Wikipedia talk:Five pillars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Five pillars page.
Archives: 1, 2
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Helpful

That was the most helpful page that Arnoutf pointed me to! Concise yet comprehensive! StevenAR 00:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Pesco pointed out this page to me, he's a big help.Atomic45 07:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Superfluous note

About this:

[edit] Note

This page describes Wikipedia's fundamental principles. These principles predate the creation of this page. It is sometimes said that all or most policy is based upon this page, but most policy also predates the creation of this page.

Am I the only one that sees that as superfluous, self-serving clutter? --Justanother 09:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a clue, I guess. There are at least 3 levels of wikipedia understanding. --Kim Bruning 15:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC) (Oh gawd, do I sound like a zen teacher already? :-/ )

[edit] Suggestion

This page should prominently feature a link to WP:BLP, since it trumps allother rules and guidelines. Artw 22:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Who told you that? --Kim Bruning 15:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
User:CyberAnth, with the apparent endorsement of Jimbo Wales himself. Artw 07:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not quite that simple :-P . Though yes, you should be careful about biographies of living persons, since They Can Get Mad At Us and Do Bad Things. So don't make living people mad at us ;-) --Kim Bruning 08:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

Everyone knows that en.wikipedia runs by Consensus, but that fact isn't mentioned on this page. Aaaaand I've just been talking to some outsiders who were very confused about that. So I've added an extra sentence, please feel free to tidy things a little. --Kim Bruning 15:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if I helped really, by adding a quibblable US/UK spelling (summarizsed), but 'fundament' is (more commonly?) something you land on post-banana-peel, so I took that out ;) --Quiddity 20:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
"foundation" maybe? --Kim Bruning 07:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I think running by establishing consusus is more of a means to an end. I don't think it is a central enough goal or tenet of the project to be mentioned in the five pillars. Johntex\talk 07:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The 5 pillars page was created by means of consensus, in fact. Is that sufficient for now? --Kim Bruning 08:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe that consensus should be mentioned in the five pillars. Without the fully application of the consensus, we can all go home. Wikipedia cannot live without consensus, and it's that that made it what it is now. The consensus rule allow every one of us to "fight" for a better wikipedia. Try to ask yourself these questions:
  • Can we have made a encyclopedia with over one hundreds millions contributions from three milions and half users without the consensus mechanism or will have we stopped earlier?
  • Can we reach neutral point of view without consensus?
  • Can we enjoy editing wikipedia without the consensus rule?
In my opinion, consensus is the "creator" of four of the five pillars.
  1. A collaborative encyclopedia, Nupedia has proved it, cannot work without consensus. I think that everyone can agree that an encyclopedia written with the wiki style cannot be effectively "ruled" by anything except consensus.
  2. A neutral point of view cannot be, in my humble opinion, obtained by anything except consensus.
  3. This is the only pillar which, in my opinion doesn't strictly depends on consensus.
  4. Consensus is behind even the "Wikiquette". If our community, because everything is a community, on the net and in the life, wouldn't be ruled by consensus, we wouldn't be so polite and friendly. If the "power to choose" isn't ours, we cannot be relaxed and good faith assuming, probably.
  5. And even the last five pillar, the no firm rules, be bold and so on, rely on consensus. Because consensus is the first and binding rule, the only one we cannot forget. If we forget it, we are lost.
I think that we should add one more pillar, and also make it the first one. Consensus, in my opinion, is the first pillar.
Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk) on 23:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
These are all means the ends which are listed here in the five pillars. —Centrx→talk • 00:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well, if you want to make consensus a central pillar, you might want to make a slightly different arrangement altogether. What would you be thinking of? See if you can sketch it here :-) --Kim Bruning 01:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is not a pillar at all, and the pillars here do not derive from consensus. All consensus is directed toward satisfying Wikipedia's fundamental principles as a free, neutral encyclopedia. Furthermore, consensus cannot over-ride, for example, foundation principles like Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and freeness (or for the matter the legal situation of existing content under the GFDL). Consensus cannot make Wikipedia into an advertisement service or a telephone directory. Consensus is opposite to the chaos of having no code of conduct. In that consensus can change, consensus is also opposite to having firm rules. Consensus is subordinate to and in every situation contingent upon satisfying Wikipedia's fundamental principles. If there is a principle here that can be changed by consensus, then it is not actually a fundamental principle. —Centrx→talk • 23:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
m:Foundation issues are a consensus across all wikimedia communities, so they are indeed very hard to change. Though if you see the page history, you'll see that they do in fact change with consensus over time. --Kim Bruning 23:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The basic points are identical since the creation of that page. There are extrapolations and ramifications added and revised, but fundamental principles (or "pillars") there are identical. We can say here that "encyclopedia", "neutral", "free", "sane conduct", "not firm rules" are the pillars, and these have been true since the start, while the other text on this page is description and extrapolation (or, a fitting of the principles to the particular policy pages we have now). Once you change "encyclopedia" to "phonebook", Wikipedia is no longer "Wikipedia". Pillars are unchanging and unchangeable. —Centrx→talk • 00:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there are several approaches to summarizing the wikipedia guidelines. See WP:SR and WP:TRI. --Kim Bruning 10:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Neither of those even pretend to list fundamental pillars of Wikipedia. WP:SR is a summary of all major policies and guidelines. WP:TRI simply assumes the obvious "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" and ignores "Wikipedia is free" because it is not one of "three basic guiding principles for editors" (except insofar as it intersects the other obvious one, "Wikipedia is not a venue for illegal activities"). —Centrx→talk • 15:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
And yet this approach to summarizing was first used on WP:TRI, and this page is merely an evolutionary improvement to that. There are many ways to reduce the number of rules people need to learn. That's not to say this page isn't really cool, but there may yet be cooler ways to meet the objective of reducing the number of pages one needs to read. --Kim Bruning 21:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
This is irrelevant to whether Wikipedia:Consensus is at the foundation of Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 17:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
All these approaches (including 5P) were arrived at by the wiki-process, (foundation issue #3). Consensus is the key component of the wiki-process. --Kim Bruning 20:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
These are simply different pages about the same thing. The principles they refer to were not arrived at by the wiki-process, but are inherent in the concept of a wiki encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 20:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
How was the wiki-encyclopedia invented? --Kim Bruning 21:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] subsection 1

copied from User talk:Centrx

Even the foundation issues are founded on the principle of consensus. Several were in fact designed on the basis of consensus on meatballwiki or wikiwikiweb, or based on consensus and concessions across 3 encyclopedia communities, etc . Consensus is ubiquitous and fundamental to wikis, and several other internet processes in general, and is very hard to escape. --Kim Bruning 23:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is based on fundamental principles. The exact ramifications of various policies were reached by consensus, but those policies and that consensus is already done under the basic premise of some general notion of a free encyclopedia. Once it is decided that 'Wikipedia is free encyclopedia', that cannot be changed without making it no longer 'Wikipedia'. There might be some consensus to do something different, but that becomes 'Wiktionary', etc. If theoretical pillars are changed, Wikipedia becomes something entirely different from what it has been since the beginning, and it is destroyed. If Wikipedia were no longer 'encyclopedia' or 'neutral' or 'free', it would mean that Wikipedia is gone and there would anyway quickly be a fork. If there were some change in 'free', it would mean that every article would need to be restarted from the beginning. If there were some change in 'sane conduct', no encyclopedia or any other project could ever work. If Wikipedia suddenly had 'firm rules', it would contradict "consensus". —Centrx→talk • 00:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] subsection 2

