Stack Exchange posts such as these two about MacKeeper[1][2] far more than any other source, including official documentation. Stack Exchange has a voting-and-editing system that quickly brings accurate information to the top. Yet on Wikipedia, Stack Exchange is worthless per WP:USERGENERATED. (It's also different than many user-generated sources, precisely because of its voting-and-editing system.) If we want to keep the Pillar, my answer is Terrific! But let's rework multiple, longstanding policies that fight against the pillar. Adoring nanny (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree. That's why we got rid of "Verifiability, not accuracy" (my paraphrasing of "verifiability not truth") In cases where objective accuracy exists, verifiability is a merely means to try to achieve that goal. And in other and all cases, it's a way to build an encyclopedia where published sources rather than statements by anonymous editors are what we go by. WP:verifiability, is merely a means to an end. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hold on everybody. The history of "verifiability, not truth" is being ignored or misunderstood. There is an ingenious bit of wordplay going on that flies right over the heads of most people. It's based on Karl Popper's falsifiability theory. Facts are falsifiable and sources are verifiable, whereas "truth" is unfalsifiable personal belief. Wikipedia isn't concerned with something so mushy as personal beliefs. That's the key to understanding the phrase.

"Accuracy" does not equal "truth" in this equation. We actually do strive for "verifiable accuracy", and we steer clear of "truth".

"Truth" is subjective and different for each person, hence we must ignore it here. We stick to falsifiable facts and verifiable sources.

To a scientific skeptic, "truth" is only that which is a proven, falsifiable, fact. To a religionist, "truth" is something else that is rarely exactly the same as another person's concept of "truth". -- Valjean (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC) Valjean (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, this has consequences for your whole argument throughout this thread. Because you have misunderstood the meaning and provenance of the phrase, the rest of your reasoning and objections crumble. I suggest you rethink this matter from the ground up. Don't feel too bad. Many Wikipedians have never really understood this phrase, have thought it awkward and misleading, and not understood the genius in its intentions. It's really spot-on. I started editing here in 2003 (as an IP), since before we reached our first 200,000 articles on February 2, 2004. That doesn't mean I understand everything, including all facets of our policies, but my fingerprints are still in most of our major policies, especially NPOV, so I understand a little bit, and this phrase has always struck me as particularly insightful. -- Valjean (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, "truth" is a bad word to use; it's multiple meanings can be used to deprecate the quest for accuracy. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: Forgive me if I got it wrong, but I read your post a bit differently than I think Valjean did. You cited some examples where wp:verifiability contributed to putting inaccurate information into Wikipedia, and as a critique of that in essence said "why not just admit at 5P that our systems don't care about accuracy." Even if the wp:ver system is imperfect IMO it is essential for Wikipedia. Further, those examples that you gave are most likely due to a widespread false urban legend about Wikipedia policies. There is nothing in Wikipedia policies that says that you can force inclusion of something simply because it is sourced. I unsuccessfully tried to put in a succinct statement of current policy in to end the fals legend, it was: "Meeting WP:verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion". I'll probably try again some day. If you want to hear something ironic, me and one other person were the bloodied pointy end of the spear in the push that got rid of VNT, and that same person (who I highly respect) was my main opponent to inclusion of this phrase....they feared it would empower exclusionists.North8000 (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean:@North8000: Pretty sure you're both right that I'm missing something. I'm a scientific skeptic. How can something be true but not accurate? Or accurate but not true? Can you give an example? Adoring nanny (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Because, in this instance, "truth" is being used to refer to a person's "subjective" beliefs of what is true and factual. That doesn't equate with what we, who are scientific skeptics, would consider true and factual, because we use different and "objective" standards. We require evidence, not faith. Wikipedia's requirement, for use of RS to back content, approaches the scientific method. We demand evidence to back claims. So do Wikipedia's policies.

An example is how creationists and evolutionists approach the same evidence from biological anthropology. They arrive at very different concepts of what is "truth". In popular society, people have very fuzzy ideas about what is true and how to determine what is true. A beautiful song popularized by Boyzone, No Matter What, expresses some real nonsense: "No matter what they tell you, No matter what they do, No matter what they teach you, What you believe is true." I call BS. That calls for denial of all external evidence, and reliance on fuzzy, warm, feelings. Just because we believe something, that doesn't make it true. We are not Donald Trump, who creates his own reality by the mere fact he says something, even the biggest lies, and his adoring fans will deny what their own eyes have seen and ears heard to believe him.

