Welcome to fedrix.com on July 10 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Wikipedia talk:Five pillars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Insulting

It is so very insulting to the Muslim to steal and abuse the term five pillars. Have you people no shame? Have you no limits to the extent you will go to insult my people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.84.122.204 (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Insulting, steal, abuse, shame - these are fighting words. Wikipedia is a collective attempt at an intellectually honest project. I would use those words for something that was actually trying to bring down the world. Language is all about borrowing and learning from other uses and applications; traditions elaborating on one another. --Dioxinfreak (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

[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] 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] 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Since WP:NOR and WP:V are now of historical interest only, having been superseded by WP:A, I've given up waiting for someone to update this page, and have boldly revised the first pillar.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)
I think we need to be more reverent to the American way of doing things. Mwahcysl (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It is worth remembering that the American form of literary english is much more conservative than UK english and, consequently, is purist rather than demotic,as in the UK. Standard english is probably only available today via CBS or the BBC. There are about 400 english dialects in current use worldwide. These include UK english (and its regional dialects) plus the great number of different vocabularies and regional dialects found in N. America (from Virginia through to Arkansas, Texas, up to Oregon and across to the W. Coast and into Canada). It is difficult to say that one region/state is speaking a different language from another. All of them are mutually comprehensible and we have to allow for the differences. Smokizzy (above) mentions the split from England. But did England ever (totally) split from the U.S.? Probably not.Miletus (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
"Mutually comprehensible"? Obviously, you have never come across Geordie. SpinningSpark 21:50, 15 November 2008 (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}} = 2,943,185. --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)
And sometimes, new editors register and are reading this page for the very first time. Like me. I have a netwide tendency to find old issues and (hopefully) offer a new POV. Sometimes it is welcome, and sometimes it is deleted simply because someone has determined the amount of time which has passed since an issue has been addressed somehow means the issue is resolved or uncontestable. Truth evolves over time, as does knowledge, and occasionally, wisdom. Glenda 69 (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2008 (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)

How does one go about getting pretty colors in my user name ? Is there a tutorial ? Mwahcysl (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2008 (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))

This is not helped by the hatnote on the Five pillars of Islam article which clearly says that this IS Wikipedia's version of the islamic five pillars. I'm going to remove it right now. SpinningSpark 09:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

More discussion of the potential offensiveness/reasonableness of the title can be found in an earlier archive. —Raymond Keller (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
"Five Pillars" in Islam is a bit of an artificial construct isn't it? It's not like there's a hadeeth or a verse in the Koran that actually says : "these are the five pillars of Islam"; it is a fiction that was constructed later. Eugene-elgato (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Personally i think it is great, as a Muslim it made me chuckle and a little happy. I think it creates a 'common ground' between the Muslim and non-Muslim community on wikipedia. The title is great and worth keeping. I think for it to offend anyone is absurd, apart from the slightly uneducated and narrow minded fanatics.

Peace and love. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BhainsRajput (talk • contribs) 14:59, 18 February 2009 (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. --causa sui 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)

[edit] 2 Rules alternative

I read all the discussions above and I come to a conclusion. This might just be my own personnal PoV and in no way I want to contradict any of the past consensus. I tought that the true essense of all these rules may truly be summarized with only these 2 rules:

1) Do not alter wikipédia in any way. 2) If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

I feel like all the rest is just suggestions about how we should improve or maintain wikipedia. Note that I'm aware that these rules come from strong consensus and that under normal circumstance it's a realy bad idea to overlook such kind of consensus. But again, this is what wikipedia is just about : Changing previous consensus by better ones. Am I wrong with that one ? Iluvalar (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sixth Pillar of Wikipedia?

