Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Five pillars/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

How immovable are these pillars? ...

Couldn't we find a more inspiring way to open than, " Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers"? That is simply not the tone one expects of the first of five pillars.

Cut the junk about the almanacs and gazetteers: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy ..."

If we need people to know about the almanacs and gazetteers, they can follow the hyperlink.

Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 06:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What is an encyclopedia? Why do we include anything not in general encyclopedias like Britannica? —Centrx→talk • 07:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Umm I'm having trouble reading your tone. Are you saying that Wikipedia is not ... an encyclopedia? Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 07:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia? -- JimboWales
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham
(Source WikiWikiWeb:WikiPedia) --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it's good to be reminded not to revise before I know what we're trying to say. I admit that I'm really only qualified point out that the pillars don't "soar" in the way pillars should. When I started the thread, I thought it was just a question of prose style, but your Zen-like responses remind me that the lack of clarity could be due to the actual complexity of Wikipedia. There are many places where our policies are hard to read because they express genuine complexity. But there are also many places where they're hard to read because they're hiding something simple inside. I'm riding high after performing an extreme refactoring of WP:Citation needed. I'd like to continue working at simplifying our policies without omitting information. Maybe the place to start isn't this page, maybe it is. What do you think -- is this a project I can do without stepping on toes? Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 19:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the toes, but since WP:5P is supposed to be an extreme summary of policy, you might have fun doing some extreme revising. Though I dare ya, I double dog dare ya, to get it shorter than WP:TRI ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC) also see: WP:SR, which might actually finally have ended up shorter than 5P... though 5P actually is intended to summarize SR :-P ps. Citation needed ROCKS.

red pillar

OK, here are some proposed modifications to the red pillar. Are any of these worth retaining? Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 01:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

current version:
Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be the aim, perfection is not required. Do not worry about making mistakes. 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.

some proposed changes:
Wikipedia must evolve to advance these principles. If the status quo is an obstacle, be bold and change it. Your efforts don't need to be perfect: prior versions are saved by default, so you can't accidentally do damage.

I've changed this back a bit. "Wikipedia must evolve to advance these principles" doesn't seem to say much, which is problematic. "Wikipedia does not have firm rules" is clear and understandable, though I agree it could perhaps use some improvement. (The link to WP:IAR is especially bizarre next to the proviso that these five pillars are golden....) --MZMcBride (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Interesting. In stating that "Wikipedia must evolve to advance these principles," I was trying to capture the nuance at IAR: on the one hand, ignore all rules, BUT ONLY if it interferes with our efforts to write the encyclopedia. The word "firm" in the previous text seemed like our mushy attempt to do that.
  • There are a few "unchangeable" things about WP. To me, IAR means, "Challenge anything that interferes with these unchangeables." Alternative language might read, "Wikipedia's rules should adapt to its mission, not the other way around." "Wikipedia should adapt in order to fulfill its mission." Stuff like that. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 01:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I think there's a better way of phrasing the first sentence of this pillar, but I agree with MZMcBride that the first attempt was too mushy. I feel like the right wording is within grasp, but I haven't been able to quite reach it and write it down yet. I am passionate about the value of IAR on Wikipedia and am glad to see it given its due weight here. I'll come back if I can find that wording that is eluding me.
There is fantastic work going on here, by the way. kmccoy (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Blue pillar

Likewise, some proposed modifications to the blue pillar. (I'm uncertain whether to explain why I think each of these is an improvement? Well, you tell me what you don't like, and I'll tell you why I did it.) Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 02:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

current version:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy; unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Original ideas, interpretations, or research cannot be verified, and are thus inappropriate. 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 newspaper or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the Wikimedia sister projects.

some proposed changes:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia whose content should be verified with citations to reliable sources. Our contributors' own experiences, interpretations, or opinions are thus not appropriate. 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 newspaper or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the Wikimedia sister projects.

Green pillar

Same deal: Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 15:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

current version:
Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.

some proposed changes:
Wikipedia has a neutral point of view: Controversial articles may only report significant views that have been published by reliable sources, not the particular biases of our editors. Upholding this commitment can be challenging, but respectful dialogue on an article's talk page almost always bears consensus; only rarely are more formal dispute resolution procedures necessary.

discussion of changes to the "free licensing" pillar

Just edit the dang page and show us. ;-) I'd like to compare the differences using diffs, as that's what they're there for. Diffs also make it possible to link to particular changes that are pertinent. You may find this to be a useful tip. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- You should make that the Kim Bruning corollary to WP:Be Bold -- namely, WP:Encourage others to be bold. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 23:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
You mean {{sofixit}}? ;-)
Btw, looks like this is gonna take some fixing. Here's the original 5P policy summary: [1]
--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Let's start with one thing I noticed. You thought the names of the licenses were scary and removed them, it says in an edit summary. Can you explain why you think that? Would you be partial to putting them back in, if I can explain why I'd like to do that? And if so, what kinds of argument might convince you? I do think the licenses are fairly important, you see. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  • It would probably be easy to convince me to put them back in. By scary, I meant: as an 8-month editor of articles and a contributor to some WikiProjects and AfDs (and a law student, but a lazy one), my understanding of our licensing still boils down to this: "Everything is about as free as it gets. Some contributors can put some restrictions on these freedoms, but it's still, well, pretty darn free." For more nuance, I would probably start with WP:Multi-licensing, since it's a single page that explains the consequences of each license and how they affect individual editors, and can be a portal to the legalese for people who have a stomach for it. The GNU and CC pages we were linking to do contain lucid explanations of what these licenses do, but they also contain huge amounts of legalese, and I think it would be best to aggregate the friendly parts on a single page.
  • But I don't have strong opinions on this. But I'm a pushover. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 00:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I see. The reason we mention the licenses, is because they are a core part of our mission, we release things under a Free (as in speech) license. Hence wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, of course.
I do agree that we need to balance things somehow. <scratches head>
--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that we do need to mention either 1) the licenses or 2) the free nature of our licensing. If there were a page like WP:Multi-licensing that explained the two licenses in detail, and we revised the text so that it clearly communicates that the Wikilink to this page will serve this purpose, would these requirements be met? For example,
  • Option A: "Wikipedia is freely licensed content ..."
  • Option B: "Wikipedia is free content that is licensed to permit anyone to edit and distribute it. In turn, recognize that your own submissions may be modified and distributed in the same way. We also cannot accept contributions that infringe on copyright or are incompatible with our licensing."
Just for example. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 00:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Still scratching head a bit, the "freely licensed content" is a good start. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping we can complete this with 0RR, AGF at all times. That'll be a challenge ;) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Try it on and see how it looks? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
A comment: It seems to me that the dependency on which page we link to here indicates cleanup is needed for the other pages... --Izno (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, what would you suggest? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Ideally? I'd see WP:Multilicensing merged into WP:Copyrights, where multilicensing would become the major beginning to the page. It's poor form to split the content as was done there, and that would allow for a more powerful context to what copyrights and licensing are about.
Instead, what we currently have at Copyrights is this big, red... DON'T ASK US. Which is probably too big in and of itself. Hmm...
That all said, I think the best way for now on this page would be to link both. --Izno (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The link to WP:OWN in context with the verbiage seems out of place in this version. --Izno (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with Izno that we need to generally clean up the other policies. If we can't capture an entire pillar in two heavily-wikilinked sentences, it's a sign that we need better wikilinks. For example, when rewriting the first pillar, it was soo bloody hard to express what we mean by "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", because the only page available says what wikipedia is NOT. Regarding the copyright, I'm OK with consolidating everything into a single "Copyrights" page, but we also need to have pages that break it down into simple english. HELP:Licensing might be worthwhile. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 01:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Izno, I'm not sure I understand what you mean regarding WP:OWN. Are you sort of saying that we should limit the paragraph to licensing issues, and maybe move WP:OWN to the etiquette section? Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 01:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
No. It's probably poor grammar: "[…] while appreciating that their rights to their own submissions do not permit such control." just doesn't make sense. Do not permit control to what? Toss the 'such' and expand that line just-a-little. --Izno (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
In choosing that language, I was trying to conceal my own ignorance of what sorts of rights our editors actually do have over their own contributions. In the particular case of the new editor who does not attempt anything creative with his licensing rights, is it fair to say "You surrender all legal control over the text you contribute"? If not, please show me the wikilink that will explain this to me. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 02:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The license texts themselves try to be non-threatening. Are they any use? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC) the links are shown just below the edit box in my skin :-)

OK, I think the text for the Licensing pillar that satisfies all these concerns. Let me know when you're ready to work on the other pillars! Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 03:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers

  • I've added back the text regarding wikipedia "incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." I haven't added the links because the page doesn;t need to be a sea of blue, but that text generates a vast amount of links to this page and will likely cause issues if it isn't here. I see above the reason for the change was one of tone. Having trawled through the archives I can't see the text having been challenged before 2008, when someone suggested grafting a link to notability to the end. I feel this is very important text that has become self-defining for Wikipedia, and the removal of it is actually potentially harmful for the general tone of wikipedia. Hiding T 21:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That makes sense. Given the longevity of the text, I ought to give a good reason why I think it doesn't belong.
  • If I understand correctly, this page is meant to operate like a mission statement, "indoctrinating" newbies into our non-negotiable values: Wikipedia is encyclopedic; objective; free; professional; and adaptable. My work on this page started from that premise. Correct me if that's wrong; I'll be disappointed, but I'll know to move to another page.
  • From this perspective, the pillars are working to express values -- an ethic -- a pragmatic, what-should-I-do. For example, the ethic of adaptability is: WP:IAR / Be Bold. The ethic of free content is: share -- obey the golden rule. The ethic of professionalism is: be respectful. The ethic of objectivity is, Check your biases by engaging in dialogue. And the ethic of writing an encyclopedia is NOR and V.
  • Somehow the page got away from this purpose, or else the purpose was never clearly articulated. I think the refrain "Wikipedia is..."' caused people to treat it like an encyclopedia article. If this were an encyclopedia article, the words "Encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" would belong.
  • Although I don't think the words belong here, I do agree that the words do belong somewhere, since they express something true. I would be eager to weave new wikilinks into this pillar, such as to Wikipedia#Nature_of_Wikipedia and to Wikipedia:About. (In fact, I don't think Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not should be the very first link in the pillar; I can think of several organic ways to move it to the end of the line.)
  • Hiding, you speak for a great many people who were happy with the way this page used to look, so I hope you'll stick around for a bit and continue giving feedback. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 23:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I haven't really got an issue with any of the other changes, and I agree that the page is meant to be a mission statement. Where I think we differ is that I see "incorporating..." as part of the mission statement and you don't. I don't think the page got away from its purpose, since the text has, with the exception of gazetteer, which I can take or leave, been there since day one. I'm not as good with words or articulation as you, but for me, it's akin to throwing out the reliance on reliable sources from Wikipedia:Verifiability. The definition of what we see an encyclopedia to be is important. I feel that a core part of our values is that we are encompassing in our scope, that we are almost voracious in our appetite to share, in a neutral point of view, as much as is feasible. We are free of the shackles that have limited previous encyclopedia projects; which are limited by man power, technology and cost. We have none of those shackles, because (theoretically) everyone in the world is part of the man power, the costs are minimal and the technology enabling. To find out how important this text is, just glance at WT:NOT where it is cited as we speak. I don't know how to square this circle, but I feel that the text should remain, since it is accepted at a very fundamental level by many users across the project. And now I am torn, because this is a debate I would very much like to mention in the next issue of the signpost, but being central to it, I feel my hands are somewhat tied. Hiding T 19:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Orange pillar

A couple comments: It is particularly wordy. The first sentence quite succinctly summarizes the feeling of the pillar, so I would imagine there would be a way to reduce the rest of the pillar. The other point I'd like to make is that I think the sentence on CoI might be better placed in the column on NPOV. --Izno (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • It certainly is wordy. I think (without having time to research) that the current text is a throwback to a time when this page aspired to be a "portal" to every single one of the policies and guidelines; they just crammed as many things as they could fit in there. However, I don't feel qualified to make these changes myself, since I've not yet encountered many uncivil editors and I don't know what is the most important thing to emphasize.
  • Moving CoI up to NPOV makes sense too. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's been that lengthy since antiquity. Hmm... --Izno (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Compromise solution RE 1st pillar & gazetteers/almanacs

OK, maybe we can accomplish both goals by moving the text to the end of the line, so it can appear in context. Here's a proposed revision (and notice that the wikilinks are different). Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


  • I've added it, I have no serious objections and it is certainly better than what is there. Hope that's okay. Best now to see if other people tinker. Hiding T 20:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I reverted it. I'm not averse to changes in general, but changing the big policies in an important fashion (removing the link to NOT, notably) should require more than a few users' assent. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Just FYI, I just moved the link to WP:NOT to the end of the line. Still, I am happy to continue discussing here. Protonk, I know I need to win the assent of people who oppose these changes, so can you give me an idea of which particular changes I need to better defend? Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 22:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Ah. That was my misreading. Having the link to NOT still in there allays many of my fears. Let me reread it carefully to make sure that I can detail some more substantive concerns. Protonk (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Ok. Some issues:
          • The phrase "its content has also evolved to do the work of almanacs, gazetteers, and topic-specific encyclopedias, as well as some things without precedent in other reference sources" is very different from "incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers"
          • The first link should still link to NOT, as all of the other pillars link to core policies (Rather than the about page).
        • What I like:
          • "When editors insert their own experiences, interpretations, or opinions, Wikipedia strays from its mission." is a clear improvement over the current revision.
          • "as well as some things without precedent in other reference sources." This needs to be said, though I'm not sure it has to be said here.
          • The link to not paper.
        • Thoughts on where to go from here? Protonk (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: It's too long -- Yes, I am also a fan of brevity. Just FYI, when I started this revision process a few days ago, the original text was even longer. Of course, my personal preference is to find a way to reduce each of these pillars to two or three sentences, so I don't disagree. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 23:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Why I want to rewrite the WP:IAR pillar

Since this is some of the oldest language on the page, I should start by laying out its history.

Some background research

  • When the page was created in May 2005, it was clearly an adaption of the four "key policies" listed at Wikipedia:Key Policies and Guidelines. In the original text of 4 May 2005, the additional 5th pillar was, "Wikipedia doesn't have firm rules besides the four general statements above. Wikipedia encourages everyone to engage in bold editing, moving and modifying articles." Then, in July 2005 user:Soccer-systems changed it to "...besides the five general principles elucidated here." When s/he reported this change on the talk page, User:Paul Klenk complained about the recursiveness of the first sentence and proposed deleting it. The third comment, by User:Peter, was in agreement but nothing was done.
  • On August 29, 2005, text was added to this pillar about the fact that edits are saved so don't worry about making mistakes. Since then, all changes have been cosmetic.
  • Until September 18, the page had been been titled "... unchangeable pillars". In agreeing with removing the word "unchangeable", User:Tabor noted that these pillars differ from the m:foundation issues in two ways: 1) "...does not have firm rules" is not itself one of the foundation issues, and 2) Jimbo's special authority is a foundation issue. (Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook suggests that the change from "four ...above" to "five ...here" was what created this difficulty.)
  • In November 2007, someone thought it was somewhat paradoxical to say that Wikipedia has no "rules" besides these "principles". User:Centrx responded by agreeing that these pillars were principles, not rules. No changes were made to the text.
  • In January 2008, our very own Kim Bruning rewrote to: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules perhaps not even the five general principles presented here." I can't summarize the discussion that ensued.

Why I want to rewrite the WP:IAR pillar

  • First, given my best guess of what "does not have firm rules" is trying to conjure, the text does it poorly. Here's my guess: just as WP:Ignore All Rules doesn't say to ignore all rules, but only the ones that "prevent[] you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia", our word "firm" was chosen to soften the phrase, "wikipedia does not have rules". (It wasn't taken from IAR, whose last edit prior to the creation of this page (by Kim Bruning -- yikes!) contained no such expression). However, I don't see how the word "firm" captures that nuance.
  • There is a second problem with the existing text which I mentioned above: today, this page is the closest thing we have to a mission statement. (Even though it isn't formal policy, we have to treat it like it is, because everyone else does). As I wrote above, a mission statement needs to "indoctrinate" newbies into our non-negotiable values: Wikipedia is encyclopedic; objective; free; professional; and adaptable. To do so, each pillar must express a value/ethic/pragmatic what-should-I-do. But "Wikipedia has no firm rules" treats this page more like an encyclopedia entry.
  • Finally, "besides the five general principles presented here" brings us dangerously close to 1) a principle/rule distinction that I've tried to debunk at an ongoing discussion at the NPOV talk page, 2) a recursiveness that this page's earliest editors have wanted to remove (see my research above), and 3) suggesting that this page is policy.
  • I'm not an expert on WP:IAR, but I assume the underlying message is meant to be something between the professional, "Our rules should adapt to our mission, not the other way around", and the Darwinian, "Whatever works, works". I also assume the message is deeply intertwined with the shock-value of the language, "Ignore All Rules", which is why IAR is so deeply loved around WP, even though the policy itself does not say to ignore all rules.
  • That's why I prefer variations that include the words "adapt" or "evolve," and am willing to use the word "rule" only if it results in a pillar that emphasizes loyalty to the Wikipedia mission. The following are examples:
  • "Wikipedia is adaptable. If the status quo stands in the way, challenge it."
  • "Wikipedia's rules evolve to suit its mission, not the other way around. If the status quo stands in the way, challenge it." (this has the advantage of accurately describing the content of WP:IAR.
I don't know if it's the best way to put it, but WP does indeed have some firm rules, such as the non-negotiable elements of WP:NPOV or WP:COPYRIGHT, so we can't really say that WP has no firm rules. Dreadstar ☥ 01:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Our primary [goal] once included 'greatest possible breadth', but this was overturned when notability came along - now we have a million towns nobody ever visits, and communities that maintained fancruft now have some really good and informative wikis, often on Wikia - which has ads. Copyright will change when laws change, npov has only one or two sentences that are 'non-negotiable', but if all of us suddenly decide it'll be ok and useful to write well-cited articles from both sides of a dispute, then great.    M   03:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO Whoa!

Three days ago, I quoted the five pillars as saying "Wikipedia is not...an experiment in anarchy or democracy..." to another Wikipedian. We were having a disagreement on whether his content should be removed. He just posted that he couldn't find what I was quoting. When I looked at 5P again, it was gone, along with about half of the blue pillar.

Now I have always thought of the maxims "Be bold" and "Ignore all rules" as homilies we recomended to newcomers. They were as much about our confidence that they coundn't break the wiki (that whatever they did, it was simple to revert) compared to real rules that we expected everyone to follow. Especially on the Five Pillars (or any issue relating to policy). I know that you guys (and girls) are into making changes left and right but you're going to drive the rest of us poor slobs crazy.

I know that it's considered good form to mention any changes to policies or guidelines, even small ones (say like changing ten words), on their talk page and then wait for responses. I've seen you've done this in relationship to the five pillars. Perhaps I'm wrong and the Five Pillars are always changed six times a day but I think this massive upheaval of our most basic principles deserves at least an RfC.

In my humble opinion, everyone should take a deep breath and be given an opportunity to work on all five pillars in a separate workspace (one or more subpages?) without disturbing anyone else for as long as it takes. Then, when you're all through and most people agree (over a period of at least two weeks) with the final result, you should copy that result (including all five new pillars) to the actual project page and make it official. With a temporary notice (lasting for a month or so?) that the Five Pillars have changed, perhaps drastically.

