Wikipedia talk:Five pillars/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Firm rules

Kim, you added: Wikipedia does not have firm rules perhaps not even the five general principles presented here. What is going on? Wikipedia may not have firm rules in the way it operates, but has policies that users are expected to abide by. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC) And this contradiction was literally <1 cm apart on the page, and about 5 cm apart in your question here.

IAR does not contradict the concept that the rules, policies or principles of Wikipedia are firm. When framing this language, one absolutely must view all policies together as a whole, in conjunction with the principles upon which they are built. We cannot go beyond the boundaries laid out by policy and principle, of which IAR is a part.

The Wikipedia Principles principles are firm, IAR Policy does not provide a 'trump' over its fellow policies - it merely describes situations where policy is extended to cover areas where the letter of the rule seems to trump the spirit of the rule. Policy describes what Principle is, thus together they are mandatory. We can't go beyond the spirit of the policies, and since we cannot go past that boundary - what is within that boundary is mandatory. Dreadstar † 17:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we just explain to you at Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines that this is not a correct interpretation, Dreadstar? The original wording also had a slightly different intent from what was stated here now (more along the lines of WP:TRI). So I made the alteration here, to stress a more solid interpretation.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me? I happen to disagree with what was "explained" to me, isn't that obvious? Dreadstar † 22:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you get from the fifth pillar of "Wikipedia does not have firm rules" to "Policy describes what Principle is, thus together they are mandatory"? That seems like an awfully long jump across mutually exclusive territory to me. Dhaluza (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Read my much more detailed explanation on WT:POLICY. And that's really one of the points I make, they aren't mutually exclusive, quote: "they are not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Exactly one of the misconceptions I've pointed out. Dreadstar † 01:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. is a good, simple and accurate representation of current practice and consensus. I see no reason for changing it, diluting its strength, or excising portions of it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI: It has remained very much unchanged since its first formulation] circa May 2005. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Also note that IAR is only to be used if and when a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The word "only" does not appear on WP:IAR. People seem to enjoy making that policy page as short and succinct as possible, so every word too much or too little has significance (kinda tricky that). It is actually possible to ignore all rules at practically all times, and not be sanctioned for it in any way. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? See WP:AN/I, WP:BLP/N, WP:V/N, and some others... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that ignore (where odds are there's practically nothing you can do to actually damage the wiki), or is that more like almost deliberately violate (where you actually go out to find ways to cause damage)? :-P Or hmm, AN/I is often just misunderstandings. (And some of BLP has nothing to do with wikipedia policy)

Wait a minute, are we really arguing about whether "Ignore All Rules" actually means "Ignore only some rules, and don't ignore others"? :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ignore all rules is a catchall for very specific situations, And you can get away with it, only if you are an editor in good standing. If you are not, you are more likely than not to get dinged, and you will... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Slight clarification needed here. You "get away" with IAR if the results are good for the encyclopedia, and you get "dinged" if they are not. It is not dependent on your "standing" as an editor (although there may be a statistical correlation). We are not supposed to be judging editors per se, we are supposed to be judging their contributions. Dhaluza (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We are not supposed to be judging editors per se, we are supposed to be judging their contributions. Sure, but sometimes we say: "your contributions may be good, but you are a real pain in the arse and disrupt the project with your behavior, and in doing so you have exhausted the community's patience, bye bye. You forget Dhaluza that long term editors show their commitment to the project through their contribution history, and the public identity that we develop over time is there for all to see, and taken into account when our contributions are assessed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If WP:IAR is a catchall only for very specific situations, why is it that I typically use IAR as my primary rule, and don't get into trouble? Perhaps there are multiple approaches? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC) I'm old fashioned, so I tend to use A forerunner of the 5 pillars a lot.

Really Kim? I have not seen you IARs at all.... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Wow! Not at all? Then that's a really great compliment. Thank you!

You see, when you apply IAR really well, people aren't supposed to notice you're doing it.

Even so, in one recent application of IAR, I gave the game away in an edit summary here. O:-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Five pillars of or are policy...

I will say truly that I think that this page was well-intended. That said, in reading over the many talk page discussions, and noting that it's widely referenced (including in Template:welcome and its variations), its as if people were considering this page of itself was policy, rather than being (I presume) merely a summary of Wikipedia policy.

(There's also the question of whether Wikipedia has grown to the point where (at least for clarity) we should maybe be splitting the policies up into more than just 5 pillars - or perhaps fewer than 5 - depending on how we summarise.)

There's just too much potential for fighting here, and I'm just not certain of the benefits anymore. We already have a "simple" version of the policies - though that page could use editing. And we have several policy/guideline "lists". So why is this page needed?

I'm seriously considering an MfD for the page for these reasons, but before doing so I'd like an open discussion about this, if anyone is interested. - jc37 09:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that what you seem to be proposing is the equivalent of starting a preventive war. Dhaluza (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The original intent of the Wikipedia:Wikirules_proposal was to pare wikipedia guidance down to 1-2 pages. (more detailed timeline).

Note that several of the people who made the original proposal are now fairly influential in the wikimedia foundation (though some have since quit or moved on).