Well, we need another pillar of Wikipedia. This article is starting to become more like the Islam article than anything else. Joe9320-1000000 articles more to be edited, One dream. (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That is a really unhelpful comment, the idea that Wikipedia's five pillars are in some way connected to the Five Pillars of Islam is giving offence to muslims. Which of Wikipedia's pillars do you suppose equates to the requirement to pray five times a day? Which one corresponds to the fasting of Ramadan? The answer is simple, there is no connection whatsoever. A sixth pillar should not be inserted arbitrarily to make the number different. The number of fundamental principles cannot be changed to conform to some superficial extraneous requirement, the number is already fixed before one starts writing them - that's what fundamental means. SpinningSpark 08:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It had been suggested to make consensus a pillar, but it was later decided on its talk page that it was a part of the fourth pillar.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well said. It is fair to say that the idea is great, even if it does make a connection with Islam, the idea is superb and funny and not offensive to anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BhainsRajput (talk • contribs) 15:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] What does it mean?

In the fourth pillar there is the statement and remember that there are 2,657,643 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss which seems out of context - I presume it to mean 'so don't get entrenched on a single article if it gets too stressfull' or something along those lines? LeeVJ (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yea, editors are often advised to go and work on something else if things get too stressful. I am not at all sure that it is right to entrench that in policy though. It gives the impression that bullying people off articles is tolerated. I think it should go. SpinningSpark 02:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreee, it shouldn't be there, but I wonder if we can squeeze it in somewhere else as a helpful hint to get editors into the mindset of not getting too entrenched on a few articles - but then again this is often where the best articles often come from ... ? LeeVJ (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remember: whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity

Original:

"All prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. Remember: whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity."

Changed to:

"In most cases, all prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content."

"Remember: whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity."

Is simply not true, and new users are going to realize quickly that it is not true. Most articles for deletion were created by new users. There are over 8000 articles up for deletion right now.

This sentence maybe an ideal, but it is not reality, and it will disillusion a lot of new editors who see their contributions swifty deleted. Ikip (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And if their contributions aren't worthy of being in an encyclopedia, they should be deleted and the new editors pointed at the relevant guidelines so they won't make the same mistake twice. Themfromspace (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
They're kept in the database, though. How else could you undelete something? Sceptre (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Making Wp's no-copying policy more clear for beginners?

I come fresh from dealing with a major copyvio problem [3], and would very much like to see copyvio policy made clearer and simpler for beginners early on in their experience of Wikipedia. I think that the majority of Wp copyvio problems arise because many people are naive about what is OK and not OK in terms of copying. I do understand that at the bottom of every edit screen it says, "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted", and that beneath the "save page" button, it says again, "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted" and at the bottom, under "Please note", it says, "Only public domain resources can be copied without permission — this does not include most web pages or images." This is all well and good but I think that the problem appears to be that quite a few people don't read those sentences at the bottom of the edit pages, or don't read them soon enough, or don't understand them. And if a newcomer follows the link to the policy pages on Copyright [4] and CopyVio [5], well, currently these pages do not have a simple and clear introduction that any beginner could understand.

Because the 5 pillars are an important link in the main "Welcome" template, I was wondering if perhaps we can mention the copyvio issue a bit more clearly in Pillar number 3. Currently it says at the end: "Do not infringe on copyright or submit work licensed in a way incompatible with the GFDL." This is admirably succinct, but the wording can be quite opaque to those newcomers who do not know what "copyright" actually is, and the link takes you to a page that is also not very clear up front.

I think it would help if we had some wording about copyvio that is clearer and simpler, and sooner that it is encountered by new editors the better. This is a draft I put together of something that could go on the copyright/CopyVio pages and maybe a shorter version could be incorporated into the 3rd pillar.

