Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m bold not |
mention glossaries; fmt |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
# '''Discussion forums''', or [[Everything2]] nodes. Please try to stay on task (the task here is to create encyclopedia articles). Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or chat room (mind you, neither is Everything2, or at least it tries not to be—but because it tolerates that, that's what it has become). But of course you can chat with folks on their own pages, and you can resolve article problems on the relevant Talk: pages. |
# '''Discussion forums''', or [[Everything2]] nodes. Please try to stay on task (the task here is to create encyclopedia articles). Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or chat room (mind you, neither is Everything2, or at least it tries not to be—but because it tolerates that, that's what it has become). But of course you can chat with folks on their own pages, and you can resolve article problems on the relevant Talk: pages. |
||
# '''Dictionary definitions'''. [[Wikipedia is not a dictionary]], so please do not create an entry merely to define a term. But of course an article can and should always ''begin with'' a [[fallacies of definition|good]] [[definition]] or a clear description of the topic. If you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. If you're interested in working on a wiki dictionary, check out the [http://wiktionary.org Wiktionary] project! The exception to this rule are articles about the cultural meanings of individual [[List of numbers|numbers]]. |
# '''Dictionary definitions'''. [[Wikipedia is not a dictionary]], so please do not create an entry merely to define a term. But of course an article can and should always ''begin with'' a [[fallacies of definition|good]] [[definition]] or a clear description of the topic. If you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. If you're interested in working on a wiki dictionary, check out the [http://wiktionary.org Wiktionary] project! The exception to this rule are articles about the cultural meanings of individual [[List of numbers|numbers]]. |
||
# '''Lists of such definitions'''. But of course an article can certainly consist of a pointer to other pages, where a word is too general to have any one topic associated with it; see [[freedom]] and [[Columbus]] for examples. |
# '''Lists of such definitions'''. But of course an article can certainly consist of a pointer to other pages, where a word is too general to have any one topic associated with it; see [[freedom]] and [[Columbus]] for examples. |
||
# A '''usage guide'''. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how idioms, etc., are used. But of course it's often very, very important ''in the context of an encyclopedia article'' to say just how a word is used. E.g., the article on [[freedom]] will, if it doesn't already, have a long discussion about this. |
# A '''usage guide'''. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how idioms, etc., are used. But of course it's often very, very important ''in the context of an encyclopedia article'' to say just how a word is used. E.g., the article on [[freedom]] will, if it doesn't already, have a long discussion about this. |
||
# By a simple extension of the latter, a hacker/computer usage or other '''slang and idiom guide'''. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a [[hacker]] or a [[Cockney]] chimney-sweep; we're writing an [[encyclopedia]]. (See [[meta:Knocking her dead one on the nose each and every double trey]] for a historical example.) But of course see [[jargon file]]; also, articles, even extremely in-depth articles, on [[hacker culture]] are very welcome, ''and'' insofar as guides to some particularly essential piece of hacker slang is necessary to understand those articles, of course articles on that slang would be great to have. |
# By a simple extension of the latter, a hacker/computer usage or other '''slang and idiom guide'''. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a [[hacker]] or a [[Cockney]] chimney-sweep; we're writing an [[encyclopedia]]. (See [[meta:Knocking her dead one on the nose each and every double trey]] for a historical example.) But of course see [[jargon file]]; also, articles, even extremely in-depth articles, on [[hacker culture]] are very welcome, ''and'' insofar as guides to some particularly essential piece of hacker slang is necessary to understand those articles, of course articles on that slang would be great to have. |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
# '''Personal essays''' that state your idiosyncratic opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, not serve as a vehicle for personal opinions to become part of human knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it's preferable to let other people to whom those opinions are important write about them. See [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. But of course essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at [[meta:|Meta-Wikipedia]]. |
# '''Personal essays''' that state your idiosyncratic opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, not serve as a vehicle for personal opinions to become part of human knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it's preferable to let other people to whom those opinions are important write about them. See [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. But of course essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at [[meta:|Meta-Wikipedia]]. |
||
# '''Primary research'''. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal peer-reviewed journals. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge. But of course you don't have to get all of your information on entries from peer-reviewed journals. |
# '''Primary research'''. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal peer-reviewed journals. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge. But of course you don't have to get all of your information on entries from peer-reviewed journals. |
||
#'''List repository |
#'''List repository of loosely associated topics such as; quotations, aphorisms or persons. But of course there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous ''because'' they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic. If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into [http://quote.wikipedia.org Wikiquote], Wikipedia's sister project. |
||
# Mere '''collections of external links'''. But of course there's nothing wrong with adding both lists of links and lists of on-line references you used in writing an article. |
# Mere '''collections of external links'''. But of course there's nothing wrong with adding both lists of links and lists of on-line references you used in writing an article. |
||
#''Mere'' '''collections of internal links'''. But of course there's nothing wrong with pointer pages when a word is too general for any one topic to be associated with it; and of course, it may help to make collections of relevant internal links, as this conveys useful information and helps navigation. |
#''Mere'' '''collections of internal links'''. But of course there's nothing wrong with pointer pages when a word is too general for any one topic to be associated with it; and of course, it may help to make collections of relevant internal links, as this conveys useful information and helps navigation. |
||
Revision as of 05:52, 4 March 2004
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not.
What Wikipedia is not
- Wiki is not paper. Thus, Wikipedia has no size limits, can include links, can be more timely, etc. It also means that the style and length of writing appropriate for paper is not necessarily appropriate here.
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a usage or jargon guide, or a genealogical or biographical dictionary. See #2-5, #17 and at the link.