Just a suggestion from the rest of us (who really thought the Five Pillars were kind of neat, even in their old form :). --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Hi RoyGoldsmith, you've mentioned a lot of things in your post, and I can't address them all. It sounds like it was motivated by was seeing "Wikipedia is not...an experiment in anarchy or democracy..." disappear from the five pillars, so I'll respond to that. If your argument is that "it's been here forever, so it should never leave," there's not really much I can say to that. But clearly you're arguing that it did good things here, and we can disagree about that. As I've expressed (copiously) in the talk above, the first pillar said too much about Wikipedia was NOT and little about what it IS -- an encyclopedia, and all that entails. I agree with you that the text you're referencing is important, but are you aware that it's simply a copy-paste job from content that's already addressed at WP:NOT, which we still hyperlink to? I think that's satisfactory. Feedback? Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 02:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
First let me say that my incident with the blue pillar only served to make me aware of all the editing that had been done on 5P in the last few days. My overall comment is for the article itself (including all pillars). This is why I'm continuing here rather than the thread above as Agradman suggested.
Second, I do not object to anyone modifying the Five Pillars. I do object to anyone releasing such a frequently-read page without first gaining consensus. Anyone who reads the Five Pillars for the first time (as most new editors do) will find whatever version was left behind at that time. Which may be a work in progress. A newcomer may be guided by that version for months or even years. We should isolate our work until this overall modification is complete and approved by consensus and only then "release" it on the article page. That's all I'm saying. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC) (Please read my second comment below about the importance of the Five Piilars below.)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is not constrained by paper. As a result, its content has also evolved to do the work of almanacs, gazetteers, and topic-specific encyclopedias, as well as some things without precedent in other reference sources. Nevertheless, our possibilities are limited by the requirement that all claims must be verifiable with citations to reliable sources. When editors insert their own experiences, interpretations, or opinions, Wikipedia strays from its mission

This page is more like a summary, it doesn't actually have the status of policy or anything higher than policy. The section in question is described elsewhere, you should be familiar with that page before just quoting it off, so that you can better-understand what it's saying. As for policy, no, policy pages should not be 'stable', since this usually amounts to "keep it the way it is, I find it useful for shooting down people who object to me" :)    M   02:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm my opinion, the Five Pillars are English Wikipedia's principles (see the navbox at the bottom of the article) just as this statement is Wikimedia's founding principles. Other projects (Simple English Wikipedia, Wikiquotes, etc.) may have other principles. In my judgement, these principles are not summaries but take precedence over all English Wikipedia policies and guidelines (of course, assuming common sense). But I'm not saying that even principles should not be modified; see my comment above. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
M, policy pages must be stable, and you know that several people on several pages are telling you this, so please respect it. When we're editing, and we refer someone to a policy, we have to know that it more or less says what it did the last time we checked. If people are going to go around being BOLD, then no one will ever be able to rely on them. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the problem here is that one side interprets policy to mean something very specific, even at times referring to the exact wording. The other side interprets policy to mean something very broad; it's not the words but the spirit that matter…. --Izno (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I wonder whether the difference is between people who edit content a lot, and others. I notice from my own experience that frequent content contributors, especially in contentious areas, refer to policies and guidelines a lot, and get annoyed if the part they were relying on suddenly changes without discussion. People who edit less, or who always edit in non-contentious areas, might feel the spirit of the policy is all that matters. Just a guess. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the case always be, aside from the MOS, that we should refer to the spirit and not the letter? That's what IAR says too, doesn't it? Relying on the specific wording can get you in hot water, as it can backfire in ways that are disagreeable to the project as a whole (see wikilawyering). Contentious or uncontentious, I think its a fault of the contributors (in good faith) who rely on the specific wording in conflict, as that does allow for wikilawyering to arise, no? I've found my own experience on AFD matches this; sometimes, you gotta let that one article slide, because it would make the encyclopedia suck if we deleted it. --Izno (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with RoyGoldsmith. A page with such a central position in Wikipedia should not have undergone so much change without much wider discussion. A small group of editors has discussed this over a very brief time, and what is more many of the changes can scarcely be considered to have gained consensus even within that group. I am tempted to revert several of the changes, but I will hold off for now pending further discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You didn't present a reason other than to revert because you disagree with the fact the page was changed, rather than to revert because of how it was changed. Please give some real feedback. --Izno (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
That policy can be re-written so quickly is often shocking, but look, this isn't legal code here. This is a very very ugly, repetitive, poorly-written, etc. etc. jumble of documentation that says some very important things. If something goes wrong, we can change things back (or, better yet, work towards consensus). I think that the vast majority of editors don't believe that "it shouldn't change so fast, without discussion!" is not legitimate, especially if you don't think it made things worse. If you don't have a clear objection, why the heck would you oppose a change?    M   22:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I just want to chime in, to point out that Izno made a very insightful point: "Contentious or uncontentious, I think its a fault of the contributors (in good faith) who rely on the specific wording in conflict, as that does allow for wikilawyering to arise, no?"
  • I am not claiming that Izno's comment dictates that this particular set of changes should survive on this particular page. But I do hope that everyone expressing dissatisfaction with the proposed changes does agree with that comment. If they don't, I would ask you to direct me to the WP policy page where I can propose this as a matter of policy. Because it is a much bigger fish to fry than the text of WP:5P. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
M, you're wrong, most people do believe that it shouldn't change so fast without discussion. :-\ causa sui× 17:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes I believe most people would agree that changes should follow the good practice in WP:policies and guidelines rather than for articles in general. Changes should be discussed in the talk pages first unless fairly uncontroversial, and should not be restored after a single revert without such consensus. Dmcq (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


What is this?

Is this a policy, guideline, or something else? Why doesn't the page say? Joe Chill (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it's none of those things causa sui× 01:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit: disclaimer acronym added) AFAIK, It's Wikipedia's constitutional document, if you will. Barring drastic unforeseen events, these principles will not ever change, and almost all our policies/guidelines flow from them. (Since this is a wiki, the page can of course be changed and relatively minor phrasing or syntax changes are occasionally made, but alterations to the substance are extremely unlikely to stick). --Cybercobra (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
If its Wiikipedia's "Constitution" how is it that it was created by an individual editor in 2005 and not by the Foundation or Jimbo himself? How is that policies and guidelines "flow from them" if most of our policies were written BEFORE the 5 Pillars? This page is NOTHING MORE than a summary of what is common across all of our policies put together. It is not labeled as a policy for a reason, because it is a simple good starting point for learning what Wikipedia is. What is written here at the 5P is not binding upon any policy or guideline nor does it supersede them. Consensus of the Community and IAR can overturn any 5P; but 5P as currently written doesnt need to because it basically incorporates what we must do legally anyways (not copyright infring for example) and other consensus' that are unlikely to be overturned; so its a moot point to say IAR can affect the 5P because you would never need to ignore the 5P in the first place in order to improve the encyclopedia (and IAR can not by definition be used in any manner that is not improving Wikipedia).Camelbinky (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
My comment merely stated my personal understanding in an attempt to be helpful. I have tweaked my comment to clarify this. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
It is in effect my understanding too. It is that because it is read by a wide variety of people in Wikipedia and accepted as that. It is the first entry in the principles template stuck onto many policy and other pages. That is what consensus decision is about and in Wikipedia all decisions on content are supposed to be by consensus. That was a founding principle. Dmcq (talk) 11:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
As to being labelled it is in Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Have a look. Dmcq (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
It is not a policy; and perhaps you should read the archived discussions of this page and get a better understanding of the history of this page and why it is not a policy and is not a Constitution and policies do not have to obey what is written here.Camelbinky (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion, all anybody cares is that you follow the five pillars. I don't know why you go on about anything obeying anything as you want to write a section into the leader of every policy saying people don't need to follow it. Dmcq (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I never said that, and I would like an apology from you for again putting words in my mouth and attempting to say that I "want" to do something when I am the only one qualified to say what I want and do not want to do, and you do a crummy job explaining what I want because you get it wrong. I dont have to follow the 5 Pillars, IAR already tells you that you do not have to follow a policy if it keeps you from improving the encyclopedia. I dont need to write into a section in the leader of every policy saying what you "think" I want to do because it is already there in the hatnote template that explains a policy- "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." does not mean you must follow it. The thing I do have a problem with are people who throw around the statement "policies flow from the 5 pillars" because that is not correct, policies existed prior to the 5 pillars and in no way has consensus EVER said we now hold the pillars as something "above" policies, in fact I've never heard anything "codified" that explains just what the point of labelling "principals of Wikipedia". Again, the previous archived discussions on this very talk page make that clear. Since we are both working on the policies and guidelines page look at the policy infobox on the side and the policies and guidelines box at the bottom of that page, do you see the 5P mentioned in either? I dont. The box you mention that lists the five pillars first, well it says its a "statement". A statement doesnt seem very authoritative. You have said multiple times that you believe our policies are laws, this is another push for that agenda. I have many times stated what my agenda is- to protect IAR and make sure policies are not described nor enforced as laws. I'm honest with my agenda whereever I go, perhaps you may want to be equally forthcoming with any bias you may have when you are talking at these locations.Camelbinky (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Quote from Camelbinky on WT:Policies and guidelines:
"Like I've said many times, I couldnt care less what is on this page as long as nothing can be construed in any fashion by any editor that there are hard and fast rules that are laws, or anything that weakens IAR or makes common sense unneeded because "policies are laws and enforced as such". As long as nothing is inserted that does that, you can edit the entire page to say "silly boy blue, badoop adoop, fly me to the moon" for all I care. Actually, anyone who can find a legitimate way to add that to ANY policy would get a barnstar from me and become my hero.Camelbinky (talk) 03:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)"
Dmcq (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The only point from that quote I see that you can then go and say "Camelbinky wants to..." is that "Camelbinky wants to give a barnstar to whomever can put 'silly boy blue, badoop adoop, fly me to the moon' into any policy". Perhaps instead of copy-pasting things out of context you may want to spend your time keeping your mouth shut about "what Camelbinky wants to do" and just apologize for your comment. Never did I say I wanted to add anything to every policy page, I said I simply didnt want any policy to be enforced or worded as if it is to be enforced as a law. Stop putting things out of context.Camelbinky (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I see no smiley marker on your joke. Perhaps you could explain it for me. Dmcq (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Smiley face? Did I go to myspace by accident? I'm sorry, I dont see the need to use emoticons or any other highschool accoutrements, when adults should have a basic usage and understanding of context. Whatamidoing seems to have gotten the joke just fine, seeing as how you have since posted after he responded with an answer about my joke (understanding it in the manner it was supposed to be) and in which I responded back congratulating him for finding a place for the joke and I even used the word "wikihumour". So how is it exactly that you didnt understand it was a joke? I think playing dumb about it is wrong, along with trying to use it out of context to justify an accusation that I am still waiting for an apology about. You put words in my mouth and tried to make it seem like I am trying to do something I am not. Why is an apology so hard? How about you stop trying to justify your actions and apologize.Camelbinky (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
What I have written is my assessment of what you meant. It is still my opinion after reading what you have written above. If you could write shorter paragraphs which were more to the point then you might convey what you really mean better. And could you please leave out all the personal attack business. That would I believe be the best way to avoid incorrect impressions. As it is I still don't know quite what you're complaining about only that you don't like what I've written. Dmcq (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Label this as an infopage