The fundamental issues are based on consensus because they were arrived at by consensus. Because the consensus is carried by so many people, there is inertia and it is unlikely to change much. But the foundation issues do change slowly! For instance: Anthere now has the last word, rather than Jimbo; There is now an arbitration committee; some people think fair use is ok in a free encyclopedia; etc. As to the 5 pillars: those were arrived at by consensus. (Recovered the timeline for you, with a lot of help!) --Kim Bruning 10:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Recovered the timeline at Wikipedia talk:Simplified Ruleset#Historic information --Kim Bruning 11:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
They were not arrived at by the sort of consensus described at Wikipedia:Consensus, and they are not changeable by the sort of consensus at Wikipedia:Consensus.
5P is one of the things I'm most proud about on wikipedia, and the changes that were recently made to wp:consensus actually reflect some of the process that was used here. You're saying there's more to it, and wp:consensus doesn't cover the process entirely? Alright, what kinds of changes can we make so that we describe consensus more accurately? --Kim Bruning 20:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Consensus on articles, or revert rules, or inclusion criteria is wholly different from consensus about fundamental pillars of Wikipedia. Even if Wikipedia:Consensus were changed to reflect this different, it would be misleading to conflate the two here and to refer to these pillars as being a result of the same sort of consensus as for article content. —Centrx→talk • 03:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
There are 2 or more forms of consensus? I don't know whether I agree, but I'm willing to listen. I suspect that it would not fit in the width of this margin, however. ;-) Could you make a section on Wikipedia talk:Consensus and elaborate on that? --Kim Bruning 16:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
It's quite clear. Consensus on an individual article does not override policies and guidelines. Neutral point of view is "absolute and non-negotiable". In order to change these pillars, there would need to be a total destruction of what Wikipedia is, making it something it is not. —Centrx→talk • 17:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I told Slimvirgin that that wording was going to be misread, but she's stubborn that way, and I didn't want to push the point. :-P The intent there is that you can't simply decide to ignore global consensus one fine day. You can certainly renegotiate details of NPOV on the NPOV page, or on meta, or what have you.
Destroying wikipedia by ignoring the five pillars you say? Ah, nope, there's at least 3 other formulations that are more or less valid. I'm personally using one of the other formulations right now. --Kim Bruning 20:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The pillars are the ultimate global consensus and renegotiating "details" of NPOV is entirely different from eliminating NPOV, which would be the case if these pillars were "renegotiated". This is not a misreading.
And yet some people say that verifiability and reliable sources might supplant NPOV, as together they form a more reliable formulation. (These are the same people who added "non negotiable" wording to all three... which at some point is going to bite them in the rear. Not my problem for now though ;) )
  • WP:IAR specifically includes "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". That is, any ignoring of rules requires that the purpose of Wikipedia as encyclopedia must be the reason for ignoring them. IAR does not simply say "Disregard all rules" and it does not mean that Wikipedia can be turned into a porn site under IAR. All actions must not conflict with these pillars. —Centrx→talk • 21:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Argh. I was part of the group who negotiated that particular wording. Now I understand why folks like Elian and Anthere preferred to leave the "improving or maintaining wikipedia" out of it. I never ever ever thought I'd get bitten by that. Once again, these pillars are just something someone made up as a useful summary. They were never intended as a religeon! Oh no! --Kim Bruning 22:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the theoretical issues, it is misleading to say that "Neutral point of view" is arrived at or changeable in the same way that Wikipedia:Reliable sources is, or even in the same way that the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view page is.
You mean the concept versus the page? That's a very good point. Wikipedia:Consensus does not yet fully describe how consensus based processes come about, nor does it describe the optimal way to record descriptions of those processes. Perhaps you could come help out with that? Note that consensus and wiki-editing are probably more fundamental than NPOV, since we have several wikis which do not require NPOV but operate just fine. Of course, once you try to use your wiki to make an encyclopedia, NPOV suddenly becomes very important. But you can't deny that you're still working on a wiki. --Kim Bruning 20:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia. Neutrality is fundamental. —Centrx→talk • 03:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Before it was wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, it was a blank mediawiki install on an as yet unnamed server. ;-) After that, Sanger and Wales and etc. started adding pages and developing ideas that would one day become a standalone encyclopedia.
Also the following conversation at wiki:WikiPedia:
"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"
--Kim Bruning 16:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
What about it? Someone decided to have an encyclopedia. Once created, it cannot be changed into something different without destroying what it is. It cannot be changed by "consensus", which is vague enough already. —Centrx→talk • 17:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that policy is not clearer. I try to improve policy clarity a little bit every day. Both Wikipedia:Consensus and this page have been part of that effort. While working on the consensus page, I noticed a small oversight on this one, pointed out to me by someone on svwiki, in fact.
And of course wikipedia is now what it is. But I'm confused. Why deny the existence of the process which was used to create it? --Kim Bruning 20:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Consensus was not the process used to invent Wikipedia. The invention of Wikipedia as wiki encyclopedia is a decision made prior to and outside of any rules of Wikipedia. There was discussion in Nupedia about inventing Wikipedia. Wikipedia was ultimately a re-invention of Nupedia. It contradicted the principles of Nupedia and Wikipedia was part of the destruction of Nupedia. If the principles of Wikipedia were contradicted by some "consensus", it would be the destruction of Wikipedia, even if something were to remain even under the same name. Ultimately, too, the "process" used to create Wikipedia is meaningless without someone to host the servers, install the software, and support it intellectually. That is, the process used to create Wikipedia was not consensus; the process was: Someone wanted to have a wiki encyclopedia and spent time and money to make it happen. Furthermore, others thought it was a good idea too and participated, because it was a wiki encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 21:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I already linked you to the key discussion, it was on wikiwikiweb. Wikiwikiweb is a wiki. Wikiwikiweb is a wiki that uses consensus.
After that, people still needed to figure out the details of how to make an encyclopedia using a wiki. People started with usemodwiki software. Eventually new wiki software was written (mediawiki). Early on, people also experimented with other methods of decision making, possibly due to NIH syndrome. Consensus was settled on. I've already referred you to User:Jdforrester if you'd like to ask for more details. --Kim Bruning 22:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The way this was described above is to mention consensus decision-making on this page, not to superinclude all the pillars under it, and the two ideas of consensus are different.
I realize the difference. I'm curious what kind of summary we'd come up with if that was tried. --Kim Bruning 20:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The creation of the encyclopedia as encyclopedia pre-exists policy here. It has a place in some history, but not as theoretical all-inclusive foundation of Wikipedia. Consensus is based on these pillars. —Centrx→talk • 17:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Not quite. Wikipedia was not originally intended to be the actual encyclopedia itself, as you should know (to an extent, wikipedia was intended as the draft version of nupedia). --Kim Bruning 20:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
See above. I see no conflict here. —Centrx→talk • 21:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Has Anthere or the Arbitration Committee changed any of these pillars? The one example you give, of freeness, is actually being further enforced by recent Foundation decision, and the GFDL is regardless not open to any changes by consensus.
These are items in the m:foundation issues, which our guidelines *must* comply with. The foundation issues also serve as an example in that they're the least mutable guidelines we have.
As for the GFDL, there is no reason to believe that the upcoming FSF process for updating the GFDL will not be open for input. Even so, you could design a process-set where "GFDL" is not mentioned, and yet might still be valid wrt foundation issues. (The trivial but ugly example would be to include the body text of the GFDL into the policy-set in toto) --Kim Bruning 20:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Any updated version of the GFDL must "be similar in spirit to the present version", it may only "differ in detail to address new problems or concerns". A new license cannot be used on Wikipedia without throwing out all existing pages. —Centrx→talk • 17:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
That's what dual-licensing is for, which is something that was introduced several years after wikipedia was started. (I strongly suspect at the behest of Lawrence Lessig, he has admitted as much. He has since changed tack somewhat, and is cooperating with Eben Moglen more.)
Dual-licensing died after Ram-Bot stopped spamming people about it. Regardless, even with dual-licensing, or even if Wikipedia had used some free license other than the GFDL, it is free and the least constrictive license can always be chosen. For anything dual-licensed to be "GFDL" and "all rights reserved", a user can choose to use it under "GFDL". —Centrx→talk • 21:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Dual-licences are now available in a handy dandy pull-down menu nowadays. At least for images. No idea why you'd think they are dead. --Kim Bruning 22:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The timeline you give is a timeline of the creation of this particular page; it is not a timeline of the principles of Wikipedia, which stem entirely from "free encyclopedia" and exist from the start. —Centrx→talk • 15:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
That's a good point. This page is a simplification of policy. The principles on which it is based are older. Those principles also revolve around consensus, however. That's one of the reasons why it was so simple and easy to use a consensus process to summarize them.
If you'd like to try a different tack... if you view WP:NOT, you will see that wikipedia is not a dictatorship, democracy, or anarchy. So how was our system arrived at? It didn't happen by magic. --Kim Bruning 20:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
These principles do not "revolve" around consensus. They arise directly from the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia, which is unchanging. Consensus does not change Wikipedia from an encyclopedia into something else. The system was arrived at by like-minded people working towards a common goal. Once it is decided that Wikipedia is a "free encyclopedia", participants are attracted to and adhere to that goal. If it had been decided that Wikipedia be a "peer-reviewed methodical top-down encyclopedia", i.e. Nupedia, it would be a different beast to which few are attracted and, once changed, it is no longer Nupedia but Wikipedia. All consensus is in reference to these basic principles here. Consensus does not create or alter them. —Centrx→talk • 03:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll take this one step at a time. How did we come to the point of having wikipedia, the free encyclopedia? (I've already been adding quotes and links from history, so possibly you have enough clues already ;-) ) --Kim Bruning 16:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The encyclopedia is already created. If the same sort of decision-making were to take place that created the encyclopedia, it would create a new entity. It would not be Wikipedia. It would not be created through Wikipedia:Consensus. —Centrx→talk • 17:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Consensus decision making was already present fairly early on on wikipedia, and definately helped form many early guidelines. It might be handy to also talk with User:Jdforrester on that topic, since he was involved in a lot of early guideline formation. --Kim Bruning 20:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
That's at least two years after the creation of the encyclopedia, two years after it was posted to Slashdot and Kuro5hin, and two years after I applied to proofread articles on Nupedia. In 2001, it was quite clear what a general-purpose encyclopedia was and what open-content was. The writing of text in guideline pages two years after it was clear to every intelligent person what a free encyclopedia was, is irrelevant to what a free encyclopedia is. There would not even be a need for any "official policies" or anything beyond unmarked Wikipedia-space pages with advice, if it were not for various idiots. —Centrx→talk • 21:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Now that much I agree on ;-) So now, how do we write out what we already know in an as efficient a way as possible? That's the key objective I'm trying to fulfill. I'll drop everything else if you can explain a better way to do this. --Kim Bruning 22:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Agree with Centrx. It is about agreement and what we "signed on for". The Pillars form the basic agreement of what we are doing, what we are creating, and where we are going. Every editor here should be familiar with them, and should edit in accordance with them. They stand above "consensus" if by "consensus" we mean the normal (to wikipedia) non-representative sampling of those few editors that have a particular page in their watch list, notice the change, and are interested enough to comment. IMO, the Pillars do not so much represent a distillation of policy and procedure as they do the gold standard that all policy and procedure must align to. Sorry if this comes across as "undemocratic" but "wikipedia is not a democracy". --Justanother 17:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Um, not to put to fine a point on it, but WP:5P is just a page me and some of my friends made up. Though it's great to hear people are taking it to heart. :-) For the actual sign-up brochure, see m:Foundation issues. I hope you do agree with that page. --Kim Bruning 20:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
      • No, the contents of the page is agreed by nearly everyone who edits here. Don't confuse "My friends and I wrote most of the text of this page" with "My friends and I defined the pillars of Wikipedia", which is what he agrees to. If it were merely something you "made up" and it were in conflict with the principles of Wikipedia, it would never have been accepted or allowed to stay. If "your friends" had not written it, someone else would have in reference to those same principles. If there did not exist such a page, the principles would still be there inherent in what is a wiki encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 20:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I was trying to formulate get a life in a more polite manner. :-/
The "pillars" page is just one of several ways to simplify policy.
The 5 pillars page is very nice, and I'm not going to deny it's important, but importantly, it's not our m:foundation issues. I am slightly scared to hear people confusing the two! --Kim Bruning 20:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Not sure about the "get a life" bit. Is that your standard answer to editors that disagree with you? --Justanother 21:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
No! More like I feel like things I've worked on are being worshipped too much. (I feel a bit like William Shatner right now ^^;;). I did want to try to be a little more polite than he was though! --Kim Bruning 22:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
And Kim, if what you really meant by that unabashed effort to marginalize me is that I am missing and not addressing the real point of this discussion, then just say so. And if you would be kind enough to correct me then that would be fine too. I am a pretty bright guy and I might have something to contribute.
My apologies for making you feel that way. :-( --Kim Bruning 22:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I will say that the meta foundation issues would not be all-inclusive of the fundamental policies of the encyclopedia; i.e. m:foundation issues is not a sufficient statement of the basic principles here on wikipedia. I thought the Pillars served that purpose. Perhaps I was mistaken. --Justanother 21:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Now that's an interesting point. It's just that I've never seen the five pillars quite that way. It's quite humbling. It might be good in one way, and maybe less good in another. Let me think about that. --Kim Bruning 22:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Apology accepted. Thanks. Re worship, all due respect but please do not confuse the common purpose that binds us with the written description of it. The word is not the thing. Personally, the only reason I expend as much effort as I do here is because I believe in that purpose and believe that that purpose can overcome those that seek to make wikipedia a propaganda medium for hate and a mirror of their biased websites. As far as the writing down of it; it looked OK (smile). --Justanother 22:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Procedural Revert

