Encyclopedia > Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
- I'd agree in general (though it's not a universal view around here), but I would argue that there are some exceptions where the entire text of a primary source does belong here, where the material is a) short, and b) important. For instance, I would argue that the entirety of the US Declaration Of Independence is acceptable, as might be the text of Jabberwocky, or an image of the Mona Lisa. I would agree that there does need to be some way to lock such primary texts. Otherwise, while somebody should be storing important primary sources (and whilst cooperation with such projects is an excellent idea) I don't see that Wikipedia is the place for it.
My main exception to the copy/paste practice is the fact that primary sources of historical documents and other works should not be editable by the general public if those documents are being presented as the original text. I agree that short and highly relevent documents should be in an encyclopida -- It is just not possible to protect what the original authors said if the text is editable in the wiki way. It would be great, if we had a place to "upload" such text, link to it in an article, and have it displayed in a non-editable, text-box (all it would be in edit mode is the URL to the text file -- just as it now is with images). maveric149
Discussion copied from: Talk:Listing of noted atheists
Who cares about these people being atheists? I find it of little encyclopedic value to have this list around; same for the other lists of noted (religion x)s. These lists would only be useful if they contained people who are actively proclaiming their opinion on this topic, and are known for that. Not just a bunch of actors that happen to share some opinion. We might just as well make a list of noted people that have a hamster as a pet... jheijmans
I am tempted to agree. Does anybody want to argue the case for listing everyone who might happen to be an atheist here? --Robert Merkel
These types of lists aren't really useful. Although I wouldn't like to see lists of noted persons in certain professions go away. Religious affiliation seems peripheral in importance to me (but then, so does sexual orientation. See: Famous gay lesbian or bisexual people). --maveric149
I also would tend to agree; a listing of people whose atheistic beliefs are relevant to what they've accomplished in life and how they present themselves would be interesting, but a mish-mash of people who happen to be atheists and also happen to be somewhat famous? Maybe someone might like it, but I don't really care. (On the other hand, I'm not a militant atheist. The kind of people who want to see Christmas Day removed as a national holiday might think otherwise.) --Brion VIBBER
These lists are useful as an expression of support or community for minorities or out-groups. Many adolescents find these especially useful - "Gee, I always thought I was the only 'X'!"
I think these lists are a valuable service in this regard, and we can´t make any case against them that outweighs this value. Again - if you don't like these lists, don't read them! :-)
- I've made that exact same argument in the past, but these things are getting less and less useful.
- The debate is on whether we should list *all* 'X's, or whether we should restrict the list to people whose X'ism is part of the reason they are encyclopedia-worthy.For instance, Bob Hawke was agnostic, and worthy of an encyclopedia article here, but does he warrant an appearance on a list of noted agnostics? I would argue not. --Robert Merkel
I'd say this is pretty simple: People who like these lists can make them. People who don't like these lists can ignore them - it's not like the lists are hurting anything. I think we need to be very wary of judging what "we" consider to be "encyclopedia worthy". Personally, I'd remove all articles on video and computer games, rap music, US counties, and I'd seriously consider removing everything on professional sports. Fortunately, my opinion on these things isn't important. Live and let live. Work on the subjects you like. :-)
- Indeed. I'm certainly not arguing against the existence of the list, just for some judicial trimming to make it an interesting and informative list. Expressions of support for out-groups are lovely and wonderful, but they're advocacy, which isn't really the mission of an encyclopedia. All-inclusive lists of famous people who were/are/might have been atheists for the purpose of making dejected teenages feel better can be found in warmer, fuzzier places that are specifically pro-atheism -- [1] (http://www.celebatheists.com/), [2] (http://www.visi.com/~markg/atheists), [3] (http://www.wonderfulatheistsofcfl.org/Quotes.htm), [4] (http://www.secularism.org.uk/famous.htm), [5] (http://pages.ivillage.com/sarah1klein/atheism/id3) were the first five that came up in a google search for "famous atheists".
- Want to include some links to advocacy sites at the bottom of an article about people who are noted for being atheists? Fine by me! What to have "a partial list of persons believed to be atheists"? What's the point? --Brion VIBBER
The point is to have a partial list of persons believed to be atheists, of course! (what Wikipedia article can claim to be "complete"?) (and the same for lists of other types of persons 'X')(Though I'd like a slightly more rigorous standard than "believed to be")
Sturgeon's Law says "90% of everything is crap".