Since it has been mentioned that 5P is part of the the group in the box at the bottom labelled as Wikipedia principles, and there is confusion as to what this page is, I suggest it be labelled with {{infopage}}

, just as the "ruleset" page is labelled. The ruleset page is the second on the list (going from left to right) and since some seem to think that 5P being mentioned first means it is the most important it seems that the ruleset page is second important (unless you grow up reading Hebrew as I did in which case 5P would be the least important based on position, in my own mind). Civil discussion as to whether this page should be labelled as infopage please.Camelbinky (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, based on WP:NOTAG. Tagging "everything" should not be an endorsed practice. Mu. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, arguments can be made for it being more than merely informational. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, it has been accepted as a principles page for some time now. Wikipedia is required to make its own decisions about content. Dmcq (talk) 08:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
As long as it has some kind of introductory sentence, like the one I recently added (or something similar), I don't see the need for any additional tag.--Kotniski (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
In fact, there is no need for an introductory sentence, and convention is to go with the status quo when introducing new changes until we reach consensus through talk page discussion -- not to for them through with tendentious reverting. :\ causa sui× 22:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually Causa sui what Kotniski did was the way things are done. It's called being bold, and is the inherent right of every Wikipedian, as long as it doesnt escalate to edit warring. He had good faith to believe his edit was not controversial so he added an introductory sentence without discussing; that's his right to do so. Changes do not have to come after consensus if they are not controversial. Convention has NEVER, LET ME REPEAT NEVER been to go with the "status quo", Wikipedia changes and changes often as new consensus' come in, we are not conservative by nature, all wiki's are by definition liberal.Camelbinky (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Capital letters are considered shouting or ranting, see WP:TALK Dmcq (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Please dont start. They are for putting an emphasis on things. I am not a teenager texting or twittering, this is not myspace with little emoticons and slang like LOL. I was not shouting nor do I recognize such things. I write like I want and wont be dragged into another insane argument with you. I'm ignoring you. Take me to the civility police if you think my bold statements are so offensive.Camelbinky (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The civility policy is just as important as ignore all rules. Ignore all rules does not entitle one to ignore civility. Dmcq (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Causa, why do you say there is no need for an introductory sentence? If we have no sentence and no tag (and it's unlikely that any of the standard tags fit this page, so tagging in this case effectively means putting the introductory sentence into a box), then people coming to this page won't know what its purpose or status is. Why would we want to add to the mystery here? (That's not to say someone might not improve the introductory sentence we currently have.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd thing

It seems a bit strange (considering that everyone says these principles are fundamental, and that policies are more fundamental than guidelines) that one of the principles is identified with (linked to) the page WP:Etiquette, which is a guideline rather than a policy. In other words, either the etiquette page should become a policy, or the link should go somewhere else (or have no link at all, if the "code of conduct" Wikipedia is alleged to have is not documented on any particular page).--Kotniski (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Another odd thing is that the talk page is categorized as an information page, but the page itself is categorized in the policy and guideline category when this page has never been labeled as either.Camelbinky (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Only the page itself and not the talk page should be put in that category so I'll remove it. Don't know why anyone stuck it on a talk page. Dmcq (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
You put that category on this page by using the infopage tag in the previous section. Dmcq (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Oops, thank you for pointing that out. However the page itself should not be in the category of policies and guidelines as it is not labeled as either and is not either.Camelbinky (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Getting back to the original subject that started this section, you could start a thread on WT:Etiquette about this. It is strange. I think it probably would be better if the main points in the 5P had policy pages backing them up, otherwise one can't really say they are coequal. I'm not keen on an Animal Farm problem of some are more equal than others. Dmcq (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Civility is the policy. You'd have to explore the history (and archived discussions) of at least these 3 pages (Etiquette, Civility, 5P) to determine how and why they are split. Let us know what you discover. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a good wiki-historian - I prefer to spend time putting things right rather than wondering about how they got to be how they are. So to that end, I have tried to reword this point in such a way that it links to the policy (and later will possibly propose rewording/renaming the policy, once I've got a plan clear in my head).--Kotniski (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I think there is no problem with linking to guidelines and that the rule of thumb should be that you should link to whatever (whether policy or guideline) that is most relevant and not the broadest overview just because it is a policy. Naming convention guidelines are actually more restrictive and more detailed and have greater say than the relevant policy as one example. If you are talking about reliable sources link to WP:RS not WP:V as another. A link shouldnt be to a broad category policy where once there the reader is likely to have to click on another link to get to the actual thing in which the original page was talking about.Camelbinky (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help - history question

i don't understand.

history is a passion of mine. it always has been. i recently added a bit of information about a member of the English royal family (Elizabeth of Great Britain- daughter of George III), and it was removed. perhaps it was seen as offensive, or unimportant, i don't know. but it was true, as seen from letters written from her to her siblings, and what she had written about herself (which comes from a written source from a wonderful historian, Flora Fraser).

history, i find, is always made more interesting by knowing something that acts as a hook, that identifies the individual with their time, and with their own place (in this case, within their family).

so, i repeat, i do not understand. obviously there's a great deal i need to learn about wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Addyit (talk • contribs) 20:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't they give a reason when they reverted? You could raise it on the talk page and then people can give a longer explanation if they object to it. There is a problem with sticking things in to wikipedia with 'true' things, you need it written down somewhere and if it is anyway controversial that has to be a reliable source. So if you can put a citation of that historian saying the book and preferably the page as well that as much or than most people do. Anyway the talk page of the article is the first place to go to. Dmcq (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I had a look, they though you were a vandal, probably because they didn't believe it and you provided no citation. Thast sort of thing very much does need a good citation. Dmcq (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the current ongoing discussions is what sidebar template to use on policy pages. Dmcq made an excellent point in another conversation: we don't want to give the impression of "a thousand random rules". I would love to have one link that I can add to all policy templates that would never overwhelm an editor, no matter how short their attention span, that communicates all the basics. This page (5P) is pretty close to that ideal, close enough, but it would be better without the footer ... if some editor has been sent to a policy page because they need to learn the basics, and if they've got a little more time for browsing, I'd much rather we direct them to WP:V or WP:NOR rather than a history lesson or a Foundation page. Would this page work without a footer? - Dank (push to talk) 22:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the present footer isn't ideal - it seems to overemphasize the importance of a couple of obscure pages, and of policies over guidelines. It might be better replaced with a "see also" section.--Kotniski (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
My gut reaction is, changing or eliminating that template is above my pay grade ... I'm just thinking that if the RFC at the Pump goes through and we add sidebars to every policy page that link to 5P, and if 5P keeps that footer, then that's giving all those links a big bump in prominence, which is going to annoy people (in particular, they're going to be annoyed with me :) I don't mind keeping that footer on the policy and "principle" pages that already have it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I've temporarily removed the footer while the RfC is going on, so that people won't think we're trying to promote all those links. If people don't care one way or the other during the RfC, I'll self-revert when it's over. - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me without the template. I think that principles template would be better off merged into the big policies template stuck on the bottom of most of the policies pages - it gives that template a bit of context. The categories listed at the bottom of this page are now more prominent which is no bad thing. The policies and guidelines page has a header which directs one to a page about them. The basic information category though just seems to say to me it is a rag bag for administrator which I don't think is good. Dmcq (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
No objection. I'm putting my energy into the sidebars, I'll back off from discussions on the footers. - Dank (push to talk) 17:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I made/added the footer in 2006, to replace the See also links. See this thread and the one below for background details/context. Mostly just fyi, though we might consider replacing some of the links, somehow? Perhaps the footer template would be acceptable here if tweaked slightly? (maybe remove the link to Jimbo's statement? The foundation principles link seems particularly worth retaining, imo). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Now go and edit

A bit I would like to see with the 5P is that people who had read this would then have a 'now go and edit' at the end with a pointer to an easy introduction to editing. This is a good summary of basic principles but th hole point is to get an encyclopaedia written. The only think in the 5 pillars itself about actually editing leads off to WikiMedia! Dmcq (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you thinking of an extra sentence in the 3rd pillar, or a footnote that says something like "Now that you know what Wikipedia is, go edit something"? - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
It would certainly be better that a pointer to a founding principle in WikiMedia. That link shouldn't be there at all I think as it is not a current policy but a founding principle. I like the bit in the 5th principle about your mistakes don't matter. A template at the bottom about starting off would perhaps be the way to do it though it could be called basic information to sound more hifalutin. Dmcq (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
This is an interesting idea. I think it's a good idea to encourage new people to go ahead and edit Wikipedia and learn our conventions as they go along. causa sui× 17:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR

I think this ought to be left out. This smacks of "content creep" in policies where people have a favorite policy that they think is Very Important and that Everyone Should Follow, so they try to make sure it is mentioned explicitly in every other policy, related or not. causa sui× 16:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't like 3RR at all, but still think it ought to be mentioned, precisely because it's such an egregious rule that no-one could reasonably anticipate, yet is quite likely to get you blocked without warning. It seems only fair to the newcomers who might be reading this page to let them know about it. It's really the only rule (as opposed to principle) that you need to know about on WP.--Kotniski (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
If they discussed with politeness on the talk page instead of edit warring it wouldn't get to that stage is my feeling. The Five p[ilars should describe things for people with good intentions. Dmcq (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
You think that anyone who breaks 3RR without being aware of it has bad intentions? Interesting...--Kotniski (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I do too. If someone makes the same change four times without so much as discussing it, they are clearly determined to change the article without regard to whether or not their change is a good one. Besides, it's a requirement to make someone aware of 3RR before they can be blocked for it. WFCforLife (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Who said it has to be the same change? Who says they're not discussing it? Who says it isn't a change that the editor (or any reasonable person) would consider obviously good? And I'm not sure that in practice people aren't blocked for 3RR with no warning. (Remember that WP norms are by no means intuitive for people - even good people, the sort we want to work with - when they're not yet used to them.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I think I'll withdraw what I said. Even without considering straight mistakes there's lots of people with good intentions as far as the encyclopaedia is concerned who'll get into edit wars. It can be a learning experience getting on without that. Dmcq (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


help:five pillars

Our current mission at the Wikipedia:Help Project is to provide a number of introductory articles that lead new users through the basics of WP in an semi-ordered fashion! To achieve aid this I have created Help:Five pillars, this adds a brief explanation at the top, transcludes this page, and then a couple of links at the bottom for users to get to the next intro. The links and order of them are very much work in progress, but would appreciate it if someone could check my introductory paragraph (as I did get a bit dramatic) to ensure it is in the correct spirit :) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 02:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What I'd like is a template at the bottom of th Five pillars page itself that was associated with an introduction to WIkipedia, that pointed to a couple of things like Help pages and help desk, editing introduction, this for basic principles. The basics for a new editor. Dmcq (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
We are toying with Wikipedia:Help Project/Overview/Accessible Nav Box, placing it at the bottom of a couple of the new introductions, is that the ticket ? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 21:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
That might be nice Lee. Also Dmcq, there's been another suggestion like yours to have a stop light kind of dealie, like the vandalism level warning graphic. Can you flush out your vision of that a little more? JoeSmack Talk 04:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

summarized by editors

Just wondering if it has been discussed before about dropping the 'by editors' from first line - I'm not sure if its necessary? Whilst we're at it how about changing 'have been' to 'can be' or 'are' i.e change to 

The fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates can be summarized in the form of five "pillars":
Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 02:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Sounds OK to me.--Kotniski (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Why can't it just be "The fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates are 'the five pillars':"? Or to follow usual lede formulation of title first, "'The five pillars' are the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates:" Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I prefer leevanjackson's suggested wording, as this is a summary page; we didn't start with the pillars, from which came the rules; we started with the rules, from which were derived these five pillars.--Father Goose (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, OK. How about
"The five pillars" summarize the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates:
Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
That'd work for me.--Father Goose (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WMF

I wonder if the Wikimedia Foundation's Mission Statement and Vision Statement merit inclusion in some way, perhap as a "See also"? They're fundamental fundamentals, as it were. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Therer used to be a template at the bottom for stuff like that. No I don't think it should be in the main body as they are the Foundations principles and what they wanted, they are not the consensual basis for how editors work. Dmcq (talk) 08:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Priorities

"Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here."

This wording seems to imply that IAR doesn't apply to the other things listed on the page. That is, that you can't ignore NPOV, V, RS, NOR, &c. Is this the intention? Should IAR be renamed accordingly (ignore minor rules?)? Peter jackson (talk) 11:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I think there's a difference between a principle and a rule. A rule can be followed or (sometimes) not, depending on what's better for the encyclopedia. A principle can't exactly be ignored, but you can find different ways of translating it into practice in a given situation. --Kotniski (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree with that. In fact some people get hot under the collar if one describes a policy as a rule but you can decide for yourself how to treat it. The five pillars are definitely principles, the policy WP:IAR is a policy corresponding to this principle which says a bit more about applying it only in order to improve the encyclopaedia. That is assumed here as there's no point of quoting principles to vandals but policies are useful for admins acting against them. Dmcq (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
If you could successfully persuade the majority that deliberately introducing bias, refusing to back upclaims, removing reliable sources and making things up improved wikipedia, I'm sure there would be several law firms interested in your services. WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 12:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, that happens in some articles, where the majority of editors accept the same WP:TRUTH. Peter jackson (talk) 11:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Peter Jackson. The point of IAR is that it applies to everything, including itself. If it doesn't apply to everything, it applies to nothing.*(excepting legal requirements external to Wikipedia policy) causa sui (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • My take on IAR is that it applies to every rule because we go by principles, not rules, and if a rule gets the principle wrong, we ignore it. The principles outlined on this page are indeed the most fundamental, and most widely upheld, on Wikipedia, although the rules that attempt to put such principles into practice are ignored as need be.
  • The most important question is whether the phrasing "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here" causes wikilawering. If it doesn't, then I think people are correctly gathering its meaning.--Father Goose (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • If that's the case, then the existing wording is a category error. We say "Wikipedia does not have firm rules, besides the five general principles outlined here." This is grammatically correct, but logically incoherent. If the content of this page is principles, not rules, then "Wikipedia does not have firm rules" should not require any exception. causa sui (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not exactly true. There are rules, the firmness or softness of which largely varies from one page to another and depends on which editors are involved at any given moment. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia

I still think elevating Encyclopedia to a FA should be a wiki-wide priority, as particularly relevant to the 5P and many other WP namespace pages. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please join us there. Wolfkeeper is trying to deprecate the importance of the etymology and characteristics sections, currently, as part of his NOTDIC misinterpretation campaign (a bit of background here). The article could use many more eyeballs and brains. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment, but I'm not sure what I could contribute to that particular discussion and I don't imagine engagement would be productive unfortunately. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. I'm thinking at some point we'll need an RfC on "articles about words" and lexical information in general in order to settle the issue more forcefully.--Father Goose (talk) 06:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Probably so. Regardless of that issue, I find it downright embarrassing that Encyclopedia is not a better article, and to some extent the fact that it's not renders the claim "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" less meaningful. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Negativist 1:st pillar

OK, the pillar is fine, but the text in the Wikipedia article is whining negativism. What Wikipedia is really: it's a massive set of information working somewhat like an encyclopedia, i.e. it provides (in the good-quality articles):

  • information that is comparatively persistent, is referenced and controllable,
  • information that properly reflects the knowledge of humankind,
  • information that is unbiased from all known human subgroup biases, i.e. objective,
  • information that is relevant for the reader,
  • information that is complete (in the topical sense),
  • information that is vast,

It is also a community, of:

  • a fair level of diplomacy and politeness — a vastly underestimated skill in real life,
  • a discussion club about the presentation of facts — i.e. a training ground for personal author plans.

Just so you know how phantastique it is! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I forgot:
  • it is also comprehensive, readable and orientable.
Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't necessarily agree with all of that (not as text for this page, anyway), but I certainly agree that we should be being positive rather than negative in this pillar.--Kotniski (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree on the slight negative tone, it could be reworded to have same content, here's a starter - 'It is not a dictionary, newspaper, or a collection of source documents; that kind of content should be contributed instead to the Wikimedia sister projects.' -> Wikimedia sister projects cover contributions not suitable for Wikipedia e.g. dictionary entries, news items, and source documents.' - maybe link to sister project for each type?--Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 14:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Instead of all the WP:NOT links, why not link to wiktionary, wikinews and wikisource? WFCforLife (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Here's a thought. Actually, saying what it is is more negative and limiting than saying what it isn't, because saying what it is automatically excludes everything else. We know for sure what Wikipedia is not, but we don't want to have it written into our fundamental policies that we must pursue one particular direction in the future, because Wikipedia is organic and growing. causa sui× 16:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Change of meaning.

At some point in August, the Blue pillar changed from: 

"All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references."

changed to: 

Content should be verified with citations to reliable sources.

Which is blatantly false. This has since morphed into: 

Content should be verifiable with citations to reliable sources.

Which is not as bad, but still kind of misleading, since sourcing is only required for contentious information, quotes, and negative BLP claims. So I'm making a change to: 

Content should be verifiable; this is demonstrated by citations to reliable sources

Gigs (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with what you have done. There seem to have been a lot of changes in August discussed here, most of which have been since been changed back[2]. --Rumping (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It's better than the intermediaries, but is it really an improvement on the original? I'm tending to think we ought to revert back to the original version. causa sui× 07:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought about this some more, and I really like the original version the best. The "strive for" language emphasizes the disdain for perfection. If there aren't other suggestions, I think we should stick with the status quo here. causa sui× 16:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with that perspective. Original was superior wording. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Fine with me. Gigs (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding the last statement

The last point says 'Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here'. Shouldn't it be the four general rules because the 5th point is not a rule, it's a statement. Besides, we are referring to the 4 rules (or focal points) above. So I think it should say instead: 'Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the four general principles presented here', because the last point is not a rule.Sir Stupidity (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You could leave out the number and avoid the issue completely. And it has the advantage of brevity. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Six pillars