The irony here is even thicker, since you're removing the statement in 5P that says you're allowed to use consensus to change the page in the first place ;-). --Kim Bruning 15:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You made a new change. The old version is the consensus version. A brief discussion in which no one agreed to the change you actually made does not create a new consensus. You were bold by making that new change, and then it was reverted, so now you must discuss it not revert to your new version repeatedly. —Centrx→talk • 17:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The old version has been here since the creation of this page in 2005. That your new change, which had no discussion supporting what you actually implemented, was not reverted for 9 days does not suddenly make it the "consensus" version. Follow your own guidelines. —Centrx→talk • 17:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Hoist by my own petard several times in a row, eh?
This is frustrating. I know consensus belongs in that spot. I can't believe this wasn't spotted in 2005 (actually, no, wait, I can. If there's an entire (sub)community approved guideline that can only be found in deletion history in one spot, anything can happen...but I digress). At any rate, I wanted to just add the clarification, and now it seems I'm being told that the page I was involved in in the first place is now considered handed down from the heavens. --Kim Bruning 21:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC) "consensus version" was a bad joke, since the version I reverted to actually mentioned consensus :-P
If consensus had been put in that spot at the beginning, it would have been taken out at some point because it is wrong. Consensus was not there at the top from the beginning, and thousands of people did not see a deficiency. An explanation of this is in the introduction to Wikipedia:Consensus. Anyway, the fact is that any "consensus" has to be based on fundamental principles. Consensus does not come out of thin air based on what people "want". Consensus only results when you have people with a common goal. That common goal is described here. —Centrx→talk • 21:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted the lead to the short version, but attempted to incorporate consensus into the 4th pillar. Alternative ideas seem more fruitful than back-and-forthing.
Feel free to revert my addition, but I do believe Centrx is right, in that the short version is the one that has consensus (it's the original), even if it doesn't mention it! I'm not sure where you (Kim) are seeing Bold revert discuss say "to not accept a revert "back to consensus version""?(unless you're attempting wordplay on consensus being the subject and object of our discussion, and hence confusing us all greatly!) You were bold, Centrx reverted, and now we're discussing, as far as i can see..? :) --Quiddity 18:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough as far as process goes ;-).
Consensus is not an alternative for WP:BOLD of course. WP:BOLD is only one (very small) element of consensus. (In fact, it's the first box under "start" in the flowchart... I didn't think of labeling the boxes with links to guidelines... an interesting idea). I haven't drawn a guideline creation flowchart yet. When I do, it'll probably be based on the process of creating WP:5P, in fact (since I was involved, I know how this process worked and why).
The overall reason I put consensus in the top is because it's a clarification of how (this page and) all policy was created. It is implicit in all wikipedia guidelines. It wasn't handed down from on high on clay tablets!
The immediate reason is because people on svwikis don't quite have this entire consensus thing down pat quite yet, and pointed the problem out to me. Forgetting to mention how consensus is related to the 5 pillars is indeed a pretty odd oversight! --Kim Bruning 20:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Consensus is how the pages are created, yes, but not fundamental principles or these pillars. —Centrx→talk • 20:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
So how did those principles emerge then? Magic? Dictated by god? I'm sure some of the old wikipedians would love to hear that one ;-) --Kim Bruning 21:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Remember, the Pillars that can be written are not the true Pillars. A joke but what you so unflatteringly cast as my n00b worship of something you and your friends thought up during a commercial actually goes a bit deeper, I think. No, I cannot speak with first-hand experience of the beginning of wikipedia but I can speak with first-hand experience of the harmful, hateful, and biased piece of crap that this project can turn into if the basic principles it is built on are not enforced (yes, the "E-word"). So call them Pillars or call them Lugnuts (my earlier suggestion) but if they are not held inviolable and not as something that a few can change under the misnomer of "consensus, then the wheels are falling off this project. --Justanother 21:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Or alternately, the wheels have rusted into an unmovable lump. (If you use the wheel analogy, remember that wheels do need to be able to turn freely ;-) --Kim Bruning 12:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

I was bold and started a poll on the subject. This may be the only way to find consensus on the issue as discussion has taken place for a couple months. The poll is at Wikipedia talk:Five pillars/Consensus poll. Thanks! Greeves (talk • contribs) 13:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Decisions on Wikipedia are not made by polling. Your poll is meaningless. —Centrx→talk • 17:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] upheld by, vs reduced or summarised

The 5 pillars are supposed to be a reduction of the rules to a few basic principles. if we just use them as a basis for 500 new ones, we might be somewhat off the mark wrt the original process that made them. (And may have to start anew? Willing to hear other opinions.

--Kim Bruning 12:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Since WP:NOR and WP:V are now of historical interest only, having been superseded by WP:A, I've given up waiting for someone to update this page, and have boldly revised the first pillar. OK? .. dave souza, talk 14:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That now seems to be a matter of debate.--Henrygb 12:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "English"

I'm sorry to be really pedantic but under the section entitled "Wikipedia has a code of conduct:" it states that "there are 1,700,600 articles on the English Wikipedia" This is in fact a fallacy, as the majority of articles on Wikipedia are in fact written in American, not English. Could this be changed for the preservation of the English language? Thanks, Spite & Malice 10:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

American English is a dialect of the English language. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for our guidelines concerning usage of English dialects within Wikipedia. --Quiddity 19:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
It is astonishing how easy it is to understand you when we are apparently speaking entirely different languages! —Centrx→talk • 17:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I knew there was something we forgot when we split from England. --Smokizzy Review Me! (Please!) 21:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elegant

simply παράδοξος 04:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki CS

Please, add [[cs:Wikipedie:Pět pilířů]] to the code. Thanks.

Y Done Danski14(talk) 20:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prioritization of the Five Pillars

A lot of editors seem to be under the impression that some of the Five Pillars are, for lack of a better term, "more equal" than others. And, in fact, our own guidelines seem to codify this; note that some potentially copyrighted encyclopedic content MUST be deleted IF THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS that a free/libre alternative can be created. Note that there is no standard to actually prove the existence of this hypothetical content -- only that it may, might, or could exist. Which is fine, and all... but it seems to me pretty clear proof that "Wikipedia is free content" is more important than "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." 'Cuz, you know, if it were an encyclopedia first, it would allow the fair use of that copyrighted content UNTIL free content was created to replace it. (There's a whole argument about how the lack of free-use encyclopedic material supposedly creates an incentive to create it... It's not my thinking, but that's how the argument goes.)