90% of Wikipedia is crap.
'However', one person's crap is another person's fertilizer. We do NOT all agree on *which* 90%! As I said above, I detest a lot of what I see on Wikipedia. However, I understand very well that *somebody* likes it (and "somebody" is generally at least several thousand people, I'd guess). I think when we work on Wikipedia, we should confine ourselves to 1)writing what we believe to be true 2)correcting what we believe to be false 3)making things more NPOV. I *don't* think we should be in the business of judging what others might find useful or interesting.
- To say "People who like these lists can make them. People who don't like these lists can ignore them." misses the point. The point is that no encyclopedia or almanac for that matter would simply list noted persons of any faith just because they happen to be a member of that faith (or anti-faith as in this case). This would be the true even if they were like wikipedia and did't have paper contraints; because such lists are inherently non-neutral propoganda designed to make other people with similar views feel good about themselves (and wikipedia is attempting to be a neutral encyclopedia that has some almanac type information -- such as valid lists of noted professionals who are famous because they advanced their profession). Think of the hideous hugeness a Christian list might become (or the inevitable controversy over who is "really" a Christian rubbish). Brion is right, if there is to be such as list it must be short and informative and, as Robert said, the people listed should be famous in relation to, at least, being X faith -- just because they were otherwise famous and a member of X faith doesn't count. The problem with having these lists is that they can never be said to be nearly complete, are oftentimes difficult to verify, many people change their faith several times during their lives and others only pretended to be faithful or are not considered to have belonged to a certain faith by some groups. In addition, having "Listing of X faith" encourages the creation of other such meaningless lists and brings down the average quality of wikipedia. I'm starting to see a strong consensus here that this page in its current form is not informative and should either be fixed or remain in the deletion queue for final review. I don't see any reason why this page shouldn't be copied over to the meta though. Hard drive space is cheap, but wikipedia's strived for reputation for NPOV content is a very important goal -- these faith and related lists are more proselytizing propoganda than anything else -- this also goes for Famous gay lesbian or bisexual people too (I'm both atheist and gay BTW). --maveric149
I agree that these lists should go. If there is any justification to keeping them, it would be only after they are trimmed down to include only people who are famous because of their affiliation. In other words, a list of famous atheists should only include people who contributed to atheism and are famous for doing so (Madeleine Murray O'Hare comes to mind). In that case, the list could be appended to the Atheism article. I feel the same way about the list of famous gay people, Jews, Prussians, Canadians, etc. Oh, and I am very much opposed to the list of "Beautiful Italians," which puts these lists to shame. Danny
End Listing of noted atheists discussion
Is it fair to say that the collection of pages on the Simpsons, Star Wars, Atlas Shrugged and the like violate convention #7 (on encomia/fan pages). I appreciate that some people consider these books/shows very important, or like them very, very much, but I hardly think that an encyclopedia is the place for such pages. While I think the question of what knowledge is relevant and important enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia is a difficult one, I think these pages clearly don't deserve inclusion; if the authors wish to create detailed pages on the Star Wars universe, they are perfectly capable of creating such pages in hundreds of other places around the Web.
Has this been discusssed elsewhere? -Graft 08:21 Jul 25, 2002 (PDT)
There appears to be a typo in item 9. The final phrase reads, "or significantly contributed too the list topic" (emphasis added). I believe it should read "to the list topic", i.e. change 'too' to 'to'. I would have boldy updated the page itself, but it appears to be a protected page.
Hope this helps, Jim DLH (who is not yet a Wikipedian, but may become one soon).