So call me crazy if you will, but the long and short of it is that while it might be impossible to MfD this page (I think you'd find little or no support for that); and provided you could get some of those oldbies all together; you may actually find a surprising amount of support for a proposal to delete the entire rest of the project namespace, provided that this page is kept.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC) (!!!) Heh, some of the opposers were also quite influentual, by the look of things. I think we covered most of their objections when we switched to the wiki-process though (m:Foundation issues #3). :-)

I've read this several times and am somewhat surprised at your response. I think I understand it, but it wasn't what I expected : )

A question: Since the "rules" (policies/guidelines) are supposed to be about "current practice", with the actual text being just an aid to mutual understanding; could you clarify your comments above in light of that? - jc37 10:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Although I would not go as far as Kim Bruning, I think that deleting this page would be an intensely bad idea. The purpose of the five pillars is to give people basic guidance on wikipedia philosophy and convention without giving anyone the impression that they have to memorize a rulebook to edit here. They don't. --causa sui ^talk 01:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The number of articles doesn't correlate with main page

On the "Wikipedia has a code of conduct" pillar description, the Number of Articles in English does not correlate, or change to match, the number of articles listed on the Main Page. Maybe I just don't understand how this is linked.--RogerR00 (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• It looks the same to me. Maybe it is being cached by your browser software (e.g. Internet Explorer). Both this page and the main page use the NUMBEROFARTICLES variable. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 22:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change in the first pillar

Sorry for my bad english or for spelling error, but it isn't my mother language and i'm writing with a simple editpad without spelling check.

I use wikipedia very often in the last monts (i use it seldom in the last years too, but i don't look in the "behind the scenes" rules until recently), and i read many of the discussion about finctional works. I think (as a newby, i undestand it, but consider that as a newby i haven't prejudices of some long time contributeros) that the main problem is that this "Five pillars" are in contradiction with many notability policies, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) over all. I propose to change

'''[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is Not|Wikipedia is an encyclopedia]]''' incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and [[almanac]]s.

with

'''[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is Not|Wikipedia is an encyclopedia]]''' incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, and the elements of specialized encyclopedias, and [[almanac]]s about [[Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)|real word contents]].

Let me explain more clearly with some example: in the traditional (paper) publishing we have works like The Star Trek Encyclopedia (Paperback), Pojo's Unofficial Pokemon Encyclopedia. Millennium Edition Avengers: The Ultimate Guide Pokemon Encyclopedia (Hardcover) Tolkien The Illustrated Encyclopedia Star Wars Encyclopedia The Visual Dictionary of Star Wars, Episodes IV, V, & VI Encyclopedia Cthulhiana: A Guide to Lovecraftian Horror The Marvel Encyclopedia,... and other hundreds of encyclopedias full of Wikipedia:Fancruft and other In-universe article. IMHO is obvious than, without an explicit exclusion, these are perceived by the user as legitimate "specialized encyclopedias and almanacs" (they have the word "encyclopedia" or "guide" in ther name, are published by big and medium publisher, so their are obviously "specialized encyclopedias"), with (from the user/fanboy point of view) the kind of article than can be writen also in Wikipedia. But, if i interpret correctly Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and all of the deletion and super-merge (with relative discussion) of the last months, this kind of in-universe and someting-cruft article aren't wanted here.

I think (IMVHO) that the problem is that the first pillar isn't clear in the begining, and now that the wikipedian comunity have a (quite) clear consensus in the topic (also in the recent Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 the WP:ARBCOM don't put doubt about the content or the consensus around Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) &C, but only says that the deletion and reduction/merge must be made "collaboratively", but must be made) it continue to be not clearly written, inducing user to write article that before or after must to be deleted or transfered in other more specific wiki, with all the consequent flames, edit-war and kilometrical talk than these kind of operatons involve.

I understood that peoples&fanboy that spend hours (if not days or weeks) of their free time to write in-universe article was frustrated to see they work deleted or drasticaly cutted, maybe after months passed without none say anithing about these presence, but if the rules stated clearly from the begining that "specialized encyclopedias" don't' include work like the ones i list before, but only work on "real life", they probabily were able to spend the same time in more constructive matters in wikipedia or in other tematic wiki around the web. A more clear statement here can also help to enforce Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), showing that a "XXX encyclopedia" like the one before can't' be used as "reliable secondary sources", and this can help to purge in a more speedy way all the fancruft and the trivial contents we have.

Also updating the first pillar, to make it more coherent with Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)&C, can increase the value of wikipedia to scholar and researcher: how can be perceive by the seldom reader a "serious" article in wikipedia, like Geology of the Death Valley area or RNA interference (taken from Wikipedia:Featured_articles), if he found they not only in the same "encyclopedia" with thing in-universe fancuft like Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster or Two Trees of Valinor or Stargate (device) or Dwarfgate Wars or Waterdeep (city), but also with base rules that (apparently) seem to give all this article the same dignity? --200.110.141.252 (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of dignity, it's a question of quality. The fact that we have some high-quality articles on fiction topics in no way detracts from our coverage of more "serious" topics. Changing the wording of the Five Pillars page won't improve the encyclopedia: that has to be done through research, writing, and work.--Father Goose (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i know it, you know it, many other wikipedian contributors know it, but the occasional reader that can be interested in contributing wikipedia in "serious" topics, and found a "serius" article side by side with a fancruft article (even the most super-hi-quality, like some on Tokien's Middle Earth or D&D novel article), know it? and what he think when he try to discover why there is this situation and found a "pillar" that (apparently) says that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias" (like Encyclopedia Britannica, Encarta, etc)", specialized encyclopedias" (like Pokemon Encyclopedia, Tokien Encyclopedia, Star Wars Encyclopedia, ecc.. maybe cited as reliable secondary source in the fictional article)?

And we must also remember that the most "reserched" article on fiction, risk to be also the most full of fancruft and trivial information, maybe hi-quality il they are in a Xpedia, but not here (and if the reasearch discover only in-universe fact they must be deleted or merged following or trasnfered elsewhere as stated in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)).

