Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Wikipedia is not a national encyclopedia

How do you think about what I wrote as rule 6 under "What Wikipedia is not"? --> "Wikipedia is not a national encyclopedia focusing only on one specific culture or country. Therefore Wikipedia is neither an American, European, Asian or African encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia written in the English language. Wikipedia does not focus on American English. Therefore the British English can be used everywhere and should not be limited for articles relevant to the British culture; the same applies to other popular kinds of English, too." - Optim 21:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure I read something about British vs. American spelling somewhere else; Manual of Style, maybe? Anyway, it's covered elsewhere. Also, this might be misleading, causing people to think that it's OK to mix-and-match British and American spelling. Having both in one article is a pet peeve of mine. Meelar 21:32, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No it's not good to mix American and British spelling in the same article. I will update the wording to reflect that. Thanks for your comments! Optim 21:35, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. I reverted an edit on the Glasgow Underground when someone had changed "anticlockwise" to "counterclockwise"... as far as I know that's not Glaswegian! -- Arwel 00:42, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, is it also a rule that: "American English can be used everywhere and can be used even for articles relevant to the British culture"?. Bevo 21:42, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point! Personally I would replace the Americanisms with British English if the article is about British culture. However I wouldn't say that people who introduce Americanisms in British culture-related articles do something wrong. But there is already some policy on this. Maybe we should update the wording of the "new rule" to make it more clear? Feel free to change the wording if you like. But this is just a detail. The "rule" is just a reminder that Wikipedia is international. Optim 21:50, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That rascal Noah Webster seems to be the one behind this mess! "Divided we are, if this be our common language" -Yoda... Have we heard from the Aussies yet? Bevo 22:07, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This has been fought over dozens of times since I've been here; the main Manual of Style generally represents the current armed truce :-) though not in maximal detail. Use of dialect most closely connected to the subject seems to keep the peace better than the alternatives; it's an interesting game to see how well one can write in a dialect other than one's own - I can remember some of the differences, but usually a native Brit will catch my oversights. Without an article being explicitly marked as to its original dialect, it is basically impossible to tell which dialect it was created in, and sometimes difficult for nonexperts to distinguish typos from dialectical usages, so it doesn't work to insist that the dialect of the first draft be preserved forever. I suppose someone should do an updated and dedicated MoS entry so that all this is clearer, and people don't get paranoid that WP is being secretly twisted into Americopedia, Britopedia, etc. (I'm doing my part! bought a book solely for the purpose of adding more Royal Navy material) Stan 22:31, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I like the international focus on "what wikipedia is not", but I don't think it should mention spelling, which is already excruciatingly documented in the Manual of Style. FWIW, the current compromise is that the form of English used by the primary (usually original) author of the article should be adhered to: that is, you should not change British to American English or vice-versa, with the exception that articles on a specific culture should use that culture's spelling. That is, United States House of Representatives should be written in US English, and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom should be written in UK English. We also have a bias against anything other than US and UK English, as they are the two primary internationally-recognized dialects, and have a further bias against particular colloquialisms intelligible only within one region of the world. In any case, I think that level of detail belongs in the manual of style, where it currently is. --Delirium 23:28, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

I've changed accordingly, though feel free to argue if you disagree with my changes. Another reason for taking it out: the en: Wikipedia is English-centric, and biased towards that viewpoint, and does not allow all opinions on word-usage equal weight. For example, we use English place-names, not local place-names. --Delirium 23:32, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