So here's what I propose: Let's prioritize the pillars. Let's make it clear that Wikipedia is about FREE CONTENT first, and actually being an encyclopedia second. This will have the added bonus of clearing up a lot of petty content disputes, clarifying Wikipedia's mission, and, triple bonus, create reams of new deletions for the much-vaunted BetacommandBot.  :)

It's how things are being run; let's just make it official. Jenolen speak it! 08:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

They are more co-equal. Think about it on the opposite side: Free content that is not encyclopedic is deleted. No matter how free your attack page, your copy of Shakespeare's Hamlet, your list of your personal favorite video games, it does not belong on Wikipedia. That is, as much as Wikipedia is about free content it is about being an encyclopedia. More so, in fact, because we do make allowances for non-free content that is essential for the encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 17:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
"More co-equal" is kinda' like "a little bit pregnant." They're either equal... or they're not. And in this case, as policy shows, they're definitely not! Can you point to a policy that would indicate encyclopedic content should be valued equally with free content? (That is, some place where it says encyclopedic value is grounds enough for keeping something that could possibly be replaced by free/libre content?) Jenolen speak it! 23:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic Counter

Under the fourth rule, where it says "remember that there are 1,822,704 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss," an automatic counter should be used for the number of articles on Wikipedia so it doesn't have to be constantly updated.--143.58.196.120 09:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

An automatic counter is used. --Eyrian 17:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} = 2,406,318. --Quiddity 18:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of non-policy/non-guidelines opinion essays in the Five Pillars.

Is the use of non-policy/non-guideline opinion essays appropriate in the Five Pillars? This is a page shown in the welcome template, and should only present to newcomers official policies/guidelines. Italiavivi 01:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Many pages labelled "essays" are in fact rather straight-cut descriptions. There is nothing wrong with them. Anyway, I don't see any essays listed on this page? —Centrx→talk • 04:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It was a supporting comment to his edit earlier that day ;) --Quiddity 05:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
That should not be removed for being an essay, it should be removed because it is too casual and not suitable for this page. That may very well be the reason wherefore it is labelled an essay, but its removal should not per se be due to its label of essay. —Centrx→talk • 05:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not a trivia collection

This page is supposed to be a summarization of Wikipedia's policies, yet the only place "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection" is mentioned is here. I think this should be changed or removed until there is a mention of this on one of the policy pages (for example WP:NOT). --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 16:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been there for over a year. Why is this only coming up now? --Eyrian 17:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a deadline for these sort of things. You are avoiding the argument. Where in policy is "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection" backed up? --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 19:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't try and read into my comments like that. I meant exactly what I asked, and nothing more. Why is this coming up now? It is not meant as a question of the validity, or an argument from the status quo, only an expression of puzzlement as to why, if this is an issue, it didn't come up before. --Eyrian 19:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The important thing is, Wikipedia is NOT a trivia collection.--Jimbo Wales 20:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Spirit, not letter. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 03:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "Some issue X has not been raised in the past" does not imply "X is not an issue." Sometimes changes go unnoticed, sometimes editors are not perfectly aware of all WP policies, sometimes they just don't care, etc. Transfinite is right, there is no Wikipedia policy prohibiting trivia. --xDanielxTalk 20:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The pillars transcend policy. They are what policies emerge from. --Eyrian 20:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The pillars attempt to summarize policy. They also, generally speaking, post-date the policies described. The page is not protected or even semi-protected, so the summary within WP:5P is in no way a superior interpretation of Wikipedia policy than any such interpretation formed by a group of editors familiar with basic policies, or for that matter even a group of registered editors and anonymous users. One does not have to be registered to participate in the 5P mini-project, nor does one have to have demonstrated knowledge of Wikipedia's policies, nor must there be any reason to believe that such a person is even well-intentioned (apart from WP:AGF). The 5P page attempts to summarize policy, but it is not any more official than what you or I have to say about policy. --xDanielxTalk 22:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed true that Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. But that one little line is not actually backed up by any policy (WP:NOT would include it if it truly was a consensus view). However, "Delete per WP:FIVE" is being habitually chanted now on WP:AFD to delete just about anything. In this respect, it becomes shorthand for "Delete per some policy somewhere, and I don't care if that policy doesn't exist".

This page should not be cited as though it were policy. Cite the underlying policies only.--Father Goose 21:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That's really just Wikilawyering. If something is against the principles of Wikipedia (as codified here), then it should be dealt with. --Eyrian 21:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
"The Five Pillars support my views, end of discussion" is a turbocharged example of Wikilawyering. If you're working from a principle, state the principle. Don't cite the page as though it were Law inviolate and inscrutable. Otherwise it's like saying "The Bible says so!"--Father Goose 22:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, since this discussion has started up again, I'll give my 2 cents. First, to answer Eyrian's question, I did start this discussion due to all the AfDs. My problem is that the word "trivia" is undefined here, and has been used as a synonym for "I don't like it" in recent AfDs. The word trivia originally pointed to Wikipedia:Notability, but now points to Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections. I was looking to remove the vague word trivia with something more precise from pages tagged as policy (i.e. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY or WP:NOT#INFO). --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 03:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
As an aside, User:Eyrian has nominated an article for deletion that is several months older than this page, Adolf Hitler in popular culture, so I don't see how age is a factor here. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 03:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need

There's no need for this page. Wikipedia would work without any imposed rules other than allowing everyone to edit, etc, as in self-regulation (that link is not good, though; capitalism may be better). A.Z. 21:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think that's the case, start with the pages in Category:Wikipedia official policy and Category:Wikipedia guidelines. The five pillars is just a simple, general explanation of what Wikipedia is about, which is at a minimum appropriate, whether in this form or in another. —Centrx→talk • 02:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Each person can interpret Wikipedia their own way. I think that general explanations of what Wikipedia is about belong to essays, not to a single "official" page. I, for instance, dislike NPOV, and I think this policy as it is right now does more harm than good. General explanations written by me would not include it as a core aspect of the encyclopedia. (In fact, I think there should be no official policies nor official guidelines, only essays. WP:POINT, WP:AGF, and WP:BOLD, for instance, are great suggestions in many situations, and I think they help Wikipedia. I read WP:POINT and I have chosen a number of times not to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point because it makes sense, not because it's a policy/guideline.) People can choose to write from a "neutral point of view" because it makes sense and because it makes the encyclopedia better. The page about NPOV should focus on explaining why it's good that Wikipedia be written from a "neutral point of view" (which it doesn't do at all), not on saying that it is NON-NEGOTIABLE. People fight and argue and acuse each other of being POV, and that's bad, because people miss the point, which is only to write a good encyclopedia. A.Z. 23:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
While explaining why policies are good is certainly an excellent idea, Wikipedia should have some hard rules about what it means to be an encyclopedia. Otherwise, the whole project will be subject to massively inappropriate drift. --Eyrian 23:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! I think that the rules being softer would not cause an inappropriate drift. I think that letting everyone edit would be enough a non-negotiable rule (is this good grammar, by the way?). This is just my opinion. A.Z. 01:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Non-encyclopedic articles are deleted, non-neutral articles are revised, non-free content is deleted, disruptive users are banned, and anyone is free to edit. This is how it is and how it ought to be in order for Wikipedia to be a free, openly editable encyclopedia, which is its essence. If you have a problem with the neutral point of view policy specifically, bring it up at WP:NPOV. The neutral point of view policy is central to having a "good encyclopedia" when diverse, disagreeing persons are editing it. I agree that all policy and guideline pages should expain the justification for their "rules", as that is the best way to convince people and prevent ignorant or misguided subsequent changes to policy. —Centrx→talk • 01:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad we all agree about something. Unfortunately, I'm on a wikibreak and don't have time to bring this up at the policies' talk pages.
I agree that non-encyclopedic articles should be deleted, non-"neutral" articles should be revised, and so on. I just feel that things would be best without official policies and guidelines that tell people what to do. To me, they don't seem to help. A.Z. 01:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
So, uh, can you clarify this? Wikipedia isn't designed to be what "people" want; it's designed to be an encyclopedia. That's what the people who pay for the servers are paying for, and that's what visitors expect. The various policies are about what's necessary to maintain a collaborative encyclopedia. --Eyrian 02:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you think is wrong with my comment. A.Z. 22:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia would become an indiscriminate collection of information in no time if there are no rules Corpx 01:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it would actually stop containing any meaningful information whatsoever, eventually. Fortunately, I didn't propose the elimination of rules, but only the elimination of policies and guidelines. Rules would keep existing in people's brains. If people want to build an encyclopedia, they'll do it even if there's not a policy saying so. A.Z. 01:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You're demonstrably wrong. --Eyrian 02:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is edited for the readers' benefit, not the editors'

I think we should state the obvious here, that "Wikipedia is edited for the readers' benefit, not the editors'." I think this is a fundamental principle that is often lost in conflicts between editors, and it would serve the project to put a reminder here. Dhaluza 02:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Second that. →Lwalt ♦ talk 04:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we can't gauge "the will of the readers" unless we can get them to speak up about what they want. The few that do make themselves heard by commenting here on Wikipedia are, as a result, editors themselves.--Father Goose 05:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Editors are readers too, when they're reading rather than editing. It's not a question of one Wikipedia patron type vs. another. We can include a statement that communicates where Wikipedia's priorities lie -- in the production of something to be read, or in the production of something to be edited. Of course we can usually do the one without adversely affecting the other, but there do arise arguments on occasion in which having the priority clearly set in policy would be useful. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:09, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Editors are (potential) readers and readers are (potential) editors, like, welcome to Web 2.0 . --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC) (wait, isn't web 2.0 SO last year already? I must be getting old)