On the other hand we can have someone interested in contributing wikipedia in "finctional" topics, that see the pillar, tink "oh good, specialized encyclopedias, i start to make a series of articles form the topic included in my Encyclopedia Cthulhiana, that is obviously a specialized encyclopedias, so they are ok for wikipedia", and the after some months of work see all his contribution deleted because they not have primary and secondary source a part of Cthulhu Mytos book and his "specialized" Encyclopedia Cthulhiana.

I think that is better to make clear what is a specialized encyclopedias and almanac directly from this page to better (try to) avoid this two situation.

--200.110.141.252 (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We can't really summarize "what's accepted" and "what's not" where articles about fiction are concerned, because it's a moving target. There are those who love detailed articles about fictional subjects and those who hate them. Neither view is a good basis for policy.

What we can do is describe the most general rules, ones that are well-accepted. Where fiction articles are concerned, the two most important are that the information be verifiable and/or sourced, and that it be written in an encyclopedic tone (instead of "in-universe"). The first point is a prominent part of the Five Pillars; the second is too specific to articles about fiction, and does not belong on a "general principles" page such as the Five Pillars.--Father Goose (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Complete Idiocy

I only JUST got the "five pillars" thing... Anime No Kyouran (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

2 Rules alternative

I read all the discussions above and I come to a conclusion. This might just be my own personnal PoV and in no way I want to contradict any of the past consensus. I tought that the true essense of all these rules may truly be summarized with only these 2 rules:

1) Do not alter wikipédia in any way. 2) If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

I feel like all the rest is just suggestions about how we should improve or maintain wikipedia. Note that I'm aware that these rules come from strong consensus and that under normal circumstance it's a realy bad idea to overlook such kind of consensus. But again, this is what wikipedia is just about : Changing previous consensus by better ones. Am I wrong with that one ? Iluvalar (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sixth Pillar of Wikipedia?

Well, we need another pillar of Wikipedia. This article is starting to become more like the Islam article than anything else. Joe9320-1000000 articles more to be edited, One dream. (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That is a really unhelpful comment, the idea that Wikipedia's five pillars are in some way connected to the Five Pillars of Islam is giving offence to muslims. Which of Wikipedia's pillars do you suppose equates to the requirement to pray five times a day? Which one corresponds to the fasting of Ramadan? The answer is simple, there is no connection whatsoever. A sixth pillar should not be inserted arbitrarily to make the number different. The number of fundamental principles cannot be changed to conform to some superficial extraneous requirement, the number is already fixed before one starts writing them - that's what fundamental means. SpinningSpark 08:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It had been suggested to make consensus a pillar, but it was later decided on its talk page that it was a part of the fourth pillar.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well said. It is fair to say that the idea is great, even if it does make a connection with Islam, the idea is superb and funny and not offensive to anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BhainsRajput (talk • contribs) 15:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What does it mean?

In the fourth pillar there is the statement and remember that there are 2,657,643 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss which seems out of context - I presume it to mean 'so don't get entrenched on a single article if it gets too stressfull' or something along those lines? LeeVJ (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yea, editors are often advised to go and work on something else if things get too stressful. I am not at all sure that it is right to entrench that in policy though. It gives the impression that bullying people off articles is tolerated. I think it should go. SpinningSpark 02:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreee, it shouldn't be there, but I wonder if we can squeeze it in somewhere else as a helpful hint to get editors into the mindset of not getting too entrenched on a few articles - but then again this is often where the best articles often come from ... ? LeeVJ (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Remember: whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity

Original:

"All prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. Remember: whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity."

Changed to:

"In most cases, all prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content."

"Remember: whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity."

Is simply not true, and new users are going to realize quickly that it is not true. Most articles for deletion were created by new users. There are over 8000 articles up for deletion right now.

This sentence maybe an ideal, but it is not reality, and it will disillusion a lot of new editors who see their contributions swifty deleted. Ikip (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And if their contributions aren't worthy of being in an encyclopedia, they should be deleted and the new editors pointed at the relevant guidelines so they won't make the same mistake twice. Themfromspace (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

They're kept in the database, though. How else could you undelete something? Sceptre ^(talk) 10:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Making Wp's no-copying policy more clear for beginners?

I come fresh from dealing with a major copyvio problem [1], and would very much like to see copyvio policy made clearer and simpler for beginners early on in their experience of Wikipedia. I think that the majority of Wp copyvio problems arise because many people are naive about what is OK and not OK in terms of copying. I do understand that at the bottom of every edit screen it says, "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted", and that beneath the "save page" button, it says again, "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted" and at the bottom, under "Please note", it says, "Only public domain resources can be copied without permission — this does not include most web pages or images." This is all well and good but I think that the problem appears to be that quite a few people don't read those sentences at the bottom of the edit pages, or don't read them soon enough, or don't understand them. And if a newcomer follows the link to the policy pages on Copyright [2] and CopyVio [3], well, currently these pages do not have a simple and clear introduction that any beginner could understand.

Because the 5 pillars are an important link in the main "Welcome" template, I was wondering if perhaps we can mention the copyvio issue a bit more clearly in Pillar number 3. Currently it says at the end: "Do not infringe on copyright or submit work licensed in a way incompatible with the GFDL." This is admirably succinct, but the wording can be quite opaque to those newcomers who do not know what "copyright" actually is, and the link takes you to a page that is also not very clear up front.

I think it would help if we had some wording about copyvio that is clearer and simpler, and sooner that it is encountered by new editors the better. This is a draft I put together of something that could go on the copyright/CopyVio pages and maybe a shorter version could be incorporated into the 3rd pillar.