Here is one version, probably too long for incorporating into the Pillar, but it is an example of what I am talking about:

"Do not copy into Wikipedia any phrases, sentences, or paragraphs taken from books or websites unless you are clearly quoting and properly citing them, or unless you know for sure that they are in the public domain. Even when you use other people's prose which you have slightly altered or paraphrased, this is still almost always against the law, see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Text from sources must in almost all cases be read, understood, and then completely rewritten in your own words. "

Thanks for your attention, Invertzoo (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC), tweaked, Invertzoo (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, if all those warnings don't work, I don't have much hope this will make a difference but I don't see anything wrong with what you wrote except I'd add "or quoted and properly cited" Y Done but I actually would like to see what others have to say ... Slrubenstein | Talk 00:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
This page's purpose is a succinct overview of Wikipedia's guiding principles. Guidance as specific as you are proposing belongs on other pages. And like Slrubenstein says, you can warn people till you're blue in the face and they'll still press the red button that says "press this and you die". So another warning in a relatively obscure place is not going to somehow fix people who don't get the concept of plagiarism in the first place.--Father Goose (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for weighing in on this. Yes, the version I included is too long and detailed for the Pillars, but maybe the last sentence of that paragraph:

"Text from sources must in almost all cases be read, understood, and then completely rewritten in your own words."

is short and to the point, and could be added at the end of the text on the 3rd Pillar? Invertzoo (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If we did incorporate that sentence, Pillar 3 would read:


Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual exclusively controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community. Do not infringe on copyright or submit work licensed in a way incompatible with the GFDL. Text from sources must (in almost all cases) be read, understood, and then completely rewritten in your own words.


Thanks again to those who have already commented and to anyone who would like to weigh in on this suggestion. Invertzoo (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The five pillars should be summaries of and links to existing policies. To the extent that WP:COPY and WP:COPYVIO do not say this in their summaries, it would be difficult here. Your "almost all" cases excludes direct quotations, as well as other GFDL and public domain sources. --Rumping (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, those are a couple of very good points, thank you Rumping. So if we are able to put an explanation into the WP:COPY and WP:COPYVIO summaries first, then maybe we could mention it very briefly here and link it to those?

My draft of what could go into the WP:COPY and WP:COPYVIO pages is much more explanatory:

"Do not copy into Wikipedia any phrases, sentences, or paragraphs taken from books or websites unless you are clearly quoting and properly citing them, or unless you know for sure that they are in the public domain or are covered by GFDL. Even when you use other people's prose which you have slightly altered or paraphrased, this is still almost always against the law, see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Text from sources must (in almost all cases) be read, understood, and then completely rewritten in your own words. "

Again thanks to all who are willing to comment on this, it is all helpful. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're still not seeing that this page is not the place to provide explanations of policy specifics, in brief form or otherwise. This page is an overview of what our most important policies and practices are and how they relate to the running of Wikipedia in general.
However, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Should that ever become an "official" guideline, I would support adding a link to it from here.--Father Goose (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions Father Goose, I appreciate your help. I found the WP:Plagiarism essay quite interesting. Another good one is the WP:Close paraphrasing essay. I do understand the point you make, that the 5 Pillars are an overview which merely mentions the most important policies and practices rather than explaining them. Let me explain that the reason why I was trying to do this is: having come fresh from a massive on-going copyvio clean-up involving thousands of articles, see [6] I believe that a vast amount of unrecognized copyvio is arguably the most serious threat to the integrity of the encyclopedia as it currently stands. What I am hoping Wp can do (one way or the other) is to let new contributors know, as early on as possible and as clearly as possible, how to avoid copyvio, in very simple terms that anyone can understand. Perhaps as you say, this page is not the right place to attempt to do this, but since copyvio is such a key problem, I wanted to make sure that I at least started off by going right to the top in my enquiries.

Maybe on the 3rd pillar we can simply tweak the wording of the last sentence to make it a little stronger, and at least we can perhaps add a live link to GFDL, which it currently does not have. So perhaps that last sentence instead of reading:

"Do not infringe on copyright or submit work licensed in a way incompatible with the GFDL."

Perhaps it could read:

"It is essential to avoid infringing on copyright or submitting work licensed in a way that is incompatible with the GFDL."