- Typo fixed. Locking of the help/documentation/policy pages is a bit controversial; to stimulate discussion, I've unprotected this one. --Brion 05:27 Sep 23, 2002 (UTC)
While I do believe that significant changes to this page should be discussed first, I think that this is a pretty safe one to unblock. I agree with you, Brion. — Toby 11:09 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)
On the mailing list, I said I whip up some boiler plate notices asking people to discuss major changes to the policy pages, and then unlock them all, and there were no objections. I'll do that within the next day or so. --Stephen Gilbert 12:00 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)
Golly! Brion has just unlocked the page and a nonsysop makes an edit that wasn't discussed first. I agreed with the sentiment, but the example didn't seem appropriate, so I rewrote it. Since my change was a weakening of something that was never discussed first, I feel justified in doing it without discussing it first ^_^. However, I do think that we should now discuss the total change (DW's + mine) and see if we agree with that. I don't anticipate controversy, but it should still be discussed, you know. — Toby 12:41 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)
All "List of..." pages annoy me. Like they do many here. However, Wikipedia has the potential of being larger in scope than any previous "encylopedic" (is that a word?) human endeavor. A "list of atheists" can fit here because nobody has to buy this journal, this book, this volume, this collection. Why not let it ride? Let "our" (man, how easily we perceive this as ours) readers read what they want. There is no limitation (someone must be buying the server space for this stuff [damn, that's spooky--will this all expire?]). Why complain? -Arthur 02:07 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
I think "List of" pages are useful, not only as a way to create a link to new articles but to give people some thinking points to start off their own articles. -- Zoe
- I agree with that. As an article to themselves, I don't like them. Wikipedia is not an almanac. On the other hand, I got some decent articles out of the list of people on American postage stamps, while Zoe did a great job of turning the Academy Award winners into articles. Danny 02:17 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time parsing item 2. In the first sentence, I don't think that the part starting with "that" adds anything useful, and it sure is hard to understand. Also, what does "as in the case of biographies" have to do with anything? --GG
Also, item 4 needs some bold. --GG
- The page is now unprotected. Do whatever editing you think is needed making sure not to change the meaning. But don't worry too much about that - somebody will fix it if you do. --mav
Anyone notice how 67.122.115.150 has been busy plugging albums and videos in the various "Years in Music" and "Years in Movies" entries on here? I know that there's a statement on how Wikipedia is not meant to be a place for advertising, but methinks we may need to have a more direct and prominent statement, especially concerning things like this. While 67.122.115.150's actions don't exactly violate Wikipedia, they do toe the line and make me wonder if we won't be seeing an increase of subtle advertising tactics like this guy is embarking on. -- Modemac
- Have you tried User talk:67.122.115.150[?]? --Eloquence 16:45 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)
- He's gone now, and when he comes back he'll have a different IP address. -- Modemac
Wikipedia is not future history Wikipedia is not a repository of predictions of what will happen in years to come. (the exception being if such predictions are well-known, such as Nostradamus, Asimov, Jules Verne etc; and even then these should not be intermingled with history articles since they are parts of works of fiction). Should we add a new entry or file under "9: Personal essays"? -- Tarquin 22:16 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)
- I think 9 is sufficient. We do not want to deter people from putting valid, properly attributed predictions into articles. --Eloquence 22:22 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)
I think certain things such as solar and lunar eclipses are ok for the near future. No need to go decades into the future, though. -- Stephen Gilbert 23:32 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)
Indeed. And things like "Turkey's entry into the EU due to be reviewed" -- things we're sure or fairly sure will happen. My point was things like "2005: Oil Wars", "2010: aliens land" etc. -- Tarquin 23:46 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think those smell like personal essays... or at least the beginnings of them. -- Stephen Gilbert 00:00 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)
Moved from the Village pump:
OPINIONS ON WIKIPEDIA 2/24/03 Also, someone mentioned I could not express opinions on Wikipedia (e.g., looking for feedback on my dream file/web browser concept), even on the "Discuss this page" item. Is this true? It seems to me Wikipedia would otherwise (if it did allow opinions at least on the DiscussThisPage pages) to be a potentially incredible way to store discussions in that it would not get in the way of the "facts" which would be limited to the main documents (though obviously "facts" can be opinions too, it's largely about the tone in which they're worded), but they would have the advantage of being automatically categorized and allow people familiar and interested in a certain subject to know exactly where to look (like Usenet groups, but more accessible to anyone and even more hierarchically specifiable).
- Feel free to express opinions on talk pages and on your user page - there is no rule against that. But articles must be NPOV. ---mav
- Thanks, the npov article was helpful...By talk pages I assume you mean the pages under "DiscussThisPage"?
- Is there a place to navigate only the discussion pages?
- No. Should there be?
- So are user pages are totally unrestricted then as to content?
- No. You should still consider wikipetiquette, make no personal attacks, and avoid breaching copyright or the law. But they are less restrictive.