Here is one version, probably too long for incorporating into the Pillar, but it is an example of what I am talking about:

"Do not copy into Wikipedia any phrases, sentences, or paragraphs taken from books or websites unless you are clearly quoting and properly citing them, or unless you know for sure that they are in the public domain. Even when you use other people's prose which you have slightly altered or paraphrased, this is still almost always against the law, see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Text from sources must in almost all cases be read, understood, and then completely rewritten in your own words. "

Thanks for your attention, Invertzoo (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC), tweaked, Invertzoo (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, if all those warnings don't work, I don't have much hope this will make a difference but I don't see anything wrong with what you wrote except I'd add "or quoted and properly cited" Y Done but I actually would like to see what others have to say ... Slrubenstein | Talk 00:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This page's purpose is a succinct overview of Wikipedia's guiding principles. Guidance as specific as you are proposing belongs on other pages. And like Slrubenstein says, you can warn people till you're blue in the face and they'll still press the red button that says "press this and you die". So another warning in a relatively obscure place is not going to somehow fix people who don't get the concept of plagiarism in the first place.--Father Goose (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for weighing in on this. Yes, the version I included is too long and detailed for the Pillars, but maybe the last sentence of that paragraph:

"Text from sources must in almost all cases be read, understood, and then completely rewritten in your own words."

is short and to the point, and could be added at the end of the text on the 3rd Pillar? Invertzoo (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If we did incorporate that sentence, Pillar 3 would read:

Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual exclusively controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community. Do not infringe on copyright or submit work licensed in a way incompatible with the GFDL. Text from sources must (in almost all cases) be read, understood, and then completely rewritten in your own words.

Thanks again to those who have already commented and to anyone who would like to weigh in on this suggestion. Invertzoo (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The five pillars should be summaries of and links to existing policies. To the extent that WP:COPY and WP:COPYVIO do not say this in their summaries, it would be difficult here. Your "almost all" cases excludes direct quotations, as well as other GFDL and public domain sources. --Rumping (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, those are a couple of very good points, thank you Rumping. So if we are able to put an explanation into the WP:COPY and WP:COPYVIO summaries first, then maybe we could mention it very briefly here and link it to those?

My draft of what could go into the WP:COPY and WP:COPYVIO pages is much more explanatory:

"Do not copy into Wikipedia any phrases, sentences, or paragraphs taken from books or websites unless you are clearly quoting and properly citing them, or unless you know for sure that they are in the public domain or are covered by GFDL. Even when you use other people's prose which you have slightly altered or paraphrased, this is still almost always against the law, see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Text from sources must (in almost all cases) be read, understood, and then completely rewritten in your own words. "

Again thanks to all who are willing to comment on this, it is all helpful. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're still not seeing that this page is not the place to provide explanations of policy specifics, in brief form or otherwise. This page is an overview of what our most important policies and practices are and how they relate to the running of Wikipedia in general.

However, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Should that ever become an "official" guideline, I would support adding a link to it from here.--Father Goose (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions Father Goose, I appreciate your help. I found the WP:Plagiarism essay quite interesting. Another good one is the WP:Close paraphrasing essay. I do understand the point you make, that the 5 Pillars are an overview which merely mentions the most important policies and practices rather than explaining them. Let me explain that the reason why I was trying to do this is: having come fresh from a massive on-going copyvio clean-up involving thousands of articles, see [4] I believe that a vast amount of unrecognized copyvio is arguably the most serious threat to the integrity of the encyclopedia as it currently stands. What I am hoping Wp can do (one way or the other) is to let new contributors know, as early on as possible and as clearly as possible, how to avoid copyvio, in very simple terms that anyone can understand. Perhaps as you say, this page is not the right place to attempt to do this, but since copyvio is such a key problem, I wanted to make sure that I at least started off by going right to the top in my enquiries.

Maybe on the 3rd pillar we can simply tweak the wording of the last sentence to make it a little stronger, and at least we can perhaps add a live link to GFDL, which it currently does not have. So perhaps that last sentence instead of reading:

"Do not infringe on copyright or submit work licensed in a way incompatible with the GFDL."

Perhaps it could read:

"It is essential to avoid infringing on copyright or submitting work licensed in a way that is incompatible with the GFDL."

All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the original wording is far stronger by virtue of its directness. GFDL (or rather, GNU Free Documentation License) is linked at the beginning of the paragraph; I don't think we need to link to it twice.

I respect that the gastropod copyvios are a huge and regrettable problem. I just don't have any reason to believe that the user in question wouldn't have done what he did if the text on this page were somehow different. On the bottom of every edit page is the text, "Only public domain resources can be copied without permission — this does not include most web pages or images." If he ignored that message, he would've ignored this page too.

Further, while copyvios on that scale are a huge pain to clean up, they don't represent a particularly grave threat to Wikipedia. Section 230 makes us largely immune from legal repercussions, as long as we're diligent about removing copyvios when we discover them.

