Ryan Lonie and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia project/Archive 1: Difference between pages

WIKIPEDIA SILLY-O-METER ALERT

Level 1 - Overwhelming silliness, database lock recommended

ALERT! According to the Silly-o-meter, this page is currently at an overwhelming level of silliness! I recommend immediate action be taken! - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe the objective is to explain things to certain people with slightly larger letters that they can actually read. I have heard rumors to that effect. :-) Kim Bruning 09:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Good job to whoever created this. I'll file it away in my brain somewhere just in case I ever encounter a crufanatic. Johnleemk | Talk 18:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. So will I! Now please define "cruft" - Ta bu shi da yu 09:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

After this puppy, I sincerely look forward to other insanely obvious guidelines and policies such as Wikipedia:The Pope Is Catholic or Wikipedia:One Plus One Equals Two. karmafist 19:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia is not What Wikipedia is Not

...even though it is fast turning into it. Nor is it a hot dog, Karmafist. -Splash^talk 18:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, maybe you should put some things up there that don't have the word "Not" in them, eh? I assumed that this was basically a way to insult policy violator users or Newbies, by putting actual policies into terms so simple, that their little minds could understand it. Hey, if I can't cut the red tape, I might as well tie it in a pretty little bow. karmafist 18:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge Alert

I'm going to try and think where to merge the data for this, I think it's pretty obvious that it makes no sense to have an entire page to mocking peoples' ignorance of Wiki-policy, especially since it just says what Wikipedia is not. Sound familiar anyone? karmafist 18:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. I really was starting to believe that Wikipedia is a hot dog before this page set me straight. Friday (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to put it back up there, if you'd like. It's very hard to discern this fact sometimes, what with all the mustard everywhere...karmafist 18:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge with what? And what will the result look like? I'm opposed on general principles until I know what the result will look like. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 00:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOT(Since all it says is Wikipedia is "Not"...insert here), and WP:ABOUT (since this page is basically about Wikipedia. karmafist 17:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my second, and more important, question: What will the results look like? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 01:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I would not like to see this merged. That Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia is our most important principle, and one that is forgotten constantly in day-to-day editing. It deserves its own page. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Put Future BJAODNs Here

But in the meantime, we might as well have some fun with this. Let's just put anything making fun of this on here, from now on. karmafist 18:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not your mother
• Wikipedia is not amused
• Wikipedia is not nuclear powered
• Wikipedia is not a suicide cult (from user talk:Herostratus)
• Wikipedia is not orange
• Wikipedia is not a bag of Goldfish™ Baked Snack Crackers
• Wikipedia is not Mickey Rooney
• Wikipedia is not a throw pillow
• Wikipedia is not the ancient VHS bootleg of Deep Throat that you hid shamefully in your closet underneath your sixth-grade science homework, and then forgot about for six whole years until you were packing up to move out
• Wikipedia is not yo momma.

Complaint over reversions

So, silly, silly me, thinking this page was kind of funny (see the silliness meter above), I put up two indisputably true statements ("Wikipedia is not a hot dog", and "Wikipedia is not a boxcar" (with a wikilink pointed towards Wikipedia:Vandalism))... it gets reverted instantly. I revert about a half-hour later--reverted instantly. Just to see if anyone actually reads what goes into edits, I put my stuff back in, and also made a couple of useful improvements diff--note the changes near the top of the page--specifically, the removal of an excess line break near the top, and a reword from "those of you who don't" (which sounds excessively snotty--like what a kindergarten teacher would say to her students) to "those who don't". Just to see. User:Merovingian reverted shortly after (though, to his/her credit, this admin did NOT use the standard, automatic cookie-cutter revert), eliminating the fun, happy, hot-dog and boxcar-related edits, along with the (arguably) useful break removal and such.

My point (such as it is) is this. Why do you admins feel compelled to do this? Matt Yeager 06:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I've re-inserted the good change you made. While I was at it, I also removed the blink. I appreciate ... I think ... what Brian's trying to do, but blinking text is an abomination before God and man, and must be destroyed in whatever incarnation it takes.

Oh, as for why we admins feel compelled to ruin your day, it's because we're evil, but we're creatively evil. Kicking puppies and eating babies gets old after a while, so rvting silliness is just one way to break up the monotony while still being nasty all the time ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Policy or guideline?