The current wording "Wikipedia is not a national encyclopedia. While the English-language Wikipedia is, of course, written in the English language, it is to be international in its focus and content." seems OK to me and I agree with this version. I agree that the spelling issue is better to be discussed in the Manual of Style page. Regarding the place names, we are biased in support of English language but not English culture (culture of people of Anglo-Saxonian origin, such as many or most of the USA/UK/Canada/Australia/New-Zealand/etc residents. So, we try to write the people's names and place names in such a way it will be easy for English-speaking people read and understand our articles (so instead of writing Georgios Papandreou which is the Greek spelling, we choose George Papandreou, and instead of the Greek Kostas Karamanlis we write the more English-like Costas Caramanlis since, as far as I know, K seems foreign to English speakers), no matter whether these people live in USA, UK, Greece, Egypt or India. At least, this is how I perceive it. Optim 23:59, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Err, I've always written Karamanlis with a K and I'm a native UK English speaker, and I've got nothing against Georgios, either... -- Arwel 00:42, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have asked this question on the IRC channel and other people told me that K is not good because English speakers think it sounds foreign. So I thought that the general English population disliked K and non-anglicised names. ***personally*** I would prefer to have Kostas Karamanlis and Georgios Papandreou and Kostas Simitis instead of Costas Caramanlis and George Papandreou and Costas Simitis. However, I had the idea that the general opinion and consencus was to use anglicised names. If there are English speakers who have no problem with K and non-anglisised names, maybe we should discuss this somewhere and see whether we should update this policy. Personally I would vote to keep names as they are used in their native country. Optim 01:12, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The usage of K and C is about evenly split--that is, the C can't really count as anglicized, FWIW. Aside from that, I would support the rule in its current wording. Meelar 01:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think the entire statement is a complete waste. What are you trying to accomplish with it? If it's spelling, then that's been already taken care of by the MoS. Let people write about whatever subject they're interested in and have a good knowledge of. Don't tell them they can't just edit articles related to their culture - they know their culture best and should do so. Are you afraid that wikipedia will turn into a "national encyclopedia"? How so? --Jiang 06:06, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just to emphasise and protect the international nature of the project and prevent americanisation due to the American majority of contributors. I would also suggest that small cultures need more protection (for example, we can delete a stupid stub on American or European culture because somebody else will certainly come to write a good article sometime, but we may prefer to accept a stupid stub on Mongolian or Tibetan culture because the probability of someone writing again an article on that topic is much lower). This rule also protects the American culture because, if (for example) Chinese people become the majority in the future, they will be unable to monopolise the content and focus of Wikipedia. So this rule protects all and is good for everyone. I am afraid that cultures with lots of contributors may tend to monopolise Wikipedia and oppress or discriminate against small cultures. The rule seeks to prevent that. The spelling is part of the cultural protection. For example, we shouldn't consider American English as "international English" since British English is the spelling used in most schools all over the world and Americanisms are popular only because of Holywood, the Internet, etc. British English seems also more "academic" to me. Anyway, the rule as it is now is only about the culture in general and does not refer to spelling. Optim 06:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a national encyclopedia: Is this meant to support removal of articles typically found in national encyclopedias, e.g. the many Rambot entries on US towns? If it's just a spelling question, we should formulate it differently. -- User:Docu

No. We should not remove information. The rule simply states that a stub on an American town has the same importance as a stub on an Mongolian or Indonesian town. An American acress has the same importance as a Greek acrress. And it is ok to have an article on an Albanian bank if we are to have articles on American or German banks, etc. Optim 06:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it should rather read Wikipedia is not one nation's national encyclopedia, as national encyclopedia's are more likely to include that level of detail. -- User:Docu

No problem. You can change it in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Optim 06:48, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

FYI the current rule (edited by another user) is: "Wikipedia is not a national encyclopedia. While the English-language Wikipedia is, of course, written in the English language, it is to be international in its focus and content." and I agree with this version since the spelling issue is better to be addressed on the MoS page. Optim 06:28, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

American English is popular with our handful :-) of American readers; the use of British English everywhere would cause more snickering and giggling than anything else. But I've never seen any evidence of "oppression" or "discrimination" against "small cultures", on the contrary, there are lots of people creating articles on small towns in Mozambique and the like. Was there some incident that brought this on? The concern seems really unmotivated, especially considering that my fingers are right now sore from typing in hundreds of Greek names... I remember whole pages describing the evils of X-centric encyclopedizing, but can't seem to find them now. Stan 06:50, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Stan, the presence of "fair use" images in Wikipedia is an example of americanopaedisation. I have heard that in UK there is some problem with that. Optim 07:50, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Heh, that's a complicated issue, as you can tell from mailing list discussion. One could even argue that the whole "fair use" concept is a byproduct of American litigiousness, and that it's really a non-issue elsewhere in the world. Note that the concerns are coming from amateurs, not legal professionals. Stan 15:07, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If it's to protect against Americanization, then be specific. I think this is more of an issue of what wikipedia is rather than what it is not. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. To say that it is not a "national encyclopedia" will lead people to draw the conclusion that they are being restricted from writing on country-specific articles or subjects that are not internationally known, though famous locally. --Jiang 07:03, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to change the wording of the rule or suggest a new wording. I am thinking of the addition of "Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia" after the "Wikipedia is not a national encyclopaedia" Do you think it will be sufficient? Optim 07:22, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This whole hoo-ha seems like nothing more than an attempt to start an anti-American spelling revert war. RickK 21:13, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