[edit] interwiki link to te

Please add interwiki link to the telugu wikipedia [[te:వికీపీడియా:ఐదు మూలస్తంభాలు]]. __Mpradeep 16:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Melsaran 16:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The origin and meaning of "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection"

For background, see my analysis on the origin of the phrase "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection" in this page. As a result of that analysis, I decided to be bold and change the sentence to reflect what I believe was the original intent of that phrase, to say "Wikipedia is not a collection of non-notable trivia." I was quickly reverted by Eyrian, who is using this phrase as a justification (among others which I believe are equally as tenuous) to delete "in popular culture" articles and other material which this editor deems "trivial", and to change WP:NOT to add a section corresponding to "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection". The edit summary simply says "rv; intent has changed"; this seems to imply that this editor believes that even notable trivia does not belong Wikipedia. However, for something which documents the "pillars" of Wikipedia, intent should not change without clear consensus to do so. This document is intended to be a summary of existing policies and guidelines, not a basis from which to form new policies. So, per WP:BRD, I would like to open a discussion about the meaning of "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection", what it means, whether it should be part of the five pillars, whether it should be reworded, and whether there is consensus to significantly change policies and guidelines based on what was originally simply a restatement of notability guidelines followed by a few copyedits. See also the discussion above. DHowell 23:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Your are being self contradictory. You claim that things should revert to original intent, and be as the pillars were before. Yet, before, the pillars were a statement of Wikipedia's fundamental principles that guided the formation of policy. Strict traditionalism will lead to such problems. The fact is, Jimbo has said that Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. While I am aware that always taking such things as law can have disadvantages, when speaking about fundamental principles of Wikipedia, I find them to be an excellent place to start. There is no such thing as notable trivia; that is a contradiction. --Eyrian 23:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
There are, unfortunately, such things as notable facts in "trivia" sections, and trivia itself is a matter of context; a given fact may be trivial to one subject but centrally important to another. I'm not supporting either version of the wording at this time, but I do assert that "trivia" itself is a troublesome word that can be very easily misapplied.--Father Goose 04:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
If we really want to go back to true original intent, we could go back to the first version of the five pillars, which says absolutely nothing about "trivia". The point is that the five pillars never said anything about trivia collections until mid-2006, and many of the so-called "trivia collection" articles being deleted or proposed for deletion existed long before this. And as far as I know, Jimbo didn't say "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection" until a few weeks ago. If the five pillars represent "fundamental principles", then they should not be changed without a absolutely clear consensus. If you believe there is no such thing as "notable trivia", then fine, as long as you are defining "notable" the way that consensus has defined it (Wikipedia:Notability). But "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection" is being used as an excuse to delete notable information, such as "in popular culture" articles where the subject's impact on popular culture has been well-noted by multiple reliable sources. It is also being used to remove relevant facts about notable subjects, even though the "notability guidelines do not directly limit article content", and the triva guideline says not to remove such items unless they are "especially tangential or irrelevant". The problem is that whether something is "trivia" or not is often a matter of mere opinion; we have no objective definition of "trivia" like we have for "notability". Something subject to such widely varying opinions really ought not be a part of "fundamental principles" of a project which is supposed to be based on consensus.
For another perspective on "fundamental principles" which have been guiding this project, see the original version of Wiki is not paper, particular the section "No size limits", with which Jimbo said he agreed with completely. Based on certain things he's said lately, I don't know if he would agree with this any more, but many people contributing to Wikipedia still do. DHowell 20:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to remove this bit for now. As best as I can tell, there is general consensus for two positions related to "trivia":

  1. It is better to integrate miscellaneous information into other sections of an article than to keep it as a single section.
  2. There are facts that may be too unimportant to list on Wikipedia.

"Wikipedia is not a trivia collection" does not describe either of these. For the first one - Wikipedia:Trivia sections suggests that Wikipedia is not a list of trivia, but it may indeed be a collection of it (in prose form). For the second one - the word "trivia" in common usage does not just refer to unimportant facts, but to any sort of miscellaneous information. Therefore, using the word "trivia" here may be misleading.

I think we shold move towards adding something along the lines of "there may be information that is too unimportant to be included in Wikipedia". --- RockMFR 17:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, when I added the word trivia to the Five Pillars, I did not mean that "Wikipedia must not contain any trivia." It was intended to be a reminder that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and that "trivia"—meaning facts that are non-notable or irrelevant in that context—is not encyclopedic. Given that Wiki is not paper, the point at which facts should be omitted is probably far more "trivial" than the common usage of the word would dictate. Since it has proven to be misleading and is ambiguous at best, we should omit the term "trivia" from the Five Pillars. The present guidelines, which encourage the creation of sub-articles and integration of facts into relevant sections, are most reasonable. __ø(._. ) Patrick("\(.:...:.)/")Fisher 22:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

(Since this has been in place since this page began [1], I understand that this suggestion may be a bit controversial.)

I think the NPOV pillar should be merged with Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's about content (and even duplicates two of the links).

Something like this:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers. It incorporates elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow the neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research policies. Cite references from a reliable source, especially on controversial topics. Wikipedia is not the place for personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Nor is it a soapbox, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, a vanity publisher, a web directory, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is also not a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents - Such content should instead be contributed to our Wikimedia sister projects.

Once this is agreed upon, we can discuss what policy "group" (if any) should replace it as a pillar. - jc37 18:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's been 5 days, which is the length of time of an XfD, and there has been no comment whatsoever, so I'm going to go ahead and be bold, and implement.

The sentence I proposed in the example above:

comes from this at WP:NOR:

  • NPOV, V, and NOR are Wikipedia's three principal content policies. Since NPOV, V, and NOR complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.

That said, I think I'm going to merge the two even closer for clarity:

Since we've historically had 5 pillars, I think that the obvious cantidate as a replacement pillar is Wikipedia:Consensus. It's a facilitator, not etiquette. This also provides a better place for the notes about Wikipedia not being a democracy or anarchy, since those aren't about content.

Thus the following text:

Wikipedia works by building consensus: Consensus decision-making is an inherent part of the wiki process. Also note that Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia, and as such, Consensus can change. The primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, anarchy or any other political system. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion, and should be used with caution, if at all.

Nearly all of the above text was copied directly from the linked pages.

By adding this, we can describe Wikipedia using the five pillars in a single sentence:

  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, built by consensus, etiquette, and, if necessary, ignoring all rules.

I think that that about sums it up : ) - jc37 04:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Tentatively, I agree with these changes. Well-bolded.--Father Goose 03:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinews

In the first pillar, there's a sentence basically saying that content for dictionaries, newspapers, primary sources, etc should go to the sister wiki's. Wiktionary and Wikisource are linked here, but Wikinews isn't. (From newspapers, that is). Is there a reason why not? Best, --Bfigura (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither of the other links are to sister projects either. Though to be honest, that doesn't sound like a bad idea. - jc37 06:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but after looking at it, I think it might be more useful to have the Wikipedia_is_not_x links, since that's what the sentence is discussing. (And I'm not sure how I missed the fact that the links weren't to sister projects.) And if memory serves, I think the Wikipedia_is_not_x articles contain links to the relevant sister projects. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems in recent re-writing

Here is a summary of the major problems and downright errors in this version:

  • Where before the five pillars were a plain-language description of what Wikipedia is, it was recently morphed into another arcane policy page with Wikipedia-speak and a list of references to other policy pages that the user must read in order for the user to understand the five pillars and for some of the sentences to even make sense. For example, "Wikipedia's three principal content policies are neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Since they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three." This comes directly from a paragraph added to those pages several months ago; while it may be accurate, it does not belong in the five pillars. The newly added consensus pillar did not explain at all how consensus works, the only way to understand it would be to go read all the policy pages, which is antithetical to the purpose of the five pillars. Where before there was a solid, easy to understand description of the neutral point of view, now there is nothing whatsoever about neutral point of view except a link to WP:NPOV.
  • Free content means that the content on Wikipedia is available under a free license and may be free copied and redistributed, etc. The explanation of "free content" is not "Articles can be changed by anyone, and no individual owns any specific article." That is a description of the wiki process, not a description of free content. The previous sentence that "Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community." was a subsidiary description of one of the effects of Wikipedia being free content, using long-standing standard language, not a description of "free content".
  • Consensus is a means to accomplish the building of the encyclopedia. For the same reason that you might think that "neutral point of view" does not warrant its own pillar because it is subsidiary to "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", "consensus" also does not warrant its own pillar because it is subsidiary to "Wikipedia has a code of conduct", or even more generally "Wikipedia is a wiki". "Neutral point of view" is more important than consensus--consensus is a means for producing NPOV--and NPOV is the status quo that has been on this page since the beginning. If NPOV should be merged, we do not need to artificially create another pillar, an inferior pillar, to take its place.
  • If NPOV is merged, it needs a comprehensive plain-language description, not just an unexplained link to another page in a list of "official policies".
  • Note that there are several internal problems with the description of consensus, even if it belonged as a pillar.