We can practically agree (well, except for User:Brian0918) that this is humor. However, is this a policy or guideline? Sometimes I see {{policy}}, other times {{guideline}} appears. Which one is more correct? --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• If you look at WP:RFA, you'll realize why it isn't humor. I'm not alone in this opinion, but even if I was, I would still be right :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-24 22:52
  • That didn't answer my question! --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It wasn't attempting to :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-30 02:09
• I'd say {{policy}}, just because nothing here isn't already covered by WP:NOT, which is official policy. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 04:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Now that's an answer. :) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• There are already many official policies. As someone who has actually skimmed them *all*, I strongly suggest this be stripped of its dubious "official" status. 1. It's silly. 2. It's redundant. 3. I don't believe it's been voted on. Keep the text, but remove its category and {Policy} template.Stevage 23:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, well, your summaries of other policies left a considerable amount to be desired, so let's not dwell on that. If you are implying that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, please just say so. -Splash^talk 23:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Let's not get personal, please. Thanks! Stevage 10:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This restates official policy, so it is official policy. Plenty of policy is already redundant; a little more redundancy doesn't hurt to pound in the point. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-6 23:40
    • I think {{policy}} is inappropriate for any page that has not been voted upon. And such a vote would be silly on this page, I believe. Otherwise, should we mark each and every reiteration of policy as policy? Keeping the number of pages marked as official policy to a minimum helps to ensure that we don't end up with a labyrinthine ruleset, and is a laudable goal, I believe. I don't see any particular reason to mark this page in this way. Lupin|talk|popups 23:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • NPOV has never been voted on. Wikipedia:Civility has never been voted on. And, just to make the point, per the project page, Wikipedia is neither a bureaucracy nor a democracy, thus a vote is inappropriate. [[Sam Korn]] 23:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Well that's not really my main point here. (Although see [1] - my feeling about voting expressed above is erroneous as there is more than one accepted route to official policy, but being a humorous summary of other policies is not one of them). The point is that marking summaries-of-policy as policy a bad idea, because creates the potential for confusion. Marking only canonical policy pages as policy, so that each policy has a single, unambiguous source, is a much better idea and keeps the number of policy pages down, which is also good. Lupin|talk|popups 23:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • By this logic, we could each make 10 restatements of any other policy and use the official {policy} template on all of them. I'm going to be bold, remove the 'official policy' trappings and point users to WP:NOT for the 'official policy'. Stevage 10:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It was quickly removed apparently. The fact that the {{policy}} template is usually restored by Brian0918 (talk · contribs) indicates something's up. I think we need consensus to determine what this actually is. In the meantime, I will be bold and note that the use of {{policy}} is disputed. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• "...While it restates official Wikipedia policy, it does so for the purposes of making absolutely clear what Wikipedia is..." That message makes the nature of this page very clear, I see no reason for the policy or guideline template to be included as well.—jiy (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• I removed the "policy" thing. You can't just dub pages policy without a broad consensus on it. Sorry. Matt Yeager 01:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do not define "consensus" as "more people agree". Wikipedia is not a democracy because the people who use it are always changing, so it is pointless to try and say that something is true because a lot of people currently say it. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-13 01:34
  • Matt: According to you, there is no wide consensus for wikipedia being an encyclopedia? Interesting. Kim Bruning 02:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • According to me, there is wide consensus for every one of the principles in this page being upheld. There is not widespread consensus for labelling this page as official policy, because we already have official policy pages for this purpose. Such labelling is at best redundant, and potentially confusing. A restatement of official policy is not itself policy, and nor should it be. Lupin|talk|popups 02:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Interesting remark, but no. Any restatement of official policy is by definition also official policy. This is so because the policy pages are based on the way we (think we should) behave, and not the other way around. Radiant_>|< 22:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
        • For those who accept this line of reasoning ("any restatement of official policy is by definition official policy"), please explain why I should not restate official policies on my user page, and use the {policy} template there. (Besides the fact it would violate WP:POINT :)). It is better for us to have fewer policies than more, as that reduces the reading load on new users and reduces the potential for contradictory policies. Why on earth would we want to content fork our policies? Stevage 19:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree with Stevage's comment. Also, if you believe that any restatement of policy deserves to be called official then you wind up with the problem of having to decide whether or not something is actually a restatement or a subtle distortion (intentional or not). It seems far better to circumvent this entire issue and clearly distinguish what is canonical policy and what is not, and the tool of choice for making such a distinction should be the {{policy}} tag in my opinion. I'm afraid I don't understand the relevance of Radiant's third sentence above to whether or not restatements of policy should be tagged as official policy or not. Lupin|talk|popups 19:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Humour v. Policy

we can tune down the humour, but a page like this is absolutely necessary, and I was unpleasantly surprised there was no Wikipedia:Encyclopedicity, recently. Instead of restating what "WP is NOT", this page should make clear what we mean by "Encyclopedicity". The day that stating that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia is considered "Wikipedia humour", I know it is time for me to go looking for new horizons :( dab (ᛏ) 08:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

quoth Matt Yeager, reverting me, "yes, it IS humor (see "Wikipedia is not usually written...")"