I love this quote: "A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving to them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which this world is suffering." - Bertrand Russell. See more here: User:Valjean#Skeptic quotes. -- Valjean (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: If "truth" is defined by one's internal reality, then I agree with you that it's not what we should aim for. But look at my MacKeeper example. It's WP:OR, and easy-if-undesirable-to-perform WP:OR at that, but the accurate fact is that MacKeeper will slow down your computer and will also cause you additional problems. Yet we call it "utility software", and under our current sourcing rules, I don't even want to try to challenge that. When I go to our article on "utility software", I see "software designed to help analyze, configure, optimize or maintain a computer." The biggest problem here is the word "help". MacKeeper does nothing of the sort. Anyone can verify this, but if they have sense, they won't want to. What gives? Adoring nanny (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I won't even begin to touch the MacKeeper example. I don't know anything about it. My point is that "verifiability, not truth" means something different than you assumed, and why it's a brilliant phrase we should keep but maybe explain better. I think I'm finished here. -- Valjean (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

There are two very different common meanings of the word "truth":

1. One basically means correct / accurate
2. The other is anything that somebody is merely asserting to be accurate, even if it is baseless or false. So if I say, "the truth about the moon is that it is made of green cheese", under meaning #2, this is a perfectly acceptable use of the word "truth", even if the statement is false. North8000 (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

North8000 (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe its me but I read the phrase "verifiable accuracy" to mean 1) we provide sourcing for information that we are summarizing or paraphrasing, and 2) we stick as close as possible to the context and meaning of the information we summarize (eg our information is accurate to what was published, even if what was published is wrong)..eg we avoid OR and POV additions in wikivoice to those. --Masem (t) 19:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

In WP:5P2 (quote herein) can this be clarified? First, editor is who - I guess you mean the Wikipedia writer / editor. However in the context you are referring more to the source editor. Second - This brings up doubts of which sources to include. It would be good if you could quickly summarize your idea of proper handling of a source that may fall into or fall between the cracks as an editor’s book or publication. Annyaka (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Quote here, from current WP:5P2 “Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia.” Annyaka (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Grammar tweak

Currently, WP:5P1 contains the sentence, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory (emphasis added).

Reading it closely, I think the sentence should read, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a web directory. While I'd ordinarily be bold, I'm writing on the talk page to see if anyone has objections of me changing "or" to "nor" because of how core the pillars are to Wikipedia. Does anybody object to this change? — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Go for it! Leijurv (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

{{Five pillars box}}

FYI Template:Five pillars box (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion. Apparently this is supposed to help users navigate to the WP:5P pages? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

What is the policy?

Suppose one user completely respects pillar of neutrality, respects importance of WP:DUE always use reliable sources but while writing the user writes on topics as per own mood some times it is just positive side of a topic other times limitations or criticism of other topics.

Since Wikipedia is free to write on topics as per interest tend to create some imbalance in coverage some times some aspects are covered more and some aspects are covered less.

1) Suppose in any of the article any essential aspect is less covered we place maintenance tag of unbalanced content. Is there a policy of compelling the users for coverage of all necessary aspects in an article since another pillar says it is free to edit without compulsion to write?

2) Secondly if an article is supposedly unbalanced because some users covered one side only more (either praise or criticism) with perfectly reliable sources and article has been tagged for being unbalanced since other side is not covered enough in the article; is there any policy to delete perfectly due content with reliable sources just because some other aspects are not covered sufficiently?

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

1 and 2, no. As for 1, Wikipedia is a volunteer island, so has no compulsion policy. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by a volunteer island? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Errm.... Suppose there's some topic that has split the opinions in reliable sources, so that half of the reliable coverage of that topic is sympathetic and half is critical of it. If the wikipedia article meticulously reports all the praise, but omits all of the criticism, then that's not just an issue of comprehensiveness. It's not just a gap in the coverage that you can just leave as is until someone eventually volunteers to fill it, the issue is a more serious one: the fact that the article violates WP:NPOV. – Uanfala (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The specific answers to #1 and #2 are no and no. Also, the examples that you alluded to (where the article has a definite POV slant simply because nobody has bothered to put in the "other side") is IMO not the actual one. Most articles that have a definite POV tilt are that way because of wikilawyering that utilizes the ways that the WP:NPOV policy is weak and out of date to wikilawyer in their side and wikilawyer to keep out the "other side". And, yes, such is common in certain types of articles. North8000 (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The preceding comments are good. As for your last sentence ("is there any policy to delete perfectly due content with reliable sources just because some other aspects are not covered sufficiently?"), the answer is a resounding NO! Such a deletion would be seen as vandalism. The solution is to provide content from RS to resolve the balance issue, not to delete proper content. -- Valjean (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

"Five pillars of Wikipedia" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Five pillars of Wikipedia and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 31#Five pillars of Wikipedia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. FAdesdae378 03:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

No firm rules?