From RickK's talk page: I just feel the need for some reason to protect the non-American cultures. For example, Fair Use images were/are allowed in Wikipedia, but this (fair use) is primarily an American concept, if I am not mistaken (IANAL). English Wikipedia means a Wikipedia version written in English, not following the American law in particular. I wouldn't have a problem to see Fair Use images in an American Wikipedia (and I would contribute there). The English Wikipedia community has so many Americans that it seems to forget the existence of British, Australian, and other speakers of English, including the non-native ones. So many times I just feel the need to protect the international spirit of our project :) Optim 23:36, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your comments on Talk:American twenty dollar bill show your anti-American agenda. RickK 04:26, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

from that talk page: No. Next time I may make discussions against Russia. Will you call me Anti-Russian? I am not Anti-anything. I just promote tolerance, equality, internationalism, justice and cooperation. Optim 04:26, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) and By discussing this page move I think I can help the Latin American countries and Canada to protect their culture and identity. I think that a Peruvian feels American, so they wouldn't like to let USA monopolise the American adjective. Actually I don't care so much about this issue, but I am afraid it is not NPOV to use the American adjective in this way, at least in article titles. However, if everybody thinks it's ok then I don't have strong desire to continue the discussion. Optim 04:24, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) and I am not anti-American, really. I do not consider it an insult when someone prefers to use Istanbul instead of Constantinople. It belongs to Turkey now, so they can call it as they like, but some Greeks still consider Istanbul as insulting. For this reason somebody could call me Anti-Greek, but I am not. I just want to correct some things. I have got the feeling that the United States citizen thinks the whole American continent belongs to him/her... I Hope I am wrong Optim 04:14, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

and: An anti-American is a person who discriminates against USA. I don't do that. I am willing to support USA whenever somebody discriminates against it. If I discriminate against something, then I discriminate against discrimination. Optim 04:43, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Come to think of it, since when have we had a "national encyclopedia"? The fact that it's all encompanssing is already implied. I think the statement says close to nothing useful. --Jiang 07:45, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to see that "national encyclopedia" clause removed. It is not even written in the spirit of a "is not ..." entry. The explanatory text is all "Wikipedia is ..." this or that, and so having it in the "is not..." section waters down the intent of the entire section. Bevo 08:23, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Number article exceptions

Current practice is that articles about numbers can include both loosely defined lists (everything in which that number has some significance) and dictionary definitions. This practice is currently being voted on at Talk:List of numbers/Deletion#Vote on inclusion, and right now there's a majority in support of it, so I have changed this policy to reflect current practice. I don't like it, but the only alternative is to get rid of this stuff rather than be in violation of policy.—Eloquence 19:20, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see it as an exception at all. Rather, I see it as an example of "Every good encyclopedia article has a dictionary definition at its head." The number articles start as dictionary definitions with bulleted lists and gradually grow to add commentary and insight into each number, to draw correlations between its mathematical and extramathematical properties. Given time, each article on the integers from 1 to 1001 will become an invaluable reference not only to number theorists and math aficionados, but to anyone who has to choose a number for a specific purpose. Anton Mravcek 16:07, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Informational not instructional

The following seems to be the general idea that people have about how-to type content on Wikipedia. i.e. that it belongs on wikibooks, not wikipedia. I couldn't find anywhere where this was written out as policy, so this is my proposed addition to What Wikipedia is not:

Under what Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Instructions. Wikipedia seeks to be informative, not instructional. Therefore, things like how-tos, recipes, and other types of information that provide instruction on something are not appropriate on Wikipedia. They are appropriate, however, on Wikibooks, and articles that contain only instructional material should be moved to the appropriate area on Wikibooks. It is possible that information about instructions are appropriate on Wikipedia, but it should be presented in the indicative mood, and not the imperative mood that so distinctively marks instructional material.

I know the wording is a little weak, but it's my first attempt.