The second pillar is clearly two pillars. Why are NPOV and V lumped together? They are quite different. I propose making it six pillars, which will also solve the "Islam" problem that won't go away. Zerotalk 15:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The second pillar covers "article content". (The first pillar is "article selection", and 3rd to 5th are obvious.)
I don't think the semantic similarity to the Five Pillars of Islam is a problem. It only gets brought up here twice a year or so, usually by non-Muslims. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, Quiddity. And anyway those making that weak and odd complaint would still not avoid that (wholly imagined) problem with six: Sixth Pillar of Islam. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The fourth pillar is clearly two pillars, as well. Consensus and civility are very different. Civility is how you treat others. Consensus is how you reach a decision. And sometimes, to get a consensus, some incivility pops up. It's the nature of the beast. Kingturtle (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesnt matter if two separate ideas are put under one heading point. The 5P are nothing more than a summary of existing policy, guidelines, and our general way of doing things. They are not a Constitution or set of laws, nor are they were our policies flow from. So as one could summarize the ten commandments or the bill of rights into three or four points so too can you take unrelated things dealing with the same broad topic and condense them. Civility and consensus have to do with discussing issues and talk pages and that is how they are related, it is non-article space regarding communication and discussion. We need to get away from the mindset of this page (which is not policy btw and does not override policy) of being where we state new ideas, new ideas start with policy and guidelines and as those get rewritten we then rewrite the 5P to conform to our new way of doing things as codified in policy/guidelines. The 5P must be changed to reflect policy, not policy must conform to the 5P. The 5P must be broad and vague in order to allow us to have as much leeway as possible in rewritting policy as new needs and situations arise. If we allow the 5P to turn into the 6P or 7P by splitting up pillars and making them more exact and less vague then we are setting up laws. Wikipedia has NO LAWS, and that includes the 5P.Camelbinky (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
You're saying there's no binding principles at all. So if a group of people went through and changed all of the policies/guidelines simultaneously, maybe removed WP:IAR or watered it down, and changed the rule about consensus so that it no longer applied to the group, that that's logically OK? That there's no general principles, it's just what the policies/guidelines say, and that a sufficiently big change (over a short period, or long period) could make it say virtually anything?????- Wolfkeeper 16:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm saying there are general principles like 'wikipedia is an encyclopedia' 'neutral point of view' etc. These are fundamental and cannot be changed. If the policy on them was changed so that they were no longer pretty much amounting to the same thing, the policy would have to be changed, not the principles.- Wolfkeeper 16:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there are such principles, but they don't derive from any page such as this one.--Kotniski (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Principles are abstract concepts. This is a page of text. Are you saying that there are abstract concepts in the form of principles, that the Wikipedia follows, that are not described at this page?- Wolfkeeper 18:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I would guess he is referring to meta:Founding principles? -- Quiddity (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe that any page, either here or at meta or anywhere else, authoritatively documents these principles. They are in people's minds. Both this page and the meta page do a pretty good job of describing them (after the fact), but that's all - the principles don't flow from either of these pages.--Kotniski (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, WP:ZEN. Well then... Glad that's clear.     ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The Ten Commandments have been summarized (nsfw). There were really only 2... :) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Speaking ONLY for myself and this is only one interpretation of Wikipedia, but it is shared by many- no, there is absolutely nothing that can not be changed on Wikipedia as long as consensus allows it to be changed. So yes, if consensus was for there to longer be IAR or that from then on out there would be no need for consensus then that is the way Wikipedia would be. With the exception that Jimbo and/or the Foundation may intervene (and Jimbo has intervened to protect IAR). If consensus/majority of Wikipedians want to change a policy so that it contravenes existing US law then it can, but then so can the US take legal action against the Foundation for allowing it. But there is absolutely nothing in our policies that state we absolutely MUST have something and NEVER change. We can allow Original Research if enough people decide that our encyclopedia would be better served by it. Is it realistic for anyone in these discussions about the 5P/laws/principles to ever bring up "well, what if someone wants to get rid of WP:V?" no because it would never get a consensus, so you can call WP:V a "law" if you want, but it can be changed by consensus and completely scrapped at ANYTIME; but it wont ever because those of us on Wikipedia hold it dear. The 5P do not mean anything other than some people have mistaken it for something it is not because too many people started listing it in the welcome/greeting for newbies as a good place to start learning our ways and it got misconstrued by them; the Trifecta is no different other than it is less popular now. I wish the 5P would be deleted altogether in favor of the Tri in that the Tri is more broad and vague and much more in-line with being a summary rather than a trying to be a codified Constitution of Wikipedia.Camelbinky (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I edited

diff in question.

Do you agree with what I did? I added to the fifth pillar to prevent misinterpretation that the fifth pillar means you are free to vandalize. Us441 (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems fairly acceptable to me. The policy on Vandalism wasn't linked until you added it, so I guess it might help. It's common sense, but some people require blunt statements ("clue by four"). Possibly the addition could be phrased more eloquently. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I like the message intent, but would prefer a warning like "Vandalism is disruptive." Being that a pillar is better established as what it is, and not in the negative "don't" as to what not to do. In my opinion negatives may setup for the Falacy#Fallacy_of_False_Cause. Having a clear statement about what vandalism is, would help avoid this. I realize this may be nit picking; however, I have observed too many editors apparently bossing others around with, "no's and don't" which in the excess, I find to be objectionable. Eds should simple state what they want, and avoid telling other what not to do. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Accessibility

If this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, why isn't one of the founding principles that it should be the encyclopedia anyone can read? Accessibility is core to the goal of Wikipedia. See m:Mission statement "... and to disseminate it effectively and globally" --RexxS (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this in regards to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (accessibility)#Rowspan and colspan, answer from an accessibility expert ?
I'm not sure what you're specifically requesting, or complaining about...? If it's the lack of mention of WP:ACCESSIBILITY here, then you should be aware that there are many (hundreds of) policies and guidelines that aren't specifically mentioned in the 5 pillars. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
That was certainly what prompted this line of thought. My complaint is that our documentation of the pillars of Wikipedia (not policies, not guidelines) fails to mention anything about ensuring that everybody is able to enjoy the content we all work so hard to produce. I simply would have thought that it is an obvious omission from our stated guiding principles. The details of how that principle can be implemented indeed does belong to the realms of policy, guideline, and essay, but the principle itself belongs here. It is a far broader concept than just ACCESSIBILITY. I hope that makes it clearer for you. --RexxS (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
RexxS, please read the thread above title Six Pillars. The 5 Pillars are nothing beyond a summary of our existing policy and ways of doing things. They mean nothing and have no authority. It seems your problem is that you are confusing the concept of pillars and principles with something that this page is not. Policy is the highest authority on Wikipedia, even Jimbo follows policy and (to my knowledge) has never said he is above following them (though he may still have the right to unilaterally change them as far as I know), ArbCom is not above policy either; I assume maybe only the Foundation can do things without fear of retribution for ignoring policy and they sure as hell dont care about the 5P.Camelbinky (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I have to say I find your interpretation rather idiosyncratic. I thought that the 5P had a rather higher authority than that, and that those principles are documented here. Here's what ArbCom had to say about 5P today] (and I suspect I can find more examples):
  • "Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists." – Passed 10 to 0, 22:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you can help me reconcile that apparent incongruity? --RexxS (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Look at the oldest very first archive of this very talk page. The 5P was set up by ONE PERSON, as a welcome to new editors to summarize our policies for them; it was not a community effort at a constitution nor an effort to put something higher than policies. Most of the major policies predate the 5P. I have changed this post to reflect my opinion after I read the Arbcom decision in context which your snippet is not in context and is misleading. Arbcom said that being "neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research" were not negotiable, NOT that the 5P themselves were not negotiable. The 5P is simply an easy way to link to where we have summarized our policies and "founding principles" the 5P themselves are NOT our founding principles. Sloppy writing and misinterpretations are why many users misunderstand this concept. I think Arbcom was a bit sloppy in that and should be more careful, since they are NOT above policy and neither are the 5P, and both Arbcom and the 5P only exist because consensus of the Community is to allow them to exist and both can be changed and destroyed whenever the consensus of Wikipedians decide.Camelbinky (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Addendum- oh and the 5P werent the "founding principles" they were not established by Jimbo and they Wikipedia had existed for quite some time before they were written!Camelbinky (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

One of us is having reading difficulties. Which part of "Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles [plural] (the Pillars [links to this page]) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled." did I misinterpret? --RexxS (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is you. The founding principles, as in neutrality et al, are not to be overruled or negotiable (and actually yes, they can if consensus says so, but it wont, it is a moot point). Arbcom is using the 5P link as a place where people may go to see a summary of our principles, the 5P are NOT the principles themselves nor does policy flow from the 5P, nor does the 5P have any authority or power. They are a summary. I do not know how more clearly I can say that. Perhaps if you take a day or two to read all the archived discussions of this talk page you can get a better idea of what this page is about (and yes, I have read every single archived thread of this talk page). I know User:Kotniski is much more linguistically capable than I am and so if you have any more questions please bother him with them, I have done all I can because your proposal doesnt have a WP:SNOWBALL chance in putting in that info in the 5P because that's not what the 5P is here for.Camelbinky (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't know about my linguistic capability, but I would just say that ArbCom's voting to say that something is true doesn't make it true. The thrust of the ArbCom statement is that certain fudnamental principles are non-negotiable, i.e. above consensus - therefore we might hope (if ArbCom means what it says) that in future ArbCom will make decisions that support those who have been upholding those principles against those who claim a "consensus" to override them (or no consensus to follow them). (In fact, ArbCom will probably just carry on imposing blocks on both sides like it usually does.) Anyway, the fact that they chose to include in that statement an incidental explanatory link, in parentheses, to this page, after the words "those founding principles", can't possibly make this page become the founding principles - partly because this page didn't even exist when Wikipedia was "founded", and partly because it is continually updated anyway. This page just gives a reasonably good introductory explanation of the principles. That's all; there's no magic.--Kotniski (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Amen.Camelbinky (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct category?

This page is listed in Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Problem: It's not a policy, and it's not a guideline.