Quoting Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1077#How I create a page for bussiness: "although the last pillar, 'Wikipedia has no firm rules,' is a bit outdated, the paid disclosure-requirement is an example of a firm rule that is not negotiable."— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• And yes most paid editors are keen to WP:Ignore all rules, and that policy trumps all others. I think you are missing the intent, that when it comes to editing, there are no fixed rules. People break MOS all the time, and image size, and other stuff, because in some circumstances, breaking the rules makes the encyclopedia better. Lot of policy statements also use the word "must" in them (such as BLPs MUST have sources), but that isn't against the spirit of the Pillar. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I was surprised I could edit but I should have realized that couldn't include the headings.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

You can edit the headings. But note 5P3 "any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited" and if your contribution doesn't improve it then that's what will happen. Also note 5P4 "never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". Best to discuss here before trying to change a page which is used as a basic guide to to the principles Wikipedia is guided by and most new editors are pointed at. NadVolum (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Both with respect to here (which is a quick note) and IAR, in the wiki system, you'd need to make the case to invoke IAR. 99% of it's use is when it is not invoked but it's mere existence is influential. Also, I view 5P as guiding principles which are too brief/general to be invoked directly (or dissected for literal perfection) but which guide policies and guidelines which implement them. North8000 (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Five pillars? Really?!? Come on...

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've been a part time contributor on Wikipedia since 2006. I just read this article for the first time and my very first reaction was to genuinely believe it was satirical or humoristic. Then I realized it was serious...

• 1st: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" Okay so far... "Wikipedia is not [a lot of stuff]." This part is simply dishonest. Wikipedia has turned into some sort of advocacy and lampooning material. Especially in favour of what's generally referred to as the "left" and its proponents and against what's generally referred to as the the "right" and definitely against its proponents. Most if not all political or sensitive articles are: 1 - written from a righteous "leftist" POV, 2 - written in the optic to shun and mock "rightists" and relegate any "rightist" position as crackpot theories/fringe theories, 3 - locked so that it stays that way. Advertisement and promotional articles are just as problematic. It took more than 10 years to create a no advertisement brigade, and they lack resources to be effective. They typically act against Wikipedia based promotional campaigns long after the campaigns reached the end of their effective life. And the exact opposite is just as true, the relatively new policy enforcement result in plenty ill willed editors with powers to have more excuses to sanction editors making edits that don't fit their views.
• 2nd: "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view". That's pure wishful thinking and "as bogus as a $3 bill." Best current examples: any article about trans, trans activism, and the like. Editors candidly admitting to be trans activists are gate keeping against any and all edit that doesn't help their advocacy schemes. Want more? Pick any about FATFAP (firearms, alcohol, tobacco, feminism, abortion and politics).
• 3rd: "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, [...] and distribute" Okay so far. "edit" Nope. Again, 1 - most sensitive articles are locked so that select few can edit them the way they wish in order to advocate for whatever cause they advocate for, or for the benefit of whomever gave them a shill contract. 2 - People have reasons to remain anonymous. However the moment we edit using an IP, Wikipedians toss the WP:AGFaside and revert our edit for any or no reason at all. Mostly because it doesn't fit their agenda. 3 - Best way to get rid of content which doesn't fit one's agenda is to use "typo" or "removed unsourced passages" as a justification. Dealing with someone who made an edit shedding a light against your agenda? Revert it claiming "removal of sourced content"
• 4th: "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility" Probably the one agonizing the most on the list. Wikipedia has turned into a troll nest operating under a strict feudal cast system, it's been that way for 10 years, and it's steadily getting worse and worse.
• 5th: "Wikipedia has no firm rules". Wait, what?!? This either qualifies as wishful thinking or flat out hypocrisy. Any dispute ends up exactly like two ecclesiastics arguing: they quote random passage of their religious texts as absolute truths. And the more we deal with editors with powers, the more we deal with "It's set in stone, except when it's inconvenient for me." "I'm rejecting your draft because you didn't put enough sources but I'm publishing an article without any single sources as stubs are very convenient!" "I'm reverting your edit because you shed an unpopular point of view so I'm reinstating it to a pure feminist point of view instead." Etc.

I understand the Mouse article is definitely less prone to passionate debates than any on FATFAP. But that's part of the deal.

Wikipedia needs Devil's advocates, and tons of them. About six hundred years ago a single doctor presented a fringe theory according to which the blood actually flowed in the body. He was deemed crazy and was fired from his university for having published this. And on the flip side, we live at a time when any shady group can publish anything they want, dirt cheap. Having numerous sources is next to meaningless nowadays, especially when most of them are op-ed, editorials, summaries from news aggregators or the worst I've read on FATFAP "unreleased confidential court documents".