--Nohat 22:57, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)

Wikipedia includes articles on procedural knowledge as per Wikipedia:How-to. Not sure if this helps you decide if you should include an IKEA how-to. -- User:

I think that it is necessary to include articles about how to do things, how things were done, how others do things and so on. I can't think of any reason why it should not be in Wikipedia but loads of reasons why it should be. BL 02:47, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with How To articles per se. The problem is they are usually POV or original research. Anthony DiPierro 02:54, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is unclear to me whether or not this issue is resolved. I am interested in starting a Wiki at work and I am having trouble collecting the necessary information. This information seems like a silly thing not to have on one of the wiki*.org websites. If it exists, it would be nice to at least link it (prominently) from the "Wiki software" entry in wikipedia. I am considering appending what I have learned to that article and letting someone else sort it out. I want the information to be available, but I don't have enough time to figure this out. --rs2 16:56, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See meta:MediaWiki User's Guide and Wikibooks. --mav 05:40, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

moved from meta page

1. Wikipedia is not place to form a consensus of opinion, but instead a place to form consensus of fact. Often these facts are about people holding opinions. See Wikipedia:NPOV.

I actually agree with the spirit of this, but dislike the wording. Can we find a way to make it clear that concensus of opinion amongst editors is good, but that facts, references and verifiability should be the result of such concensus? I'm well aware of how they arn't always, but I'm of the opinion that true concensus involves embrace of the truth ;) Sam Spade 02:48, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I mainly wanted to express this here so I could point to it from the mailing list. This point is apropos of a few issue which have arisen there lately. I didn't think "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" quite covered it. On the other hand, I can't think of a better concise way to express it. If someone's got a stroke of genius, maybe we could form a good concensus? :) --Spikey 17:48, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What What Wikipedia is not is not

This is a page about what types of things should or should not be included in Wikipedia (mostly what should not be in it, but exceptions to what should not be in it are also acceptable). It's not a page to discuss anything which can be phrased in a sentence beginning with "Wikipedia is not..." In other words, this isn't the place to write about personal attacks or ownership of articles or how to spell things. Not every wikipedia policy needs to be on this page. anthony [beware: this is a work in progess and will change without prior notice]

• I disagree. This is a page about the properties of Wikipedia and its articles- particularly, properties which people commonly (and erroneously) believe that Wikipedia or its articles have, but in fact they do not. Fennec 14:00, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is Not is the page you use to tell newbies: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." and related corrections. :) Fennec 14:14, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Anyway, the page is called "What Wikipedia is not", not "What Wikipedia is". If you want to put stuff that Wikipedia is, put it on a different page, say, What Wikipedia is or Wikipedia:Wikipedia. ugen64 20:36, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't see how any of the comments above disagree with me. -anthony
      • When this particular page was first posted on Wikipedia (19 Feb 2002), it stated "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Here is a list of Things That Encyclopedia Articles Are Not." With that in mind, a reference to and explanation of "Wikipedia:Ownership of articles" is appropriate. Kingturtle 03:17, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • I don't see how the content of the original page is relevant. The page has clearly changed since then. Also, you'll notice that all the other descriptions are "Wikipedia is not [noun]", not "Wikipedia is not [verb]". "owned by a particular user" is not a thing. - anthony
          • Wikipedia is not a lot of things. Not all of those need to be listed here. Angela. 05:38, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
            • I must say I found the "terrorism" thing rather funny. Has this really ever come up? -- VV 06:00, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Products and Product catalogs

Recently pages like List of Sony products and individual products of IBM and Sony like Sony Ericsson P900 have been listed on Vfd with the assumption that Wikipedia is not a product catalog. Which of the 20 points of this page suggest that Wikipedia should not contain products-related info ? Will creating articles out of products/lists make wikipedia less of an encyclopedia ? Jay 18:37, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• I would say that Wikipedia is not paper and a good article on these products is not inherently wrong - Tεxτurε 19:19, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• I've just added some info to the P900 page, I don't think [i]all[/i] products deserve a page but for advanced products such as leading edge smartphones it makes sense to me. In a few years people will be wanting to track the development of these devices like it happened for the early home computers etc. Just my 2 cents. Thomas Horsten 19:04, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a community or a social club

Failing to comprehend this leads inevitably to destroying the encyclopedia to please the community. Sadly this is the end result of the mailing list and IRC channel system and also of the concept of a "banned user" (whatever that is, since they always come back).