Long story short: no amount of (additional) warnings or instructions will make people wise. There's no magic way to prevent what GB did.--Father Goose (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it is really good to know about Section 230, thanks so much for telling me. (By the way, our problem editor did most of his copying from print books that are not available online, which is why it took 2 or 3 years to catch him at it.) So anyway, thanks all, I will leave the 5 Pillars, and instead see what I can do in an attempt to help make some of the copyright and copyvio policy pages clearer on these points, because currently some of those pages are indeed rather poorly organized and not easy for a beginner to understand. I do of course know perfectly well that there is no "magic way" to prevent people copying stuff into WIkipedia. I also know that people very often don't read notices or signs that are staring them in the face. However, there are a fair number of people who won't do copyvio if it is easily and clearly explained to them early on in their editing history, but who probably will do it by default if the information is not presented in a clear fashion to them. All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Insulting

It is so very insulting to the Muslim to steal and abuse the term five pillars. Have you people no shame? Have you no limits to the extent you will go to insult my people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.84.122.204 (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Insulting, steal, abuse, shame - these are fighting words. Wikipedia is a collective attempt at an intellectually honest project. I would use those words for something that was actually trying to bring down the world. Language is all about borrowing and learning from other uses and applications; traditions elaborating on one another. --Dioxinfreak (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I love all pillars

This is an excellent page and I'm glad to see it. Only problem I have is that it seems few if any ever really read the page. When I can, I'll invoke it above all others here. 75.21.116.175 (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The supreme, inviolate, pure virtue of Wikipedia

Some time ago I created a page (left intentionally blank) in which I questioned whether WP had any absolutely inviolable principle whatsoever. This page generated no discussion right up to the point at which it was nominated for deletion. I copy here the recent edits:

• Wikipedia has never executed a human being for any reason. Paradoctor (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
• It's here. Onmyounomichi (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope these editors will forgive me if I consider their points as not to be taken seriously. But I'd like a serious discussion.

• • Then you should take our points seriously. Do others like you want to be done. Self-quote: "The example refutes Xion's allegation that no such virtue exists.". As long as you can't provide a counterexample, your theory fails. The point is that whatever your concern is precisely, it's not about inviolate, pure virtue. Onmyounomichi's proposal uses your own argument against your position. Assuming that you intended it as an agent provocateur, I pointed out that

“ Our existence is not under our control, hence not a virtue. That is, if you don't accept global suicide as an option. Generally speaking, humans are not virtuous. No religion I know of considers us virtuous as a whole. Looking at the historical record is enough to make a grown man cry. Among the more well known schools of thought, even humanism, the one most optimistic about humans, considers only our intrinsic worth and dignity, not virtue. The only thing even coming close to a virtue of mankind is its potential, but that is just that, a potential. ” — Paradoctor

• • Individuals may be virtuous, but as a general rule about humans it fails. You probably hoped to turn the arguments against the agent in the human case against the Wikipedia case, but you hoped in vain, as the "no executions" example shows. "Oh! what tangled web we weave..." ;) Paradoctor (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I meant to say that I'd like a serious discussion of WP's core values -- or rather, my thesis that WP has none. I don't think simple existence is a value, unless the meaning of value is devalued. As for WP's grace in omitting to execute anyone, I'd like to hope that point is silly enough not to require rebuttal -- and anyway, it's another definition in the negative. — Xiong熊talk* 21:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell

My thesis in a nutshell is that WP fails at its mission because it has no mission -- no absolute, overriding, permanent virtue, principle, or characteristic. Everything is subject to editing. this page, as much as any other, appear to propose itself as the repository of WP core values; yet it is as editable as any other page. Perhaps an even more fundamental page is the venerable WP:NOT; it is repugnant and a bit silly to define a major project in the negative. For what do we stand? Why are we here?

• "fails at its mission because it has no mission": Why not print it out, affix it to a nice big clean white wall, take a few steps back, and have a good, long look at it? You might have overlooked something. ;)
• "no absolute, overriding, permanent virtue, principle, or characteristic": You say that as if it was a negative thing. As panagnostic, I feel at home.
• "editable as any other page": See previous item.
• "repugnant" ... "to define a major project in the negative": It doesn't (my emphasis):

“ Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Therefore, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not. ” — WP:NOT

• "For what do we stand?": We? And do we have to stand? Sitting is so much more comfortable.
• "Why are we here?": Ok, I give up. You really think that Wikpedia is the place to find the answer?
• More to follow Paradoctor (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's get down to cases.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

This page does not (as I write) even exist; on this page, it points to WP:NOT. I feel that encyclopedia is, in a practical sense, a self-referential definition. Whatever its merits, WP has become the encyclopedia; the Average Person has experience with no other. (This is a simple consequence of economics; the majority of would-be encyclopedia users refuse to purchase expensive bound paper sets of books when they can access WP at little cost.) How can self-reference be definition, let alone foundation?

On this page, some attempt is made to explain what is meant by Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Much of this exposition is (again) in the negative; the only "meat" in this "pillar" is WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:NOR. While I strongly support these principles, it is obvious to any cursory inspection that they are honored more in the breach. WP is stuffed full of unverifiable, unsourced claims. The most absurd original "research" is not deleted; it is merely encapsulated as a factual description of a nutjob's fantasy. Some articles are well-sourced, yes. But the man following the elephant with a broom is not keeping up with the sheer quantity of manure being dropped.

• "Average Person has experience with no other"
• "encyclopedia users refuse to purchase expensive bound paper sets of books when they can access WP at little cost": Just a remark: Paper encyclopedias seldom have problems with IP vandals. ;)
• "How can self-reference be definition, let alone foundation?": Like this.
• "this page" (twice): I'm sorry, which one?
• "WP is stuffed full of unverifiable, unsourced claims." ... "sheer quantity of manure": Growing pains.
• "a nutjob's fantasy": So you disagree with WP:N? Or do you think the article fails WP:N?
• Paradoctor (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I know what a paper encyclopedia looks like; I've used several in my life, at length. Other people have a less clear conception. You don't need a citation for that; you know it's so. I run into people daily who have only the haziest idea what a book is, let alone an encyclopedia.