—Centrx→talk • 21:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

(Answering without actually looking at the page history)
In the ReOrg, I tried to do as little "re-writing" as possible, just reorganising what was there, or adding sentences from existing pages.
The text has been edited since then, obviously.
There are many ways to break up the policies and guidelines. The pillars as they stood before were about: Content, content, GDFL/anyone can edit, etiquette, and IAR. So to me, merging the two content pillars together seemed obvious, as was having a pillar for consensus. Consensus isn't etiquette, and is an important part of the "Wiki-way" on Wikipedia. And that discussions aren't voting is probably one of the biggest confusions for newbies.
While I understand your concerns about NPOV, by that measure, then we should describe all the links on this page. Especially, OR, and V.
But can we do that without this page becoming so lengthy as to be not as useful?
In looking back over the previous form of the 5P, what sentences which were removed or edited are you most concerned about?
I'd be more than happy to see the text be easier/clearer for newbies. - jc37 22:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not referring to your changes specifically, simply to what has changed in the past one or two months. Regardless of who did it, the text has been substantially altered in certain places such that formerly plain language is now obscured or deleted, such that certain aspects are now erroneous or misleading, and such that the quality and clarity of the prose is inferior.
  • While "Content" is a sufficiently general division, "Etiquette" etc. are too specific; they are not of the same order as "Content" and they do not comprehensively include all of Wikipedia. The basic, all-inclusive logical division of Wikipedia is free, wiki, encyclopedia. The encyclopedia is the end produced, freeness is the prime defining quality of the product itself outside of its encyclopedianess (necessary for completeness), and the wiki and the ways of the wiki are the means by which it is produced. "Consensus", "Conduct", and "IAR" all fall under "wiki". "IAR" has some special properties because it contradicts the concept of rules and exists outside of the rule structure, which is why it can warrant a separate pillar, but "Conduct" and "Consensus" do not each warrant an individual pillar any more than "Verifiability" and "NPOV" each warrant an individual pillar. So, the former pillars were Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia, Free, Wiki, Wiki*. The new pillars have become Encyclopedia, Wiki, Wiki, Wiki, Wiki*. "Free" is gone because that pillar was turned on its head to make it about "free editing" rather than "free content".
  • First of all, this page does not exist to make links and then describe those links. The page needs to stand by itself, and formerly did stand by itself. Previously, the five pillars did describe all of the main factors, in plain English which required no prior knowledge of Wikipedia, with the exception of "edit wars" and "three-revert rule" under code of conduct, which are not strictly needed at all and the context of which is clear, and "no original research" under encyclopedia, which should be described better though it may be clear just from the words "no original research". "Verifiability" is described, with statements about accuracy, verifiable authoritative sources, and citing sources.
  • The newer version is actually longer than the long-standing version. Also, we should not be constrained to have five pillars. We do not need to create another pillar in order to merge NPOV, and if five pillars are deemed necessary, then NPOV is the one to keep: It is of greater importance than consensus--consensus serves NPOV,--it is a Foundation issue, and it has been on this page from its beginning.
  • I am concerned about nearly everything that was changed:
  • "written for the benefit of its readers": This presumes to impose reasons on why people edit Wikipedia and is irrelevant to the fundamentals of Wikipedia. It is perfectly good if someone writes on Wikipedia in order to research and learn a topic, or in order to make a comprehensive repository of human knowledge, without regard to generic "readers".
  • "Wikipedia's three principal content policies are neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Since they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three.": None of this belongs on the five pillars, as mentioned above.
  • "Cite references from a reliable source": Better grammar needed, and it is more direct to simply say "Cite authoritative sources" (this is another instance where "reliable sources" is Wikipedia jargon specific to WP:RS that is less helpful than the standard "authoritative sources".
  • "avoid conflicts of interest": This may be rather distracting from the purpose of the five pillars. The five pillars do not need to have a link to every policy and guideline. In any event, it is tacked on to the previous sentence and does not belong there.
  • "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection": This was removed without explanation and needs to be re-added. Also, the rest of that sentence used to have links to each individual relevant section of WP:NOT, but the new version links only once to that page and requires the reader to search through it, if they notice its relevance to the items listed in the sentence at all.
  • "Content that would be appropriate in a dictionary, a newspaper,...": This is redundant (and longer). The previous version was much shorter and direct.
  • "Wikipedia is free content...": This whole section was turned on its head erroneously, as mentioned above. Also, several specific word choices and sentence structures were changed so that they are not as precisely accurate and as smoothly read as before.
  • "Wikipedia works by building consensus...": Even if this section belonged, it needs to be written so that it stands by itself and is in plain English. Right now, the sentences only exist as connectors between links. Aside from not being appropriate for the Five pillars, it leads to non-sequitur sentences. Also, the heavy discussion of polls and voting actually makes voting and polls seem more legitimate; specific issues like this do not belong in the Five pillars.
  • "Wikipedia has a code of conduct...": This pillar has also morphed into simply a way of connecting links together, not a description of conduct on Wikipedia with links as potential helpers for further information. Where before it started with an ordinary, clear sentence that described civil conduct and that did not even have one link in it, now it jumps right into Assume good faith. That's not a description of a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia; it's just a list of links.
  • "Wikipedia does not have firm rules...": This section was simply written better before, and eight-word links are not a good thing.
How to organize the page into what and how many pillars is a separate issue, but the grammatical, diction, prose changes were unnecessary and had a negative effect. —Centrx→talk • 23:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of your concerns were added at least as far back as August. For comparitive use, I'll use this version. It's the edit right before the edit which added: "written for the benefit of its readers", which you had/have concerns about.

So taking your points in some semblance of order:

While I agree that some descriptiveness would be nice, I hoesntly think that this page is more a set of links than a descriptive page. And I think that it does so effectively, for the most part, though it, as any page, could use some editing for clarity.
It would seem that you're most concerned about the loss of the "simplified" explanation of NPOV:
  • "...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, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view"."
Not to give an WP:ALLORNOTHING statement here, but really, if we have simplified explanations of NPOV, we should have one of at least the rest of our content trifecta (OR and V). And if we have simplified versions of those, then why not the other policies? Oh, but wait, we have such as page: Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset. and it has a link at the bottom of this very page! So no, I don't think we should duplicate that page. Though I do think that it could probably use a restructure.
The goal of this page should be to present the tools (policies and guidelines) which the newbie will need the most, the soonest, and in the most succinct way possible. See Template:Welcome. Now compare that to Template:Welcomeg. And this page is the first link on Template:Welcome. So it should be able to give the newbie what they need. And the 5P is a good way to elucidate that.
I agree that the merging of the two concepts of "free content" and "articles can be edited by anyone" into a single pillar hasn't been done very well. More than any other part, the text here needs rewriting.
Consensus vs etiquette. These two should be separate because the are two entirely different things. One is about user interaction, the other is about how discussions/debates are resolved. Neither is about encyclopedic content.
And I'm not going to get involved in a debate of "what's more important than what". All the policies should be taken equally. The 5 pillars are just an arbitrary way of breaking them up into "bite-sized" chunks, making them easier for newbies to "digest" (learn). It's merely a matter of attempting to group the P&Gs by 5 general "themes".
You mentioned that consensus could use some editing for clarity (paraphrasing your comments). How would you suggest? Presuming the general theme of that pillar is "discussion resolution", and the WP:NOT examples that relate to that, what would you suggest?
And for your specific points:
I'd agree that the whole first section could be broken down into several themed sections. But at some point, we begin to duplicate WP:NOT. As a test, I tried to remove the content trifecta from the first pillar, and ended up moving everything to that new pillar, since all the remaining links were also about content, and all led right back to those three. I thought about adding a link to WP:BLP as well (and still may), but it had the same "problem" (if we want to call it that), in that it's wholly immersed in the three content policies, which, I presume, is just as it should be.
Etiquette is the best general page I seem to be able to find for describing how Wikipedians should interact. It's more general than WP:CIVIL, and it includes it. (Noting that I wasn't the one who initially added that as the link.) But the theme of this pillar is user interaction, not just "being nice", but rather "how do we positively communicate?" And I think "code of conduct" is rather poor wording, since really, that describes the whole page. (And indeed, someone has recently linked CoC to the P&G page.) So I think the problem there is more that the introductory sentence needs to be changed in some way.
I wholly disagree that this page "formerly did stand by itself". Even its first version was a set of links.
For the rest of your points, I'll just add the disclaimer that I may or may not have made the edits that you're talking about, so my responses are just dealing with the text itself.
I'll have to find it, but I seem to recall "somewhere" that Wikipedia is for the benefit of its readers
The content trifecta should be a part of the 5 pillars.
There are several links that I suppose could be culled out as unnecessary for an overview for newbies. But just as you're concerned about NPOV, so too others may be concerned about their favourite policies.
Trivia seems to have been replaced by "indiscriminate collection of information". Which is probably more accurate, (and less polarising, given that the question of "what is trivia" is currently under debate).
The sister projects section needed its own sentence. It just was rather confusing as a part of the lengthy NOT sentence.
The rest I think already responded to above. - jc37 19:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If you think that the description of NPOV was flawed or excessive, the solution to that is not to eliminate it entirely and replace it with a simple link and no description whatsoever.
  • This page is a description of the fundamental principles, or pillars, of Wikipedia. It is not a simplified introduction to newbies, and it is not a summary of "the rules". In an ideal sense, policies follow from these principles. The principles are not "the rules". If you want to make a simplified introduction for newbies, create a new page or go to Wikipedia:Introduction.
  • The free content pillar does not need re-writing. The previous version was fine, and superior to the version it has been replaced with. Why do you not put back the previous, better version at least temporarily, rather than idly speak about re-writing it? —Centrx→talk • 04:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "better" is subjective. And, I have been involved in the page, I've asked you several times to show some ways on this talk page in which the entries could be "improved". And thus far you've declined, preferring to instead just say that you liked "the old version" better. As I read your comments, I wonder if perhaps you could benefit from the advice you post. And if you really would like to get technical, this page has absolutely nothing to do with what the policies actually are. As stated on this page, the policies of Wikipedia predate this page, it's merely a general listing. And even the original version of this page called it a "summary" ("...summed up...") This is just a guess, but I think you're more "hung up" on what you'd like this page to be than what it is: "pillars that define Wikipedia's character. These can be summed up in a few short sentences each" - That said, I'm still going to attempt to discuss your concerns with you, in the hopes that perhaps from this collaboration the pillars will gain in descriptiveness while still hopefully remaining succint. - jc37 10:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • These pillars are not arbitrarily selected. They are fundamental, general principles of Wikipedia.
  • I am not convinced that the consensus section should be there at all. The point is that even if you think it should be there, the present version should not be, and it should not be left in its present form on the page.
Specific points:
  • The first section does not need to be broken down into themed sections that turn the general pillars into specific delineations of every policy and guideline. The pillars are a general description.
  • If you mean Wikipedia:Etiquette, specific kinds of politeness are not required on Wikipedia; it is merely necessary that people be civil which does not require that they even communicate with each other. Wikipedia:Etiquette falls under Wikipedia:Civility, as Wikipedia:Civility is the more general and necessary policy, and for that reason is a policy not a guideline. But the specific facts of these pages does not matter, because the five pillars are about the general principles of Wikipedia.
  • Links are not in themselves a problem. The problem is that where before the links existed to provide further information for the sentences; in the re-write the sentences exist only to string together the links. If the links were removed from the page and the sentences were presented to someone not familiar with Wikipedia, perhaps someone from 1990, the page needs to still make complete sense. With three specific exceptions where it was weak but still understandable, the previous version did that; the new version almost entirely does not.
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Necessarily, being an encyclopedia benefits people who want to read the articles in the encyclopedia. There would be no point in saying such a thing. What the statement said was that Wikipedia is written for the benefit of its readers, which imposes a will upon its editors that at best is not necessary to explain the general principles of Wikipedia and at worst is downright false.
  • Explaining that writing in a neutral point of view and having verifiable, accurate sourcing in Wikipedia is appropriate for this page, and was previously present here. That does not require naming a "content trifecta" in a legalistic sentence copied from policy pages.
  • NPOV is not my "favorite" policy, and if you do not think that the principle of neutral point of view should have its own pillar that may very well be right, but that does not require that it be replaced with some inferior principle. Also, again, this is not a listing of policies.
  • "indiscriminate collection of information" was always present in this page, alongside the mention of "trivia". It may very well be the case that a negative list is not necessary to describe Wikipedia as encyclopedia, but this was simply a deletion of a single, cherry-picked item.
—Centrx→talk • 04:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The pillars are an arbitrary grouping. Anyone can select a way to group the policies. And as a matter of fact several pages do just that. (Wikipedia:Trifecta is just one such page.)
What are your specific concerns about the consensus pillar? I get that you don't like "something" about it, besides the fact that you question it even being there.
I think I have to disagree about your points about links. Linking is a key thing on Wikipedia. If you don't know how to click on a link, you're pretty much going to be lost on the internet, much less Wikipedia. That said, I'd be interested in your thoughts about what such sentences could look like.
I'm not sure I agree with your comments about readers, but then I'm not sure I understood your reasoning. Could you clarify?
I think that the sentence is clear. And it's clear that the three are indispensible from each other. And if this page is showing "the basics" then all three should be here. Though again, I would be interested in your thoughts as to how they could be presented differently.
I don't think it's a good idea to get into a debate here about which policies one may or may not consider "inferior".
And no, it hasn't always been on this page, and neither has trivia, as shown here.
Anyway, I'll entreat you once again: rather than continue reverting the version that's now been "up" for several weeks, without a single opposer (until you now, of course), let's continue to try discussion. - jc37 10:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Trifecta is pillars 1, 3, and 5. The grouping it uses is the same as here, it just excludes certain pillars. If you really think it is arbitrary, then you have no basis for wanting to include consensus.
  • I have explained in detail why a consensus pillar in general is not a principle appropriate for the five pillars and why the specific consensus pillar you added is not a plain-language description appropriate for the five pillars.
  • Please read what I said about links.
  • It is not a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that editors must write with any readers in mind. It is perfectly acceptable that an editor write a neutral, accurate encyclopedia article for his own private reasons.
  • V, NPOV, and OR do belong here, but that does not mean that they belong here in the form of a non-descript legalism.
  • I have already explained why consensus is inferior to NPOV. If you disagree, explain why. Also, there is nothing per se wrong with inferiority; subordinate might be a less loaded term for it.
  • The mention of trivia has been in the page for 18 months, since [2], and you have yet provided no reason for deleting it.
  • This is not a highly trafficked page, and your changes are drastic. It does take a while for people to notice changes. Also, you are reverting without even incorporating changes that you agreed would be better. —Centrx→talk • 18:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Pillars"

In looking over the pillars, I think the best way to define the themes would be to list the Foundation issues, and Trifecta, while looking over the Statement of principles

This gives us:

  • Content - FI: #1; Tri #1; (And SoP #1, somewhat.)
  • Openness - SoP (all of them, but specifically #1, #3, #5, and #6); FI: #2 and #4
  • Decision mechanism - FI #3 (And SoP #4 and #7, somewhat.)
  • Be polite and respectful - SoP #2, #7, and #8; Tri #2
  • IAR - SoP #1; Tri #3

Look rather like the 5 pillars we now have.

The only thing that was "left off", was FI#5, which has to do with who has authority. (And probably shouldn't be a part of this page, except as it is, a "see also" link at the bottom to m:Foundation issues.) - jc37 20:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Do note that the vast majority of decisions on Wikipedia occur without any reference to consensus as any sort of distinct idea. The decision mechanism in all but the most unusual situations is to simply do whatever is appropriate in order to write a good article, which is generally pretty obvious. —Centrx→talk • 04:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. XfD discussions specifically come to mind. But that aside, I'm merely listing from those extant pages. What's your concern? You don't like consensus? - jc37 10:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreement or opposition to a change does not come down to whether I "like consensus" or whether NPOV is my "favorite policy". Simply, consensus is not a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and most decision-making occurs without such an entity, whereas the neutrality principle is required in every article without exception and ideally in every discussion and policy. —Centrx→talk • 18:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Before we continue, would you clarify:
  • "Simply, consensus is not a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and most decision-making occurs without such an entity..."
I look forward to your clarification. - jc37 (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title Possible Offense

(note: I copied this discussion to the Village Pump Policy page, as I think it is important and not receiving notice here.---- Kevin Murray (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC))

To Whom it May Concern:

I represent the Islamic Information Center (IIC) on a volunteer basis, and they asked me to contact you (whoever that may be) as to a possible violation upon our principle religion regarding both the Quran and relation to the modern world today. Unfortunately, I didn't see any phone number to contact, so I wrote in discussion - as Jim Wales suggested on C-SPAN for independent organizations to contact Wikipedia. The problem is this articles (or policies) title as a basis of the five pillars of Islam. We don't consider such actions hostile towards the Muslim community, however we do ask it be changed to prevent any possible confusion in Muslims relations with Wikipedia - to something more neutral.

To discuss this further, please contact me at

jarmin@yahoo.com

Thanks,

Josh Armin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.111.65 (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If we went around changing every article that would/might offend Muslims then we would be in direct breach of the second pillar " Wikipedia has a neutral point of view," by submitting to one groups claim to offence not to mention we would lose all sense of accuracy and credibility to wikipedia. Its been argued over and over, especially on articles such as Aisha that wikipedia does not bend or change to Islam. Its about facts and knowledge and I highly doubt and unsigned comment by someone claiming to be from the IIC (even though you list a yahoo email address NOT an IIC one) is going to do anything constructive. Thats my two cents --Curuxz 10:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • In away I agree with Curuxc and we must be cautious about pandering to social pressures and special interest groups. However, I see legitimate concern in this case. Was it random chance that we named this policy the Five Pillars, or were we emulating Islam. I see no offense intended, rather I see a potential compliment. But if offense is being taken, why not modify our title. We are a young enough project that we can easily adapt. ---- Kevin Murray (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
People are always offended by something. A pillar is a pillar. Besides, if you really want to get grammatically philosophical, I ASSUME the Quran was not written in English, so whatever word they used happened to be best suited/correlative to the English word for 'pillar.' We are using an English word which is associated with an Islamic ideal. If Muslims decide that the concept of 'Five' correlates with the English word of 'Wikipedia' perhaps we should just rename the project. the_undertow talk 20:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
As the author of this page I can confirm that the name was not based on the Five Pillars of Islam. Neutralitytalk 06:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. "Five Pillars" is quite a clear - most likely accidental - reference to Islam. I too propose that the name be changed to something which does not have any connotations, and is purely straightforward, i.e. "5 Basic Rules" - it still gets the message across, but without involving religions and their doctrines. Besides, one of the great things of Wikipedia is that a change can easily be made to something major, like the name of the basic guidelines. Few other encyclopedias could do that, so I think us, as Wikipedians, should embrace that freedom.(Bonzai273 (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] No firm rules

"Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here." Is this supposed to mean that these five general principles are firm rules? Or is this supposed to mean that standing beside five general principles are no firm rules? What about saying "Wikipedia does not have firm rules, only five general principles". However, this doesn't say that the general principles are firm (if they are). If they are, then maybe it should say "Wikipedia does not have firm rules; only the five general principles do not change". Sancho 17:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

These five general principles are general principles, not detailed precisely-defined rules. —Centrx→talk • 01:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In title links

Currently the titles of each pillar links to a policy or guideline which has been made in accordance with the pillar (currently WP:NOT, WP:NEU, WP:COPY, WP:EQ and WP:IAR). I think it might be better if these links and prehaps the other links in the paragraphs describing the pillars were listed underneith the pillars (in kind of "See also" section) for each one. By linking directly from the text of the pillars it implies that the policy or guideline is the pillar. This presumably is not the case as the pillars are the fundamental principles of Wikipedia whereas the policies or guidelines are being constantly changed and updated through concensus. Surely there is a difference between policies and pillars (hence the need for this page) which is somewhat confused by linking the pillars directly to a policy (or even a guideline in the case of WP:EQ). Any thoughts? [[-- Guest9999 (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)]]

There are too many links to make putting them in see-also lists economical, and it is helpful to the reader to link directly in text just as it is in articles. —Centrx→talk • 19:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
What about just moving the link from the titles to somewhere in the text. By linking from the title it really does seem to imply that the policy(or guideline) = pillar. [[Guest9999 (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]]

The policies are the pillars, and they are constantly moving. Kind of like some kinds of floating oil platform. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Firm rules

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

No. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC) And this contradiction was literally <1 cm apart on the page, and about 5 cm apart in your question here.
IAR does not contradict the concept that the rules, policies or principles of Wikipedia are firm. When framing this language, one absolutely must view all policies together as a whole, in conjunction with the principles upon which they are built. We cannot go beyond the boundaries laid out by policy and principle, of which IAR is a part.
The Wikipedia Principles principles are firm, IAR Policy does not provide a 'trump' over its fellow policies - it merely describes situations where policy is extended to cover areas where the letter of the rule seems to trump the spirit of the rule. Policy describes what Principle is, thus together they are mandatory. We can't go beyond the spirit of the policies, and since we cannot go past that boundary - what is within that boundary is mandatory. Dreadstar † 17:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Didn't we just explain to you at Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines that this is not a correct interpretation, Dreadstar? The original wording also had a slightly different intent from what was stated here now (more along the lines of WP:TRI). So I made the alteration here, to stress a more solid interpretation.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me? I happen to disagree with what was "explained" to me, isn't that obvious? Dreadstar † 22:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
How do you get from the fifth pillar of "Wikipedia does not have firm rules" to "Policy describes what Principle is, thus together they are mandatory"? That seems like an awfully long jump across mutually exclusive territory to me. Dhaluza (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Read my much more detailed explanation on WT:POLICY. And that's really one of the points I make, they aren't mutually exclusive, quote: "they are not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Exactly one of the misconceptions I've pointed out. Dreadstar † 01:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

FYI: It has remained very much unchanged since its first formulation] circa May 2005. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Also note that IAR is only to be used if and when a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The word "only" does not appear on WP:IAR. People seem to enjoy making that policy page as short and succinct as possible, so every word too much or too little has significance (kinda tricky that). It is actually possible to ignore all rules at practically all times, and not be sanctioned for it in any way. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Really? See WP:AN/I, WP:BLP/N, WP:V/N, and some others... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Is that ignore (where odds are there's practically nothing you can do to actually damage the wiki), or is that more like almost deliberately violate (where you actually go out to find ways to cause damage)? :-P Or hmm, AN/I is often just misunderstandings. (And some of BLP has nothing to do with wikipedia policy)
Wait a minute, are we really arguing about whether "Ignore All Rules" actually means "Ignore only some rules, and don't ignore others"? :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Ignore all rules is a catchall for very specific situations, And you can get away with it, only if you are an editor in good standing. If you are not, you are more likely than not to get dinged, and you will... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Slight clarification needed here. You "get away" with IAR if the results are good for the encyclopedia, and you get "dinged" if they are not. It is not dependent on your "standing" as an editor (although there may be a statistical correlation). We are not supposed to be judging editors per se, we are supposed to be judging their contributions. Dhaluza (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
We are not supposed to be judging editors per se, we are supposed to be judging their contributions. Sure, but sometimes we say: "your contributions may be good, but you are a real pain in the arse and disrupt the project with your behavior, and in doing so you have exhausted the community's patience, bye bye. You forget Dhaluza that long term editors show their commitment to the project through their contribution history, and the public identity that we develop over time is there for all to see, and taken into account when our contributions are assessed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
If WP:IAR is a catchall only for very specific situations, why is it that I typically use IAR as my primary rule, and don't get into trouble? Perhaps there are multiple approaches? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC) I'm old fashioned, so I tend to use A forerunner of the 5 pillars a lot.
Really Kim? I have not seen you IARs at all.... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
Wow! Not at all? Then that's a really great compliment. Thank you!
You see, when you apply IAR really well, people aren't supposed to notice you're doing it.
Even so, in one recent application of IAR, I gave the game away in an edit summary here. O:-)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Five pillars of or are policy...

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

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

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

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

I think that what you seem to be proposing is the equivalent of starting a preventive war. Dhaluza (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The original intent of the Wikipedia:Wikirules_proposal was to pare wikipedia guidance down to 1-2 pages. (more detailed timeline).
Note that several of the people who made the original proposal are now fairly influential in the wikimedia foundation (though some have since quit or moved on).
So call me crazy if you will, but the long and short of it is that while it might be impossible to MfD this page (I think you'd find little or no support for that); and provided you could get some of those oldbies all together; you may actually find a surprising amount of support for a proposal to delete the entire rest of the project namespace, provided that this page is kept.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC) (!!!) Heh, some of the opposers were also quite influentual, by the look of things. I think we covered most of their objections when we switched to the wiki-process though (m:Foundation issues #3). :-)
I've read this several times and am somewhat surprised at your response. I think I understand it, but it wasn't what I expected : )
A question: Since the "rules" (policies/guidelines) are supposed to be about "current practice", with the actual text being just an aid to mutual understanding; could you clarify your comments above in light of that? - jc37 10:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Although I would not go as far as Kim Bruning, I think that deleting this page would be an intensely bad idea. The purpose of the five pillars is to give people basic guidance on wikipedia philosophy and convention without giving anyone the impression that they have to memorize a rulebook to edit here. They don't. --Ryan Delaney talk 01:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The number of articles doesn't correlate with main page

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

[edit] Proposed change in the first pillar

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

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

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

with

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

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

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

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

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

It's not a question of dignity, it's a question of quality. The fact that we have some high-quality articles on fiction topics in no way detracts from our coverage of more "serious" topics. Changing the wording of the Five Pillars page won't improve the encyclopedia: that has to be done through research, writing, and work.--Father Goose (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, i know it, you know it, many other wikipedian contributors know it, but the occasional reader that can be interested in contributing wikipedia in "serious" topics, and found a "serius" article side by side with a fancruft article (even the most super-hi-quality, like some on Tokien's Middle Earth or D&D novel article), know it? and what he think when he try to discover why there is this situation and found a "pillar" that (apparently) says that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias" (like Encyclopedia Britannica, Encarta, etc)", specialized encyclopedias" (like Pokemon Encyclopedia, Tokien Encyclopedia, Star Wars Encyclopedia, ecc.. maybe cited as reliable secondary source in the fictional article)?
And we must also remember that the most "reserched" article on fiction, risk to be also the most full of fancruft and trivial information, maybe hi-quality il they are in a Xpedia, but not here (and if the reasearch discover only in-universe fact they must be deleted or merged following or trasnfered elsewhere as stated in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)).
On the other hand we can have someone interested in contributing wikipedia in "finctional" topics, that see the pillar, tink "oh good, specialized encyclopedias, i start to make a series of articles form the topic included in my Encyclopedia Cthulhiana, that is obviously a specialized encyclopedias, so they are ok for wikipedia", and the after some months of work see all his contribution deleted because they not have primary and secondary source a part of Cthulhu Mytos book and his "specialized" Encyclopedia Cthulhiana.
I think that is better to make clear what is a specialized encyclopedias and almanac directly from this page to better (try to) avoid this two situation.
--200.110.141.252 (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
We can't really summarize "what's accepted" and "what's not" where articles about fiction are concerned, because it's a moving target. There are those who love detailed articles about fictional subjects and those who hate them. Neither view is a good basis for policy.
What we can do is describe the most general rules, ones that are well-accepted. Where fiction articles are concerned, the two most important are that the information be verifiable and/or sourced, and that it be written in an encyclopedic tone (instead of "in-universe"). The first point is a prominent part of the Five Pillars; the second is too specific to articles about fiction, and does not belong on a "general principles" page such as the Five Pillars.--Father Goose (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Complete Idiocy

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