- Wikipedia is not a soapbox or discussion forum. See #1, #6, #8, #9, #18.
- Similarly, Wikipedia is not a link repository. See #11, 12, 13.
- Wikipedia is not a "mirror" - content added to WP must be released for free use under the GNU FDL. Although Wikipedia does use many images which are considered "fair use".
- Not a free wiki host. If you are interested to use the wiki technology for a collaborative effort on anything, even if it is a single page, there are many sites that provide wiki hosting (gratis or for money). You can even install wiki software on your server.
What Wikipedia entries are not
- Discussion forums, or Everything2 nodes. Please try to stay on task (the task here is to create encyclopedia articles). Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or chat room (mind you, neither is Everything2, or at least it tries not to be—but because it tolerates that, that's what it has become). But of course you can chat with folks on their own pages, and you can resolve article problems on the relevant Talk: pages.
- Dictionary definitions. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so please do not create an entry merely to define a term. But of course an article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic. If you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. If you're interested in working on a wiki dictionary, check out the Wiktionary project! The exception to this rule are articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.
- Lists of such definitions. But of course an article can certainly consist of a pointer to other pages, where a word is too general to have any one topic associated with it; see freedom and Columbus for examples; further, Wikipedia includes glossary pages for various specialized fields.
- A usage guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how idioms, etc., are used. But of course it's often very, very important in the context of an encyclopedia article to say just how a word is used. E.g., the article on freedom will, if it doesn't already, have a long discussion about this.
- By a simple extension of the latter, a hacker/computer usage or other slang and idiom guide. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a hacker or a Cockney chimney-sweep; we're writing an encyclopedia. (See meta:Knocking her dead one on the nose each and every double trey for a historical example.) But of course see jargon file; also, articles, even extremely in-depth articles, on hacker culture are very welcome, and insofar as guides to some particularly essential piece of hacker slang is necessary to understand those articles, of course articles on that slang would be great to have.
- Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. But of course an article can report objectively on what advocates say, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. Go to Usenet if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views--and good luck.
- Mere vehicles for testing anarchism. The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchistic communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism. But of course none of this is to deny that a great deal of our success has been due precisely to our radical openness.
- Neither encomia/fan pages, nor critical pans. Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedia articles. But of course critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations. See also wikipedia:check your fiction.
- Personal essays that state your idiosyncratic opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, not serve as a vehicle for personal opinions to become part of human knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it's preferable to let other people to whom those opinions are important write about them. See Wikipedia:No original research. But of course essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at Meta-Wikipedia.
- Primary research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal peer-reviewed journals. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge. But of course you don't have to get all of your information on entries from peer-reviewed journals.
- List repository of loosely associated topics such as; quotations, aphorisms or persons. But of course there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic. If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into Wikiquote, Wikipedia's sister project.
- Mere collections of external links. But of course there's nothing wrong with adding both lists of links and lists of on-line references you used in writing an article.
- Mere collections of internal links. But of course there's nothing wrong with pointer pages when a word is too general for any one topic to be associated with it; and of course, it may help to make collections of relevant internal links, as this conveys useful information and helps navigation.
- Mere collections of public domain or other source material; such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording. Small or otherwise for the context critical source material, either in text or image form, is needed. But of course there's nothing wrong with using public domain resources in order to add factual content and wording to an article -- such as the use of the 1911 encyclopedia) See Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources.
- A personal homepage and/or file storage area. Wikipedians have their own personal pages, but they are used for working on the encyclopedia. A few somewhat famous Wikipedians have significantly contributed to encyclopedia articles about themselves and their accomplishments, and this has mostly been accepted after some debate. But of course the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such a page just like any other. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is not in accordance with the spirit of Wikipedia. If you're looking to make a personal webpage unrelated to encyclopedia work, there are many free homepage providers on the Internet. If you upload files, please upload only files that pertain to encyclopedia articles; anything else will be deleted.
- A news report. Wikipedia should not offer news reports on breaking stories. But of course creating encyclopedia articles on topics currently in the news is an excellent idea. See current events for some examples. (However, the Wiki process lends itself to collaborative, up-to-the-minute construction of current events of historical significance, as long as these are written as encyclopedia articles.) When updating articles with recent news, authors should use the past-tense in such a way that the news will still make sense when read years from now.
- A genealogical or biographical dictionary. Biography articles should only be given for people with some sort of achievement. A good measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources. But of course minor characters may be mentioned within other articles (eg Ronald Gay in gay-bashing).
- A vehicle for advertising and self-promotion. We don't need articles on items just because a contributor is associated with them. Commercial links are certainly OK if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic, as in Finishing school. Many people consider it a good idea not to start articles about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. See Wikipedia:Auto-biography for more information.
- A collection of photographs with no text to go with the articles. If you are only interested in putting a picture into an article but have no desire to write an explanation as to who the person is and why they should have an article, maybe the article shouldn't exist at all. If the picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources instead.
- A resource for conducting business other than the business of creating a great encyclopedia. For example, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article.
Please feel free to continue adding to this list as we discover interesting new ways of not writing encyclopedia articles. When adding new options, please be as clear as possible and provide counter-examples of similar, but permitted, subjects.
See also Wikipedia:Google Test.
Possible measures against violating these rules
- Changing the content (normal editing)
- Changing the page into a redirect; the page history is preserved
- Deleting the page with its page history altogether, often after discussion on the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion page. To develop an understanding of what kinds of contributions are in danger of being deleted you have to regularly follow discussions there.