All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the original wording is far stronger by virtue of its directness. GFDL (or rather, GNU Free Documentation License) is linked at the beginning of the paragraph; I don't think we need to link to it twice.
I respect that the gastropod copyvios are a huge and regrettable problem. I just don't have any reason to believe that the user in question wouldn't have done what he did if the text on this page were somehow different. On the bottom of every edit page is the text, "Only public domain resources can be copied without permission — this does not include most web pages or images." If he ignored that message, he would've ignored this page too.
Further, while copyvios on that scale are a huge pain to clean up, they don't represent a particularly grave threat to Wikipedia. Section 230 makes us largely immune from legal repercussions, as long as we're diligent about removing copyvios when we discover them.
Long story short: no amount of (additional) warnings or instructions will make people wise. There's no magic way to prevent what GB did.--Father Goose (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it is really good to know about Section 230, thanks so much for telling me. (By the way, our problem editor did most of his copying from print books that are not available online, which is why it took 2 or 3 years to catch him at it.) So anyway, thanks all, I will leave the 5 Pillars, and instead see what I can do in an attempt to help make some of the copyright and copyvio policy pages clearer on these points, because currently some of those pages are indeed rather poorly organized and not easy for a beginner to understand. I do of course know perfectly well that there is no "magic way" to prevent people copying stuff into WIkipedia. I also know that people very often don't read notices or signs that are staring them in the face. However, there are a fair number of people who won't do copyvio if it is easily and clearly explained to them early on in their editing history, but who probably will do it by default if the information is not presented in a clear fashion to them. All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I love all pillars

This is an excellent page and I'm glad to see it. Only problem I have is that it seems few if any ever really read the page. When I can, I'll invoke it above all others here.75.21.116.175 (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The supreme, inviolate, pure virtue of Wikipedia

Some time ago I created a page (left intentionally blank) in which I questioned whether WP had any absolutely inviolable principle whatsoever. This page generated no discussion right up to the point at which it was nominated for deletion. I copy here the recent edits:

  • Wikipedia has never executed a human being for any reason. Paradoctor (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It's here. Onmyounomichi (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope these editors will forgive me if I consider their points as not to be taken seriously. But I'd like a serious discussion.

    • Then you should take our points seriously. Do others like you want to be done. Self-quote: "The example refutes Xion's allegation that no such virtue exists.". As long as you can't provide a counterexample, your theory fails. The point is that whatever your concern is precisely, it's not about inviolate, pure virtue. Onmyounomichi's proposal uses your own argument against your position. Assuming that you intended it as an agent provocateur, I pointed out that
“ Our existence is not under our control, hence not a virtue. That is, if you don't accept global suicide as an option. Generally speaking, humans are not virtuous. No religion I know of considers us virtuous as a whole. Looking at the historical record is enough to make a grown man cry. Among the more well known schools of thought, even humanism, the one most optimistic about humans, considers only our intrinsic worth and dignity, not virtue. The only thing even coming close to a virtue of mankind is its potential, but that is just that, a potential. ”

—Paradoctor
    • Individuals may be virtuous, but as a general rule about humans it fails. You probably hoped to turn the arguments against the agent in the human case against the Wikipedia case, but you hoped in vain, as the "no executions" example shows. "Oh! what tangled web we weave..." ;) Paradoctor (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I meant to say that I'd like a serious discussion of WP's core values -- or rather, my thesis that WP has none. I don't think simple existence is a value, unless the meaning of value is devalued. As for WP's grace in omitting to execute anyone, I'd like to hope that point is silly enough not to require rebuttal -- and anyway, it's another definition in the negative. — Xiong熊talk* 21:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] In a nutshell

My thesis in a nutshell is that WP fails at its mission because it has no mission -- no absolute, overriding, permanent virtue, principle, or characteristic. Everything is subject to editing. this page, as much as any other, appear to propose itself as the repository of WP core values; yet it is as editable as any other page. Perhaps an even more fundamental page is the venerable WP:NOT; it is repugnant and a bit silly to define a major project in the negative. For what do we stand? Why are we here?