Should this be moved to Category:Wikipedia essays, or should we remove the policy cat entirely, and leave it only in Category:Wikipedia basic information? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a summary of policies and guidelines, it's related and thus it belongs in the category.
This is related to the discussion currently going on at Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines#Shortcuts_masking_essay_status. Instead of repeating what's there I'll just link to the discussion. -- Ϫ 06:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
What is correct this is not a policy nor a guideline. I would say this is not related to the above discussion and please dont confuse the two. What is very active on both pages and it is just a coincidence I am sure. Other than that the Category:Wikipedia basic information is much more exact in what this page is. It is basic information. NOTHING MORE. I dont know of any other pages in the policy/guideline category which are NOT policies. This is an essay or information page.Camelbinky (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The essay tag includes the line "Consider these views with discretion." I hope that's not what you believe about the content of this page. Of course it's basic information, I'm sure everyone is well aware of that fact. Readers come here for a quick summary of our fundamental policies, it's just a starting point to other important pages. Other summary-type pages in the Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines category include Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines and even User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles. So it really makes no sense to remove just this one page from that category. -- Ϫ 07:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
And this is why editors get confused, as in two of the threads above, about what exactly this page is. It is a serious problem around Wikipedia, users going around thinking policy flows from the 5P, that our principles are this page (this page is not our principles!), and that this page is non-negotiable. 5P should never be quoted in a discussion/dispute, they should be used with discretion because they are a summary and do not give the whole story and can be misused. They shouldnt be used at all. If you have a point to make, use the specific POLICY, policy has teeth, this does not. This page means NOTHING. This page can be changed, even WP:V and WP:NOR can be scrapped altogether if Jimbo and the Foundation did not step in to overrule a consensus of Wikipedians that we wanted to scrap it, and then the 5P would have to be changed. We are under no obligation to follow the 5P and they have nothing to do with our policies other than it was someone's idea to greet newbies. Should the greeting/welcome templates be labeled with the same policy/guideline category then? Those templates are no different than this page. Why isnt the WP:Trifecta labeled under this category? I assume you'll support me if I add that page to this category and get any resistance. The disclaimers on the Trifecta page making it clear it is not a policy should be on this page, along with stronger wording that this page has nothing to do with making consensus or policy decisions.Camelbinky (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The biggest problem with the trifecta is the "don't be a dick". That does not point to a policy and it is used in an aggressive way by dicks to downplay other peoples concerns. I feel it is opposed the the civility policy. Dmcq (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
But if someone is a dick, why cant it get taken care of by pointing to a real policy? Why does the Trifecta or the 5P need to get involved? Yea, you shouldnt be a dick. It's a good point. I dont know why either page needs to get anything more than a basic point across. I just dont see the good in having the 5P around anymore. Just breeds more trouble than it is worth. Look at the amount of discussions it causes.Camelbinky (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Can't say I worry overmuch if people want to spend time on these type pages, the big thing is how much trouble does it cause for article pages and does it hinder or help new editors? I've seen no evidence of any damage caused by this page and it seems quite helpful for getting new editors up to speed. Dmcq (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
To clarify:
  • I do not support adding the {{essay}} tag to this page, even though the page is technically an essay.
  • I do not support changing anything on this page except one of the categories. The problem is not the contents of the page; it's the inaccurate category.
  • I object to the category solely on the grounds that the presence of the "policy" category might be misleading to those who aren't already in on the secret. WP:5P is not a policy or guideline — everyone in this discussion already knows that — and IMO it should not be presented as such, because most new editors do not already know what each of us knows. Correcting this misleading category should increase understanding and add to Wikipedia's transparency. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree. If this page only listed&linked to policies/guidelines, then I'd say it was equivalent to the other "list of ..." pages in that category. But this page currently links to many mainspace articles, help pages, and an essay, without obvious distinction. Hence the category might be misleading.
Does this mean we should also move the "Statement of Principles" into Category:Wikipedia Basic information?
Everything else, I've said at the other thread, that OE linked to above. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I can agree with that. Jimbo's statement could go in basic information too I think. Dmcq (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
checkY Done. I've also tagged it for WikiProject Essays, since this is obviously one of the most important essays.
On a related note, how about creating a dab-like page under WP:PRINCIPLES? It could list 5P, Trifecta, WP:BRIEF, Jimbo's statement, and anything else we can find. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you could explain why you oppose marking it as an essay and then go and mark it as an essay? Are we really to treat 5P with discretion? It has very widespread support. Dmcq (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Slapping the large, graphical {{essay}} template across the top of the page is not at all the same as listing it in the proper category. My thought with the cat was that it might double the odds of someone stumbling across it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Basic information seems sufficient to me. At a push the former category could be justified. After all, this is a high-profile, incomplete list of policies and guidelines. It's definitely not an essay though. --WFC-- 23:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    From WP:ESSAYS: "Untagged pages in the Wikipedia namespace are assumed to be essays." This page is widely supported, but so are many other essays, like WP:BRD and WP:TE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    When someone quotes 5P, they are almost always using it to quote multiple policies and guidelines at once; whether or not this is one itself is largely moot. If it can be assumed by those who are interested that this is an essay without explicitly tagging or categorising it, that strike me as the way to go. --WFC-- 03:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
If a newbie has violated multiple policies how is it in any way a good idea to quote the 5P at them? One- it gives them the idea that the 5P is a page of authority, we've established it is not. Second- it does not teach them exactly what they did wrong nor why we do things a certain way. If you see some one do something wrong, be specific, tell them the exact policy or guideline, or point them to a relevant essay that explains WHY we do something a certain way, why their way was not good, and HOW they can do it the right way. Telling someone to look at the 5P instead of pointing them to WP:V and WP:RS when they keep adding unsourced info doesnt turn them into good editors, it scares them away. What is convenient for the person doing the warning is irrelevant, we arent here to make it easier for you to warn newbies.Camelbinky (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
We (certainly I, but presumably I speak for both of us) are/am here to ease the communication of information, primarily encyclopaedic information. And my response is simple. This works, so sod the formalities. --WFC-- 22:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Related to above thread but different-

Since the above thread concerning categorization of this page and other discussions have shown that most of us who are now involved in this page tend to be on the same wavelength regarding what generally this page is and is not (though we sometimes differ on the specifics) I think we should finally tackle once and for all this following sentence which has been brought up before-

  • "Red pillar (5: Ignore all rules)--Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here.."
Now, first off- We have no RULES, firm or otherwise, at all. No ifs ands or buts (or besides). Second of all- if we did have even a semblence of rules this page would not be them. Third- This page is a summary of our policies, guidelines, and general way of doing things, "principles" may be a good way to summarize that, but in reality our true principles are coded in the way we do things and are the abstract belief system of Wikipedians through consensus (the whole is more than the sum of its parts); this page itself is not our principles though it does do a (somewhat) good job at summarizing our policies which codify in writing our principles (at the time they were written and therefore may lag behind how we "evolve").
I propose we reword the Red pillar, IAR applies to Pillars just as it applies to everything else because IAR is POLICY the Pillars are not.Camelbinky (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
And I propose we just ignore policies as far as this page is concerned. It has very wide consensus so lets just concentrate on making it useful rather than quoting policies at it. Dmcq (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
This page is a summary of policies, how do we ignore policies in regards to this page? This page is no different than any other sub-policy page in that it must conform to policies and is subserviant to them. When wording says that the 5P are the only "firm rules" in Wikipedia, that is dangerous and elevates the 5P to the status of the only thing in Wikipedia that can not be changed or overruled by consensus in a discussion.Camelbinky (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
You talk about IAR and things being by consensus but then you say this page must conform to the policies. The policies are established by consensus agreement by what people do. This page has a very high degree of consensus, probably more than most of the policies, so there is no need to appeal to any policies about changing this page. Just get a consensus by an argument about how best to develop this page as it can stand quite well on its own. Dmcq (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Camel, I agree with your concern, and I add "bad writing style" to the list of problems with that "besides the five general principles presented here" line. However, we do have a small number of absolutely firm rules. See WP:COPYVIO and WP:CHILDPROTECT for two examples. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
What-I would argue that Copyvio and Childprotect are simply stating what the appropriate LEGAL responsibilities are (at least copyvio is. Have to admit I have not had any reason to read up on what Childprotect states). And if those are examples of what firm rules we DO have, then why does not the 5P point to those types of policies instead of pointing to itself?
Dmcq- I would say you are mistaking longevity for consensus. Just because something has existed as the way it is for a "long" time that does not mean it has consensus nor does it mean that it works "fine the way it is" nor does it mean we should not discuss it or change it. Discussing these things is healthy, you may realize that consensus is NOT reflected in current wording, and I actually believe it isnt. Things slip in quite easily and then when tried to be removed individuals often resort to the "well its been there awhile", and the 5P no matter how much it is watched is no different. It may not be a wide-margin but I would imagine at least 60% of editors do not agree with the idea that the 5P should be pointing to itself as the "firm rules". I do not fall for the argument of WP:SILENCE. As What pointed out, perhaps unintentionally even, the firm rules we have are not the Pillars at all; if the wording of the Pillars does not represent how Wikipedia actually works then the wording must be corrected, the Pillars (and any policy) must reflect how we actually work and not how some (or even most) of us wish it would. Policies are descriptive not prescriptive, we've been through that argument before and that sentence is always backed by consensus.Camelbinky (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe you are wrong and that 5P reflects current practice better than IAR. These principles are firm, they could be changed but I can't see that happening. The debate of IAR is all about people misunderstanding the policy or people patting themselves on the back for applying it properly. That does not sound the same as describing current accepted practice to me. I think IAR is fine as it is but that does not mean other policies are not just as important as it nor that 5P be made less understandable in the interest of attaining the same purity and lack of understanding as IAR. IAR itself says in effect that you shouldn't make that tradeoff. Dmcq (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think you arent following- the 5P say they are the firm rules and the only firm rules. This not correct, sorry you dont see that but that is a fact! The 5P are wrong, therefore it must be changed. Dont know how to more clearly state that. You seem to be stuck on a conservative viewpoint where things should not be changed. Wikipedia is by design liberal, ie- it is always changing. Those that want to keep the status quo for no reason other than to keep things as they know them is not a valid viewpoint. I have seen no good reason not to change the 5P to stop it from pointing to itself. The "firm rules" it should be pointing to are the ones that What pointed out. In fact due to the fact that Jimbo himself has intervened to protect the status and strength of IAR I would say IAR is probably a firm rule as well as it can be probably be assumed he or the Foundation (or ArbCom) would step in and reinstate it regardless of any consensus to remove IAR.Camelbinky (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
So you start of saying there are no rules firm or otherwise, and now you're saying ignore all rules is a firm rule. I suppose that is in line with 'it is always changing', It must be because I'm a fuddy duddy conservative stuck in my ways - I find these swings very confusing. Dmcq (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, resort to calling me a flip-flopper, works very well. Perhaps I should clarify my position- there are no firm WRITTEN rules, there are things very close to and approaching that characterization such as the two examples by What and I would include IAR. We dont call them rules however, and they arent necessarily firm as in unchanging for all time. Yes, I believe and the vast majority of Wikipedians believe that policy is always lagging behind what we do and simply documents what we happen to be doing, and therefore can and should be changed often to reflect the latest consensus. IAR helps us to do so by ignoring current policy wording, enough people ignore a policy for the common good and it gets documented as the current policy. Of course there are those who think the way policy is written now should be stagnant, they dont seem to realize that current policy was written by editors no smarter than us and that the current wording has no special magical insight (and in some cases old wording by editors is worse as policy that was good for Wikipedia when it was young and everyone was new may be so outdated and written by editors with little experience. We have more collective experience). The mantra of conservatives of "if it aint broke dont fix it" is the worst mantra ever- yes it is broke and that is why we are trying to change it! If it wasnt broken no one would be saying anything. The wording in the 5th Pillar does not reflect consensus, being there "a long time" is not an legit point. Show me something real why it should stay or step aside and let it be changed.Camelbinky (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I think this would be better presented like this:
  • "Wikipedia does not have firm rules. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."
I think this is more informative and less subject to misinterpretation (e.g., less likely to leave someone with the erroneous impression that WP:PAGE is a "firm rule" because it's linked on this page). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. I agree that it could be worded slightly more clearly or eloquently, but I not sure that it has the wrong connotations currently.
The 5 pillars themselves are the abstract representations of the "firm principles", they simply point to the policies/guidelines that enumerate the principles at this moment in time.
The 5 pillars themselves, are
  1. our goal (an encyclopedia)
  2. our process (be accurate, be unbiased)
  3. our license (our mission to make it all available for free)
  4. our community (be nice)
  5. our attitude/mindset (obey the spirit, not the letter of the law)
(Those labels/keywords are from my own perspective, and could be tweaked for another editor's satisfaction, but the point would be the same). Those things haven't changed in the last decade, and aren't likely to change in the next decade.
Some editors prefer the casual WP:Trifecta, some editors prefer the content-centered WP:Wikipedia in brief, or the WP:Simplified ruleset, or the Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Some editors would prefer that we only had the formal WP:List of policies and WP:List of guidelines. Thankfully, we can accommodate almost all the useful perspectives.
If we do decide to change the wording of the first sentence of pillar five here, then there's a good description at WP:Simplified ruleset#The five pillars currently, for IAR, which might be usable.
HTH.-- Quiddity (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I like ' The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule' from that. I'm not sure we should point new editors to wikilawyering and perhaps policy would be a better word than rule as some people get a bit fanatical when they see words like law or rule. Dmcq (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, "spirit of the rule" is good, but fiddling with the wording on this page is unlikely to be helpful. If someone can produce a masterpiece in userspace, including it may be useful. But whether logically sound or not, many editors find 5P useful (I certainly do), and no reason has been given for a change (surely no one can seriously talk about this page not being a policy and so must be changed, while simultaneously pointing out how WP:IAR is a policy). Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I also like the 'spirit trumpts the letter' language.
Johnuniq, your comment seems to argue that the best be the enemy of the better here. We don't need to produce a masterpiece, and we might well benefit (slightly) from improving this page (slightly). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