- Also, I was just wondering, can people post advertisements in the talk pages? (e.g., under the computer OS page, could Microsoft theoretically be allowed to point out under "DiscussThisPage" that they can purchase the newest Windows software at their website)
- Personally, I would remove such adverts on sight.
Since Wikipedia is open to contributions from all comers, what is to prevent its being taken over by commercial interests wishing to promote their products?
- Primarily, it's against the rules of contribution - wikipedia is not a place for advertising, and most advertising is not wikipedia:neutral point of view. The various checks and balances against vandalism have always worked to date (see Our responses to our critics). If companies want to contribute to writing factual, balanced, informative articles, so much the better. Martin
Do we have a policy on users who merely spend their time adding weblinks to one company, presumably in an attempt at promotion? For example, user:203.35.82.3 has added lots of e-text external links to the same company - how to handle this? Martin
- In this case, I think the links should be replaced with links to a non-commercial source (e.g. Gutenberg) ASAP, but they're OK for the time being. What would be a reason for banning is if he replaced links to non-commercial sources with commercial ones. --Eloquence 19:00 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia is not a genealogical or biographical dictionary"
I'd just like to check. Is being killed by having an aeroplane crash into your office window an "achievement" within the context of wikipedia? Martin
- It's a matter of opinion. Every wikipedia user will have their own opinion about what's worthy of an article. Provided they are based on solid facts that can be verified elsewhere, I see no problem with such articles (see discussion about Sir Mildred Pierce). ( 22:30 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)
There is discussion about The Cunctator's recent change to this entry on WikiEN-L. I'll try to divert it here. -- Toby 19:46 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)
- I actually quite like the idea of requiring that there be at least a few published articles, documentaries, etc, ec, about someone before they are worthy of inclusion. Luke Rhinehart is an obscure author who's had several book reviews and a couple of documentaries. Brandon Teena is a dead person who inspired a film.
Meanwhile, Ben Hajioff[?]'s exposure is limited to liner notes on a compilation CD. That's not noteworthy. Mind you, I'd put the bar higher than requiring a single article - I'd like to see subjects of articles have a range of sources available, so that we can use all of them to guard against bias and achieve a rounded picture. Martin
It seems to me that even if something's on the summary edit, it should still be on the complete list. This is especially true when the complete list has more detailed explanations. -- Toby 23:53 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not be the United Nations National[?] and International[?](Empty, as of 19 April 2003) are Social[?] and Political boundaries. Whereas, Wikipedia is a Community or Virtual Community[?]. Morality unites Communities whilst Ethics unites Societies. I think that division of the World along the lines of British Political Economy is too Empirical[?](Empiricism). Am I wrong? afterall Wikipedia:NPOV -- JW
- These topics should be discussed (and have been discussed) on the WikiEN mailing list, I have recently (16 April 2003) presented somewhat similar lines of thought about the internationality of (english) wikipedia. I think you should post your proposition there. -- Rotem Dan 12:24 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)
- I'd be better able to agree or disagree with you if I understood what the heck you were saying, JW...
Why have we lost this item:
- An educational textbook. Though Wikipedia attempts to explain many non-trivial scientific and philosophical topics, it should not be used merely as a mean of teaching the subject, this is what book references are for.
I should have moved it - sorry. To quote from my edit summary: "rm educational textbook. It's not clear to me what entries, if any, violate this rule". How would an article violate this rule? If an article happens to be a good means of teaching a subject, should we change it to be less useful?
In the case of the knowledge article, what exactly makes larry's text an "educational textbook"? Is it the use of friendly examples, such as the gas station attendent? Are we to remove friendly examples from wikipedia articles? That's only going to make them less inviting to lay readers, and accessibility is an important aim. Is it referring to the reader as "you"? Well, sure I'm happy to consider a policy on use of first and second person, but that's something for the manual of style, not here.
Sure, Wikipedia is not an educational textbook. It is also not a swimming pool. Not seeing any evidence that anyone is mistaking it for an educational textbook, I'd prefer to avoid adding unnecessary points to this page. Martin
- Ah. ok. (I'm feeling pretty darn stupid in my swimming trunks now, I can tell you! ;-) -- Tarquin 22:52 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License
|
Search Encyclopedia
|
Featured Article
|