well, how about changing that then? I want to be able to link here when I'm serious about pointing out What Wikipedia Is. So if you want to be funny, why not create a really outrageous Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, stupid or something? This page's title "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" is not in the least "Wiki humour", so if you can't stand having the "is not usually written in allcaps" bit on a serious page, let's clear that then. Otherwise, I may be forced to fork my own unamusing Wikipedia:Encyclopedicity. What will people think if we point them here when they're being unreasonable? Oh well, they just showed us an insider WP joke? Ha ha, "WP's an encyclopedia", that's a good one, is that a residue of the 2001 founding-fathers' optimism? I hate to break it to you, but Wikipedia is trying to be an Encyclopedia, no joke intended. dab (ᛏ) 18:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure my opinion will make much difference here, but in my view the smiley at the top detracts from the page. This page IS official policy, recast. Its presented in a manner that is humorous and perhaps a small disclaimer at the bottom explaining why it's an alternate presentation is useful, but the smiley at the top detracts from the message. There are some that need this level of SHOUTING to get the point and the smiley gives them an out. So would statements like WP is not a boxcar. IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. Let's comapre it with Assume bad faith. In ABF, there is irony, there is statements that are downright false, and some statements that deep down are true but point that truth in a remarkably wicked way. Here, we have.. the same official policies in BIG LETTERS. Where is the joke? I didn't laugh here, but I found this page extremely valiant! ≈ Ekevu (♥, ★) 22:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

yep, the smiley is definitely in place at "assume bad faith", even if it spoils some of the fun, I would move it to the bottom. I don't want no stinking smiley adorning the statement "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". Surely there must be a better term than "humour" here. Exasperation? Maybe we could say, "if you think you are capable of reading coherent paragraphs of mixed-case text, may we direct you to the full policy documents?"? This page is intended for the benefit of people who Just Don't Get It, and who complain when they are asked to spend more than two minute's worth of policy documents. The disclaimer should read, "if you are not actually one of those people, feel free to be treated like an adult at such and such another page." dab (ᛏ) 13:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, why am I reverted without discussion, when the comments above actually support my edits? Also, if you re-insert the humour category, what is the rationale of reverting my more accurate definition of "encyclopedia" and additional categorization? Lubaf is free to disagree with me, but I would ask him to do that on talk rather than in edit summaries. dab (ᛏ) 13:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Well, this discussion has reached a point where I must announce that the discussion is more "policy v. humor" rather than the "policy v. guideline" of when this discussion came about (technically, a question by me started this, so...). We can, therefore, all agree that it is not a guideline. As for me, I'm only reading the "policy v. humor" aspect of the discussion (neutral/abstain). And to think this discussion has been under the "policy or guideline" headline all this time... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm adding another heading. ≈ Ekevu (♥, ★) 16:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Policy can't just be arbitrarily decided by a bunch of people. If you want to modify it a bit and send it up for a vote... do so. But in the meantime, this page is NOT policy, and it's not right to claim that it is (even IF everything in it is just "restated policy"). Matt Yeager 07:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In defense of being marked both policy and humor

Why do I think this page should be marked as both humor and policy?

• Policy because there's (or at least there should be) nothing here that isn't already official policy, and because this is a mission statement.

Please point to the actual policy statement that says that anything that is a restatement of policy is also policy. Please point me to an endorsement by the Wikimedia Foundation that this is the official mission statement. Lastly, please point out a reference that says that any mission statement should be marked with the policy template? Stevage 07:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Humor to prevent this from being used to bite the newbies, and because, let's be honest, this page consists of a statement of the blatently obvious written in bright, bold colors designed to bring maximum contrast.

Agree with humour. Stevage 07:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The two are not contradictory. It is official policy, stated in a humorous manner. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 16:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not official policy. Read the other items in the official policies category. This would be an embarrassment in the category and undermine the *actual* official policies. Stevage 07:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

please note that I added the categories "Wikipedia basic information" and "Wikipedia proportion and emphasis", saying it restates policy; I did not add it to "WP policy" for this very reason. I'm fine with this being a little bit tongue-in-cheek. The point is, I want to be able to show this to misbehaving editors. It would be pointless to do this if the first thing on the page was a big smiley saying "we're just kidding you". dab (ᛏ) 07:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It would undermine the actual official policies? Excellent. Then we can fall back on mere guidelines. (such as consensus, and don't disrupt) :-) Kim Bruning 09:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

everybody seems to be forgetting that the page may be edited to fit its scope better. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" certainly qualifies as policy. Maybe not even policy but an axiom. (Category:Wikipedia axioms, anyone?); there is no reason why policy should not be spelled out in allcaps for once. The "humour" thing can be adapted. "Wikipedia is not a Hot Dog" is gone (that triggered the "humour" categorization in the first place). I would like this page to be about what Wikipedia is, but right now, it emphasizes on WP:NOTs again after the first statement. dab (ᛏ) 13:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Anything that restates official policy, by definition is official policy. That said, what's the friggin' big deal? The only thing that's wildly inappropriate here is the "proposed" tag, because that sounds as if we're proposing that Wikipedia should become an encyclopedia. DUH. Radiant_>|< 15:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed text change