Here's the test: Walk into any supermarket and strike up a conversation with an Average Man. Say you read something about (dinosaurs) in an encyclopedia. Bet you a dollar he thinks you said "Wikipedia".

I think it obvious why a social human enterprise ought not be defined in circular fashion. If we are to create an encyclopedia, then let's define what we mean by this word. I'm quite sure that editors do not agree on this.

It is my habit, right or wrong, to refer to any given page as this page when writing on its corresponding talk page.

Time Cube is a sufficiently elaborate box of crap that I'd be sad to see it go. I used to beat up on Graveller -- my pet example of the utterly unencyclopedic factoid (and copyvio) but now it's been redirected. (Does that mean Someone finally listened to me?) — Xiong熊talk* 21:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view

This assertion is linked to WP:NPOV. I contest that this principle is followed rigorously; indeed, I say that it cannot. There is no neutral point of view. The concept is meaningless. All comment, all exposition, is made from some definite point of view and this viewpoint is biased in some way.

Parenthetically, I object on linguistic grounds to the phrase NPOV; it causes illiterate editors to blast articles as being "POV" when they mean "biased".

It is intellectually arrogant to assume that one is capable of speaking without bias. He who insists that his words are free of bias is simply blind to his own. I uphold and embrace a bias in favor of evidence-based statements, rationality, and logic as a means of arriving at objective truth. However, I preserve enough intellectual honesty to admit that there is nothing neutral in my viewpoint. Thinking in my way would have had me burned at the stake a few hundred years ago -- and perhaps today, in some countries, stoned and beaten. Those who would abuse me would not hesitate to note the bias inherent in my every word.

Quite apart from the epistemological difficulty here noted, WP does not even present a consistent ("objective" or "rational") bias. Granted, the articles on some subjects are fairly bland; however, others are totally "owned" by cliques pushing their narrow agendas. Sometimes, a holy war erupts between supporters of various viewpoints; in this case a relatively neutral article may be hammered out. More often, an article remains solidly in the camp of those with the training and inclination to defend their point of view.

WP lacks any mechanism that succeeds in eliminating bias or even in enforcing a consistent bias in favor of Western-style scientific rationality. The attempt is made, in some cases, and in some cases succeeds -- but the principle of NPOV is a long way from inviolate.

• "All comment, all exposition, is made from some definite point of view": Comment is verboten, and exposition is to be derived from the literature.
• "POV" when they mean "biased": I beg your pardon? Color me illiterate, but it was my impression that the two are synonymous, with the former connoting a statement about the creator.
• "not even" ... "consistent" ... "bias" ... "cliques" ... : Growing pains again.
• "articles on some subjects are fairly bland": Arrrgh! "Bland" and "objective" have no causal relationship!
• "Western-style scientific rationality": You are aware that this gave rise to the encyclopedia as we understand it?
• "long way from inviolate": In anything but self-indulgement, perfection is a direction rather than a goal.

"POV" is an acronym and a poor substitute for "viewpoint", a noun. "Biased" is an adjective. The two are not interchangeable even at the level of grammar.

I object to the acronym-as-adjective because this has the effect of Orwellian Newspeak. It is commonplace to say, "This article has a point of view." It is easier to demonize without understanding by saying, "This article is POV and must be deleted."

Unless you are a mathematician, you should agree that every word you speak reveals bias. If you are a mathematician, you may or may not agree, depending on your religion (set theorist or analyst). I say that every article is biased in some way -- some far more than others. My bias is in favor of what I think of as "the objective view" and others might call "materialism". See WP:BULL. I say that once you abandon this Cartesian, objectivist-materialist viewpoint you are no longer entitled to any academic consideration whatsoever -- even if you reveal great and important mystic truths.

Instead of pretending to publish unbiased articles, we should decide upon a point of view, define it, uphold it, and exclude those who oppose it. — Xiong熊talk* 21:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is free content

Linked ironically to Wikipedia:Copyrights, this assertion is better founded than the others. Indeed, WP is available free of direct charge; it is however available only to those privileged to an internet connection and a computer of sufficient power to run a modern web browser. This is really a rather small subset of humanity. Even those with access generally pay some infinitesimal amount per page view, as that access is itself granted only on cash payment.

The words "...that anyone may edit" are simple balderdash. Officially, many pages are protected from editing -- arguably, many of those more popular pages which the average user might want to edit. Technically, it requires considerable talent and ability to insert an edit into an article, the difficulty increasing with the size, scope, and detail of such edit. While my claim may be brushed aside by experienced editors, I ask for a second look. Does your Aunt Martha edit WP? Can she? (Without you standing over her shoulder!) The world is full of computer users who are barely able to retrieve their own email.

I find it fairly easy to assemble an edit from among the peculiar markup and social conventions that obtain here; but then I have the benefit of 30 years of experience in computer science, programming, typesetting, publishing, and graphic design, as well as quite a few edits on this project. Aunt Martha doesn't think that anyone can edit WP. There is nothing transparent or accessible about MediaWiki, let alone the byzantine social structure that forbids the majority of edits that the average user might want to make.

This leads us to the social difficulty of editing WP. I say the Wikipedian Community is vicious and intemperate despite all attempts to encourage civility. The new editor is subjected to thinly veiled abuse -- ever so polite insults -- that appear designed to frighten him away. So very many policies exist that one would have to spend days researching -- or months editing -- even to begin to hope to make edits without receiving harsh, terse criticism in return.