Bottom line, yeah I get someone's got to write Wikipedia's bible. But this is a joke, and not a funny one. 96.127.219.24 (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It is a target to aim for. This is the first time I've heard of 'FATFAP', you seem to think it is very important. I am not american and I assume it is one of these things americans are currently ftearing each other to bits over and have lost all sense of reality or fairness and just adhering to their tribes about. Compare Wikipedia against something like Conservapedia which sounds to me like it espouses the sorts of things you want in Wikipedia. Make up your own mind whether you really want something like that or have an aim like these five pillars. I am sorry that so many people think it is more important to engage in advocacy rather than principles like neutral point of view and so harm Wikipedia. Anyway you have now aired some complaints, have you some suggestion? Talk pages are supposed to be about improving the content of the page they are attached to. NadVolum (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not American either.

FATFAP isn't widely used as an acronym, but it's a list that sum up problematic topics as a whole: Firearms, Alcohol, Tobacco, Feminism, Abortion, Politics.

You miss my point. I have no problems with those five pillars by themselves. I have a problem with claiming those are Wikipedia, that they are representative of Wikipedia. Just like I love human rights. But human right aren't representative of mankind, nor are they representative of mankind history.

I find your insinuations regarding myself and Conservapedia offensive. Maybe you should ask yourself why some people resorted to this. The answer is most likely they had enough of Wikipedia's tunnel vision and "one size fits all" attitude. I'm central left, by the way. So I routinely get called a fascist by the extreme left, and a commie by the right.

My suggestion, to do exactly like AA's or NA's or the like are taught to do: 1 - Admit that Wikipedia as a whole has completely lost its way. 2 - Weeding off advocacy groups that rooted deep in the Wikipedia microcosm (and there are tons of it!), 3 - Work on getting Wikipedia back on track. Which was my very motivation for posting this in the first place. 96.127.219.24 (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• This is rapidly (and initially) entering WP:FORUM territory. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  This is a talk page about a policy... 96.127.219.24 (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

It isn't. Those are relevant principles for good editing, not policies. Probably the closest to what would cover what you are talking about is the WP:Village Pump and choose something there. But I think you'd need something far more concrete that 'get rid of advocacy groups' to get anywhere, never mind the other two. NadVolum (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I know we're it's headed...

Let me give you an example... A bit over ten years ago, on the French portal, I tried to get several promotional account flagged. I was openly mocked by the other editors saying there was no such thing as promotional account. So I walked away from editing. Three years ago, I randomly came across the very articles I tried to get flagged, and they had since been flagged as promotional material, and the now discarded promotional accounts had recently been banned. It was too little too soon as the damage had already been done; the Wikipedia pages in question had been part of a larger PR and image building scheme that cost my province about $1B. So yeah I'm being chastised and mocked again. And just like last time, it comes down to "We don't like the implications of what you say and no matter what amount of evidence you provide won't ever be enough as we don't like the implication of what you say." So I won't waste time and efforts in vain trying to prove problems that are just plain obvious. 96.127.219.24 (talk) 05:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

96.127.219.24, perhaps the "Wikipedia is" wording made you completely mis-understand what this page is about. These are more like guiding concepts, not a claim that there are always followed. North8000 (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Those are stated as policy though the other administrator nuanced it, saying those are guidelines. Fair enough, I think? From your POV. From mine, it's a kettle calling a teapot something. If you own a business, and then come up with "policies" or "guidelines" or the like, it's understood you will make sure your business either follows them, or work towards following them. If not, you'll have poor customer satisfaction and/or a terrible image. I understand your point those are Wikipedia values, or at least values Wikipedia feels good about. My point is that those are unrepresentative, to the point of making the whole page dishonest. 96.127.219.24 (talk) 05:20, 12 August 2022 (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.

What is Wikipedia?

“Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers”

Obviously, if Wikipedia were (just) an encyclopedia, then the mentioning of almanacs and gazettes is nonsensical. If it does indeed include many features of almanacs and gazettes, then it is inaccurate to call it an encyclopedia. Or else we would call all almanacs and gazettes encyclopedias. UsersLikeYou (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Everything in Wikipedia is more nuanced and fuzzy than the presumed explicit definition which your post is based on. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@UsersLikeYouI agree that you are being too proceise, as this is supposed to be public summary. Gazateeers have often overlapped with encyclopedias, but I agree that WP has any features of an alamanc except dates of eclipses, and reigious festivals,