A recent user (whose name should not be pronounced any more, but who is not a banned user) recently gave as one of the reason for leaving the fact decisions were increasingly taken over irc discussions. The media of decision change, but the clique or cabal does not - although predictably the most determined advocates of cliques and social control fail to see they are in fact participating in such a system of social control.

However, it remains that the medium of discussion is not the same as the medium of presentation - the real power is not with those who contribute, not even who contribute the most or best, but with those who spend the most time influencing so-called authority, and trying to gain "infrastructure owners' trust" thereby.

The wrong idea of using another medium to make decisions, that not all users are empowered to use equally, and the wrong idea of "punishing" those who do not accept the power structure, both arise out of the idea of "community".

Neither concept makes for good editorial decisions, for example, often good articles are deleted out of process because of who wrote them, not because of what they say, and articles are "reverted" to being wrong, when they have been corrected. But both are absolutely necessary if there is to be a "community", and absolutely wrong if there is to be an "encyclopedia". The time has come to choose between the two.

The mailing list and other advocates of so-called "community" make rulership and ownership choices that are contrary to the spirit of the GNU FDL (if not the letter--mostly the fault of MediaWiki software which matches its terms imperfectly--should MediaWiki actually be ditched? no doubt "the community" which includes its developers will argue it must not).

Furthermore, they don't even recognize community bias, or make any attempt to find a representative sample of themselves to actually represent the "users" - who are, amazingly, totally shut out in the unique Wikipedia concept of a "user community consisting only of those who speak up on specific pages by name."

The idea of "virtual community" is stupid, and probably evil - it is epistemic community masquerading as real community with sad and predictable social consequences: people unable to tell a political dispute from a bodily threat, people unable to conceive of political methods of dispute resolution that are not themselves based on invasion and war. Plus the more pathetic consequences of people thinking they are making friends by typing, when they are really only making conspiracies and alliances to do things that do not matter all that much.

Darwikinism and a battlefield of ideas are more rational ways to run an encyclopedia, and can reward competence and a history of good edits, not whining, lying, and relationships with the bosses: "The community", like any community, rewards all the wrong things - its social capital is built on pleasing and helping *friends*, NOT actually serving users.

The mailing list/IRC channel system favours those incompetent people who speak up there, over competents who do not, in an encyclopedic sense. It should be ditched, immediately. Wikipedia needs editors, or at least, Wikipedia needs trolls to keep attacking groupthink, i.e. "community", more directly.

The community on Wikipedia is considerably less prominent than on any of our competitors: h2g2, Everything2, Encarta, Brittanica. Why are you attacking us, and not them? Martin 22:16, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Whoa! Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is based on a conglomeration of knowledge from hopefully educated sources. In order for these sources to add to the greater body of work in a constructive fashion, they must communicate and compromise on ideas. How is that not a community? Plus, your wording comes across more as a rant than as a sudgestion. Why do you think we need attacked? That is not a basis for compromise, it is a basis for emotional recklessness. --Chaz 20:18, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the basic premise. Wikipedia is a community and, in my opinion, a remarkably effective one. We may be working on a different definition of the term, though. May I refer you to Social Software and the Politics of Groups by Clay Shirky and to Wikipedia:replies for some background? Rossami 22:10, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a fan repository

I'm very tempted to add another entry to this: Wikipedia is not a fan repository. There are so many fanatic people adding, deleting away what are more NPOV portions and adding their own gashing, over-the-top comments on players, especially of sports. I've a hard time keeping people from bashing other players. I'd love to have a line on top of sports personalities which says this. Mandel 15:32, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

(13)... Mere collections of internal links

There are more pages on wikipedia that are collections of internal links and internal links to articles that might someday exist than I know about. In fact, every time I find a new set of such pages, I'm amazed at both how many links on the page there are and how many sister pages that page has that I also didn't know about....

I don't see how this entry can even be considered as slightly true with the status quo. Not only that, but we've added a whole system to wiki just to handle collections of internal links. It's called Categories or something like that.

Now, I'm not objecting to collections of internal links. In fact, I might even have said once I liked them. I do however, think that either wiki is hypocritical, or this entry needs updating. --ssd 02:19, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)