There is the question of significant editing. Have I edited an article if my edit is instantly reverted? While we may urge editors to WP:AGF and seek compromise, the wholesale revert is commonplace. It's not easy to make an edit stick -- and if a new article is created, well, don't be astonished to find it up on AfD sooner or later. In part, yes, this is the natural operation of any wiki -- in part, it is ruthless groupthink.

At the other end, the emphasis on "free" content excludes much of value from the project. Permissions may be sought -- but often are not. An editor might go to great lengths to secure permission of a type acceptable to the project and still have the material deleted because Somebody is too lazy to research the matter properly, and shoots from the hip.

I'd say that the copyright fascists do a better job than anyone else of protecting their cherished value; but I'm not convinced of the benefit. Other sites do very well, allowing most material to stand until challenged by someone claiming to represent the copyright owner. While I might not advance such an extreme position here, still I ask: How many babies have we thrown out with the bathwater?

At the last, I'll concede that copyleft content is a pretty firmly enforced description of WP. But then, so is a great deal of garbage. Is this core value sufficient to describe a major project?

• "small subset of humanity": That's not Wikipedia's problem.
• The words "...that anyone may edit" are simple balderdash.: The presumption is that nobody cares about total dicks. I agree that the wording is misleading in a literalist context. OTOH, try editing the Britannica.
• "world is full of computer users who are barely able to retrieve their own email": Is it necessary or desirable for everyone on Earth to have at least a few edits on Wikipedia?
• "structure that forbids the majority of edits that the average user might want to make": Forbid? Dear aunty Martha, please be bold, nobody's going to kill you. Promise.
• "So very many policies exist that one would have to spend days researching -- or months editing -- even to begin to hope to make edits without receiving harsh, terse criticism in return.": That's not my experience. But generally speaking, I agree that Wikipedia can seem daunting, even to one as brash as me, and that the treatment of new editors can be improved.
• "seek compromise": Consensus is not the same as compromise. If you compromise just to attain consensus, that is your choice. I prefer to find my consensus in the brutal world of Hello Kitty convince or be convinced.
• "WP:AGF" ... "wholesale revert is commonplace": While some editors failing to AGF may prefer reverts over communication, a revert is not implicitly WP:ABF. Besides, what do we have WP:3RR for?
• "It's not easy": Life is unfair. Gravity sucks. Welcome to the world of Hello Kitty. ;)
• "Somebody is too lazy to research the matter properly, and shoots from the hip.": Communicate. Revert. WP:3RD. ...
• OT: "copyright fascists": May I express my happiness at seeing a soulmate on this matter? :)
• "stand until challenged": Damn, there is a Frege quote that would have been perfect here, I just can't find it now. Anyway, the problem with this approach is that there will usually be work building on the challenged material. Consider this scenario: Wikipedia 1.0 is out, lots of copies printed, distribution is about to begin. A couple of jerks sue for infringement, judge rules in their favor. Consequence: A forest died for nothing. Don't count on my support for that.
• "Is this core value sufficient to describe a major project?": Oh, c'mon! You're not telling me you're into some holographic philosophy? A part is a part, it doesn't have to describe the entire project.
• Ok, I'm hungry, I have a fridge, and I won't hesitate to use it! Later, Paradoctor (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I object to the use of the word free to define WP because (like "love") it has so many meanings that (although it has much "mouth appeal") it doesn't really nail the project up to any standard of quality or performance. What do we mean by "free"?

If we say WP is free because anyone can edit, I say "No, that's not so"; I think that's obvious. I don't say anyone should be allowed to edit; I just say that we shouldn't pretend.

If we say WP is free as in free beer, I accept about half of that. To anyone with an internet connection and the ability to point and click, yes, WP is free-beer free. But then, most of the content on the net is free-beer and much of it is worthless crap. I say WP ought to remain free beer -- but that this is insufficiently defining.

If we say WP is free to reuse, that's not true either. GFDL was never intended for copylefting of general material and it shows. The current move to crosslicense with Creative Commons will address some of this difficulty (although I fear somewhere down the road, a lawyer may eat).

There is no project justification or core principle inherent in this "pillar", free. It's just a word that sounds real good in the mouth. — Xiong熊talk* 22:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a code of conduct

This links to WP:EQ. I'm not going to beat this into the ground; anyone who has edited this project for any length of time can provide counterexample galore. Yes, we have a standard; it is violated more often than obeyed. When it is obeyed, it is followed to the letter far more often than in the spirit.

It is not only possible -- it is quite easy -- to be superficially polite while being a dick. And (without pretending that I have never been a dick myself), I say we have far more regular, daily dicks in this project than should ever have been permitted. And holy Mary mother of God how loud are the dicks!

Whatever WP stands for above all things, it does not stand for a place where adults may engage in civilized discourse without enduring a steady rain of peanut shells and monkey urine.

• "violated more often than obeyed": Well, what are the alternatives? Indefblocking until everyone in here complies? That might work, but I don't think that it would improve the situation. ;)
• "to the letter far more often than in the spirit": Lobby for attention to these matters.
• "And holy Mary mother of God how loud are the dicks!": Ok, that was funny. ^_^
• "adults" ... "without" ... "monkey": I have a problem reconciling this statement with WP:AGF.
• Generally speaking, what is your complaint: Lack of perfection? Or do you want community attention shifted towards improving user behavior? If you do, you might want to get more input than your own personal experience. My experience so far was not bad. Is there really a problem requiring the attention of the community at large? If there is, by all means, make your case. Thus far you have only broad generalizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradoctor (talk • contribs) 20:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have firm rules

Ignore all rules. What??