In my opinion, this page looks too much like What Wikipedia is not. Hence, here's my suggestion for new text for the yellow parts. ≈ Ekevu (♥ • ★) 15:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• WIKIPEDIA ONLY CARES ABOUT BIG STUFF
• WIKIPEDIA NEEDS GOOD SOURCES
• WIKIPEDIA NEEDS OBJECTIVITY
• CONTENT YOU WRITE IN WIKIPEDIA ISN'T YOURS

You want to fix the whole issue with telling people not to eat beans out of their noses? Sounds good to me. Hey, this is a wiki, try it on, see how it looks! Kim Bruning 21:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

sounds good. I don't care about getting this page to "official policy status" too much, I'm happy to say we are restating policy, go read it up, but that we are serious and no-nonsense about it. I don't think it is disputed here that WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia. all I wanted was get rid about the "humour" boilerplate. Let's keep this page so we can shove it in people's faces (if they're misbehaving of course), but if we're going to put it through the policy making machine, it will just end up looking like any other policy page.

• CONTENT YOU WRITE IN WIKIPEDIA STAYS YOURS, BUT WILL BE MESSED WITH

dab (ᛏ) 23:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Please avoid dumbing down this page by referring to "big stuff" and such. Wikipedia is not a ten-year old. Radiant_>|< 15:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"Important stuff", as written by Grue does suit it better. But that's besides the point: isn't dumbing down the basic stuff the current objective of the page anyway? Otherwise, it wouldn't be in big letters. ≈ Ekevu (♥ • ★) 15:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • Ekevu, please don't revert my changes because I hadn't discussed them on the talk page, when there's several other people that have been making changes that haven't been discussed either. There is a difference between making simple statements ("Wikipedia is not a blog") and making dumb statements ("Wikipedia has good stuff that isn't yours") - the main difference is that people will take the former more seriously than the latter. Radiant_>|< 15:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • OOh, I have some trouble with both radiants version (beans? ;-) ) and some slight issues with Ekevus version ("notability" has never been defined well) , but like, welcome to the wiki world guys. Edit the page 'till you both like it. :-) Kim Bruning 15:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggest redirect to Wikipedia:Wikipedia in eight words

Everything this page says is said better there. Clearer, more explicit, better argued, less ugly. Any objections to replacing this whole page with a redirect? Stevage 21:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would revert such a measure. This is supposed to be something of a joke (a Ha Ha Only Serious, if you know what that means), so of course it's ugly. As for explicit, what's more explicit than "Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia"? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 22:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Plus, there is a merger in the works on that page. With the Five pillars. Which this is an alternative to. I also oppose this and suggest keeping this page in existence. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This page is a Good Thing as it is. Let's not tinker with it for no reason, eh? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 23:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• This page used to be funny and to the point. As a result of some recent edits to a rather child-like tone, it is now neither. So yes, I'd agree to a merge. Or a revert. Radiant_>|< 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If "Wikipedia was an encyclopaedia" was explicit and actually answered anyone's questions about what Wikipedia is, this page, Wikipedia in 8 words, and WP:NOT wouldn't exist. Stevage 11:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Guideline

Oh look! As a guideline, perhaps wikipedia could be an encyclopedia. But that is certainly not policy. Feel free to treat it as a sandpit, or perhaps as a flower garden ;-)

(Who? me? desillusioned and sarcastic? Whatever gave you that idea? ;-) )

Kim Bruning 02:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is a flower garden. Not bad for a metaphor; the top is very pretty but the bottom is really just dirt or manure, and there's thorns all over the place. I can't really do much with the sandpit metaphor unless there's quicksand involved. Radiant_>|< 10:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Who said anything about metaphor? ;-) Perhaps we could get consensus that wikipedia is a, um um, elephant? You just know that this encyclopedia thing is never gonna fly as policy. What was jimbo thinking? :-P Kim Bruning 12:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I am fully on-board with the elephant proposal. I'm also fully on-board with some of the other suggestions a few sections up from here. But I'm glad we do all agree that WP:ISNOT an encyclopedia. I shall be mentioning that in a few AfDs later today. -Splash^talk 13:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)