Here's what it would look like if we took the language from WP:SIMPLE:

Current Proposed
Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Your efforts do not need to be perfect; prior versions are saved, so no damage is irreparable. However, don't vandalize Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not have firm rules: Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. Be bold in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Your efforts do not need to be perfect; prior versions are saved, so no damage is irreparable. However, don't vandalize Wikipedia.

It eliminates the dubious and unnecessary self-referential language about "other than the rules on this page", and adds a link to Wikilawyering page. Does that work for everyone? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

To explicitly stress the fact that "the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule" is an excellent idea. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
It produces exactly the type of wording I was looking for and addresses my concerns. Why some editors decided to fight against any change and put up a stink about it I dont know. Oh, wait, yea I do, because it was me who brought this up...Camelbinky (talk) 05:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Protection

I was wondering if we should semi protect or protect this page. AFAIK since it's not protected anonymous IPs can edit it and some sneaky vandalism here could do some serious damage, even if it was just up for a short amount of time. Deftera (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I simply do not understand why this core WP page is not protected.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be much vandalism and it isn't one of the article pages. It isn't really core either though it is a very useful page. Dmcq (talk)
I see your point but newbies look at this, and were a sneaky vandal to edit this page they could do quite a bit of damage. Even though there's no vandalism here at the moment it could start at any time. Defteratalk 10:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
What damage could be done by any vandalism? This isnt policy nor does any vandalism to this page effect in anyway our policies or our way of doing things. A vandal could replace all the words in a pillar to say "all articles must be written in Australian English" and who would care? No one and no one would follow it, no matter how long it stood there. The 5P do not have any authority.Camelbinky (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Given that it's a popular page (viewed about once every three minutes), and specifically that it's a page that thousands of completely new editors read each year -- that is, people who have no clue how Wikipedia works -- concern over potential misunderstandings is IMO reasonable.
I'm not sure that it actually meets the usual guidelines at WP:RFPP, however. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A general question.

Do I understand correct that the word "here" in the sentence

"Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here."

refers to this page only, not to what is said on the daughter pages? For example, is it correct to say that the Third and Fifth pillar combined together mean that the words:

"Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit and distribute. Respect copyright laws. Since all your contributions are freely licensed to the public, no editor owns any article; all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed."

is the only absolutely strict WP rule regarding copyright and free content, and the "ignore all rules" rule takes precedence over the concrete details and explanations described on the WP:NFCC page?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This page is in essence about principles. The policies are what you have to look at for details of actual practice. If you follow the 5P without trying to exploit loopholes as it were then you're on a pretty good track and don't have to really bother about the policies except when some twit tries quoting them for silly reasons. The copyright and libel laws are about the main things Wikipedia has to worry about as far as real world laws are concerned. Dmcq (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Completely disagree with that, of course. All US laws must be obeyed, and in some instances Florida state laws since that's where the servers are if I remember correctly. The Foundation, and to an extent Jimbo, maintain our adherence to those that are applicable to Wikipedia and therefore we dont see much controversy and it does not affect us. A recent case was where Jimbo deleted a shitload of images to conform to laws regarding sexual images. This was a big controversy and it was to obey a law, and it wasnt a copyright or libel law. So there are many more laws that must be adhered. As far as following the Pillars without the policies, that is dangerous and backwards. The policies exist for a reason and document our standard practice. The Pillars do not show any practice, they are a summary and if you dont learn the policies your editing will be crappy and you'll never get a GA or FA or any article of any worthwhile quality. Policies are important learning tools, they dont need to be adhered to completely by the letter but are great guides and no one should ever encourage anyone to not worry about the policies.Camelbinky (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I probably was not clear enough. By saying that "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit and distribute. Respect copyright laws." this page places the requirement to observe copyright above the "ignore all rules" rule, and I am not going to argue about that. My question was quite different: is it correct to insist on literal interpretation of, e.g. some concrete WP:NFCC clause even when it comes in direct contradiction with Fifth or Second WP pillars?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
If it is copyright then you have to be very careful about how it is used and follow the policy on that. What exactly are you asking that is difficult about that? Dmcq (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Camelbinky's statement about Jimbo's deletions: Most of the images were not deleted for legal reasons. You can both read a more accurate account at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-05-10/Commons deletions. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your initial questions: "Do I understand correct that the word "here" in the sentence..."
This 5Pillars page could be thought of as "philosophy", and it is not written in formal water-tight legalese. You should follow the policies and guidelines themselves (always in spirit, usually to the letter), and discuss specific examples that seem problematic (or somehow in conflict) at the talkpages of those policies and guidelines. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Few of the policies are water-tight legalese. Whether the 5 pillars of the Wikipedia are the best or only principles of the Wikipedia is rather more contentious, but it is clearly not an essay, everyone agrees that these are the principles referred to as 'five pillars', and that this is so is well-established policy. This is the policy that states what the '5 pillars' of the Wikipedia are. LookyUppy (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I AGF in that LookyUppy is not a sockpuppet, but for someone with no user or talk page set-up at time of me writing this it is suspicious that they know enough to come here, and that their only three edits are at this page... and I am sure no one currently in this discussion would dare violate policy so flagrantly, but I must warn that if Looky continues without some explanation that a sockpuppet investigation will be started. Regardless, if Looky is a newbie it shows the very damage I am afraid happens when newbies come to this page. This page is not policy, it is consensus that whatever this page is it is in fact not a policy. For this page to be promoted to policy it would need to go through a thorough vetting by the community-at-large and I do not see a consensus ever being able to be resolved. Essay, or information page, are the only categories this page can be put in. I have undone Looky's removal of the FAQ's that were put up (by What I believe?) and his adding the page to the policy category.Camelbinky (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Could we not have wikilawyering in please. Lets be a bit positive here rather than negative. I've removed the reference per WP:Beans. Besides being a statement of principles the main use of the page is to bring new editors up to speed. Dmcq (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Then what do you want in its place? Enough have commented that this page should not refer to itself that it is unacceptable to continue with that talk.Camelbinky (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that the link to WP:Wikilawyering is critical, but I do prefer the "spirit trumps the rule" language to the previous self-endorsing language. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Five_pillars/Archive_6&oldid=1076485730"