I can't possibly criticize this; it is perfect -- perfect nonsense. And if this project, this community, possesses a core value, yes, this is it: There are no core values, no unbreakable rules.

I say that this is silliness squared. My purpose from the outset has been to show that WP stands for nothing, embraces no principle totally, does not define itself in any positive, absolute way. Here we see that not only do some editors agree with me, they actually uphold this formlessness and lack of purpose.

Congratulations.

— Xiong熊talk* 21:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• "I can't possibly criticize this.": Then what use is the rest of this section? Be bold, see if you can come up with a substantial criticism.
• "WP stands for nothing" ... "does not define itself in any positive, absolute way": If refer you to the quote provided above, In a nutshell.
• Because I can't resist:

“ In many of the more relaxed civilizations, the Wikipedia has already supplanted the great Encyclopedia Britannica as the standard repository of all knowledge and wisdom, for though it has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate, it scores over the older, more pedestrian work in two important respects.
First, it is slightly cheaper; and secondly it has the words Come as You Are inscribed in large friendly letters on its cover. ” — with apologies to the D. A.

• I'll see if I can summarize the core of Wikipedia such that the hard parts become obvious. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• You know what? You're right. Let's nuke this place from orbit, and find a warmer sun. Paradoctor (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Original research

As an editor here on Wikipedia for a little over four years, I have always struggled with the WP:OR policy (the first of the five pillars). The reason I struggle with it, and the reason why I think Wikipedia should remove the policy banning original research, lays partly due to common sense, and mainly, due to the fact that everything on here amounts to some form of original research. Isn't that the whole point of an eneyclopedia? To be a collaboration of original research? In technicality, everything ever written, everything ever published in the history of mankind has been some form of "Original Research" and quite frankly, I am stupefied at the fact that WP would take such a position as to not allow it. Original research is part of our daily lives. Newspaper articles, television news reports, magazine articles and entire publications, to high school essays and the college thesis paper, are all a form of original research, and I think it's time Wikipedia be bold itself, and begin to realize a little common sense. Srosenow 98 (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The "original research" applies to what Wikipedia editors write as part of articles, not what others have written outside of WP. --MASEM (t) 12:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that you've misunderstood the policy. You might want to look at some of Jimbo's posts to the mailing list around the time the policy was adopted. --causa sui ^talk 13:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Where would I find those? Srosenow 98 (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll weigh in here with a commonsense example. Let's say you are editing the article on the noble Ant. You break for lunch and repair to your backyard with a ham and cheese sandwich; you observe that dropped bits of cheese attract more ants than does ham. WP policy says that you ought not include this original research in your edit.

On the other hand, you might type up your observation and send it away to the Journal of Ant Studies; further, let us say that said journal publishes your paper. Now you may, if you like, include your observation in the WP article, citing the journal paper.

Clear? — Xiong熊talk* 19:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem I see with that assertion, is that in some cases, original research is just as viable and credible as it would be if say, I were to follow the example you've provided. Encyclopedias, although academic in nature, are nothing more than a collaboration of original research, as are the subject matters contained within.

Also, if I were to follow the example above, another Wikipedia editor may refute the reference citing a conflict-of-interest. Speaking from personal experience, my userpage makes a blatant reference to me owning a website titled GilligCoaches.NET (although without using the name explicitly), and I've uploaded several photos from my website with the GilligCoaches.NET watermark due to copyrights. Another editor here on Wikipedia failed to do proper investigation of the matter and instead tagged the images in question as being in copyright violation (even though I took the photos, and I uploaded them - and I own the website they were posted from). It may not be of a writing stance, but it's along the same vein.

The problem with the Original Research rule is that it prohibits a lot of articles from attaining their full potential. It's wrong to tell an editor (or contributor) "Hey, you can't publish your own research unless you have it published elsewhere, first." If we all followed that mentality, then books themselves would never get published. In high school, college, and beyond everything that is written about a dedicated subject matter, including the articles here on Wikipedia, constitute a form of original research. Srosenow 98 (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, there is "original research" that is necessary to compile a set of existing facts into an article - which is acceptable for the purposes of WP editing - and then there is "Original Research" in the introduction of new ideas (facts, opinions, theories, data, etc.) into the total informational codex that did not exist before that writing. WP cannot engage in the second within mainspace pages, as that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia, though once those ideas have been published elsewhere, we can go about including them per summaries generated through lower-case "original research". --MASEM (t) 12:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see how it is "original research" to go out and look at someone else's research and report what they said. Yes, that is research, but it's secondary research. What we do is not original research in any sense. ⟳ausa کui ^× 08:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Licence

Shouldn't the licence pillar be changed since the vote went through? It should at least mention it.Pisharov (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting consensus lacking addition elsewhere

As it is relevant to this page, please note Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Conflicting.2Fconfusing_guidelines concerning a unilateral addition to that page made a mere month ago and without gaining any kind of consensus first thereby creating a contradiction with our First pillar. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a newsletter?

I've noticed that at Oral Roberts University there is a tendency to include every single event that happens. There are cases where the school's website is the only source for a section. This seems to me to be against what Wikipedia is, but I haven't really found any rules against this. Should minor layoffs and renovation of a room be included in Wikipedia? I think that including this information decreases the utility I get from Wikipedia because it means I have to weed through more information to get notable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.100.233 (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You're correct that Wikipedia should not report recent facts at the expense of more important historical ones. See WP:RECENT and WP:IINFO for more on that. — DroEsperanto (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal

In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I believe people who watch this page have valuable perspectives and I hope you will look at this new page, and do what you can to help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)