"An almanac (also spelled almanack and almanach) is an annual publication listing a set of current information about one or multiple subjects. It includes information like weather forecasts, farmers' planting dates, tide tables, and other tabular data often arranged according to the calendar. Celestial figures and various statistics are found in almanacs, such as the rising and setting times of the Sun and Moon, dates of eclipses, hours of high and low tides, and religious festivals. The set of events noted in an almanac may be tailored for a specific group of readers, such as farmers, sailors, or astronomers. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• The idea that Wikipedia is an almanac or a gazetteer is basically a violation of WP:NOT, since it makes Wikipedia either (or both) of a random collection of indiscriminate information or a type of dictionary. FOARP (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has firm rules

The general Terms of Use from the Wikimedia Foundation are firm rules for all users of all Wikipedia editions. In addition to these binding rules, the Foundation has developed policies (another overview here) that also apply to all Wikimedia wikis. Two of the most recent policies are the Human Rights Policy and the Code of Conduct. And there are bylaws.

For this reason the heading "Wikipedia has no firm rules" seems not in line with the factual situation. Something like "Wikipedia has different kind of rules and policies" would fit better. Count your Garden by the Flowers (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, and there would be firm rules (UK law) that restrain someone writing, for example, in the UK. The five principles regard how editing should be performed not counting external constraints. Johnuniq (talk) 08:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

As Johnuniq says the no firm rules just applies to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You don't suddenly become the citizen of another country and no longer need to pay your taxes. NadVolum (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written (and not written)

Pillar two: "Wikipedia is written from a neutral perspective." Are there many studies that prove this to be true? The author of the title of this pillar contradicts the text of Pillar 2: "All articles should aim for verifiable accuracy and cite reliable and authoritative sources." Second question: Does this pillar accept opinions that are not based on anything? It seems that this magical anonymous author hates authors' names and brings us these pillars that set a bad example of reporting the source of information. Jari Rauma (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The five pillars aren't a description of Wikipedia, it is a quick summary of the main principles which editors should follow. See the very first line fter the title. NadVolum (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, dear Nad Volum, you may have spotted a grammatical error. So maybe the title should be "Wikipedia should be written from a neutral perspective". It seems that some Wikipedia authors don't care much about English grammar. The title is now more understandable in the conditional form, but I wonder how this mistake was possible After all, Nad, a column with a grammatical error is a strange thing. Jari Rauma (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

No what is there is I believe the right way to phrase a principle. When in a school one child calls another a name the teacher won't say 'We should not call each other names", they would say something like "We do not call each other names in this school". As to grammar versus what people say, as Lewis Carroll put it, “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.” NadVolum (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I apologize, I didn't know that some live in Alice's wonderland to justify their errors to the teacher. Second: "We do not call each other names in this school." I tell you a secret, but please don't tell it to othres: "We don't have names in Alice's wonderland, only numbers. Is it a brave new idea. Bit don't tell to others. You know anly me by NUMBER! And I know YOU and I give you F meaning this time: Fine, Nad Volume 2452! "

Jari Rauma (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It sounds to me that you are attempting WP:OUTING me. That sort of action can get you banned forever from Wikipedia so do not try doing anything like that again. NadVolum (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Five pillars: Ten commandments, etc

Doesn't this betray that Wikipedia is not an independent religious biased free organization? Why would you use islamic phrase "5 Pillars"? JaggaJat (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

See the frequently asked questions section at the top of this page. There are lots of Five pillars, I guess because you can tick them off on a hand while talking. Oh dear I'm going to get the Muslims and Buddhists and Episopaleans getting at me now :-) It seems that amongst those American cyber security and the Indian government have been taken over by religious groups, and I also know the Microsoft Azure framework also has to conform to their principles! NadVolum (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Added a fact in good faith that was removed

Hello All. I added a fact to a page that was correct, and it was removed. How do I contact that person to discuss the removal. It was in relation to Dubbo Theatre Company performing’Jesus Christ Superstar’. Was it because it wasn’t a Broadway or Westend Cast? Should it have mattered? AMcKay1972 (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

You got to this talk page, you can get to the talk page of the article just as easily. I had a quick look and I fully agree with the reversion of that Dubbo Theatre Company is not a major theatre company. It does not even make it to the Dubbo article, and Dubbo though it is counted as a city in Australia doesn't come up to international statistics standards for a city in size. Please use the talk page of the relevant article for discussions about the article. NadVolum (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks NadVolum - I am new to all this. I’ll find the talk page for the Jesus Christ Superstar page - there maybe an option to put a ‘Amateur Production’ page on it etc. I’ll have to get onto the Dubbo page as well! Definitely should be on there! Have a great day! AMcKay1972 (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)