  • "fails at its mission because it has no mission": Why not print it out, affix it to a nice big clean white wall, take a few steps back, and have a good, long look at it? You might have overlooked something. ;)
  • "no absolute, overriding, permanent virtue, principle, or characteristic": You say that as if it was a negative thing. As panagnostic, I feel at home.
  • "editable as any other page": See previous item.
  • "repugnant" ... "to define a major project in the negative": It doesn't (my emphasis):
“ Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Therefore, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not. ”

—WP:NOT
  • "For what do we stand?": We? And do we have to stand? Sitting is so much more comfortable.
  • "Why are we here?": Ok, I give up. You really think that Wikpedia is the place to find the answer?
  • More to follow Paradoctor (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's get down to cases.

[edit] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

This page does not (as I write) even exist; on this page, it points to WP:NOT. I feel that encyclopedia is, in a practical sense, a self-referential definition. Whatever its merits, WP has become the encyclopedia; the Average Person has experience with no other. (This is a simple consequence of economics; the majority of would-be encyclopedia users refuse to purchase expensive bound paper sets of books when they can access WP at little cost.) How can self-reference be definition, let alone foundation?

On this page, some attempt is made to explain what is meant by Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Much of this exposition is (again) in the negative; the only "meat" in this "pillar" is WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:NOR. While I strongly support these principles, it is obvious to any cursory inspection that they are honored more in the breach. WP is stuffed full of unverifiable, unsourced claims. The most absurd original "research" is not deleted; it is merely encapsulated as a factual description of a nutjob's fantasy. Some articles are well-sourced, yes. But the man following the elephant with a broom is not keeping up with the sheer quantity of manure being dropped.

  • "Average Person has experience with no other"[citation needed]
  • "encyclopedia users refuse to purchase expensive bound paper sets of books when they can access WP at little cost": Just a remark: Paper encyclopedias seldom have problems with IP vandals. ;)
  • "How can self-reference be definition, let alone foundation?": Like this.
  • "this page" (twice): I'm sorry, which one?
  • "WP is stuffed full of unverifiable, unsourced claims." ... "sheer quantity of manure": Growing pains.
  • "a nutjob's fantasy": So you disagree with WP:N? Or do you think the article fails WP:N?
  • Paradoctor (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I know what a paper encyclopedia looks like; I've used several in my life, at length. Other people have a less clear conception. You don't need a citation for that; you know it's so. I run into people daily who have only the haziest idea what a book is, let alone an encyclopedia.
Here's the test: Walk into any supermarket and strike up a conversation with an Average Man. Say you read something about (dinosaurs) in an encyclopedia. Bet you a dollar he thinks you said "Wikipedia".
I think it obvious why a social human enterprise ought not be defined in circular fashion. If we are to create an encyclopedia, then let's define what we mean by this word. I'm quite sure that editors do not agree on this.
It is my habit, right or wrong, to refer to any given page as this page when writing on its corresponding talk page.
Time Cube is a sufficiently elaborate box of crap that I'd be sad to see it go. I used to beat up on Graveller -- my pet example of the utterly unencyclopedic factoid (and copyvio) but now it's been redirected. (Does that mean Someone finally listened to me?) — Xiong熊talk* 21:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia has a neutral point of view

This assertion is linked to WP:NPOV. I contest that this principle is followed rigorously; indeed, I say that it cannot. There is no neutral point of view. The concept is meaningless. All comment, all exposition, is made from some definite point of view and this viewpoint is biased in some way.

Parenthetically, I object on linguistic grounds to the phrase NPOV; it causes illiterate editors to blast articles as being "POV" when they mean "biased".

It is intellectually arrogant to assume that one is capable of speaking without bias. He who insists that his words are free of bias is simply blind to his own. I uphold and embrace a bias in favor of evidence-based statements, rationality, and logic as a means of arriving at objective truth. However, I preserve enough intellectual honesty to admit that there is nothing neutral in my viewpoint. Thinking in my way would have had me burned at the stake a few hundred years ago -- and perhaps today, in some countries, stoned and beaten. Those who would abuse me would not hesitate to note the bias inherent in my every word.

Quite apart from the epistemological difficulty here noted, WP does not even present a consistent ("objective" or "rational") bias. Granted, the articles on some subjects are fairly bland; however, others are totally "owned" by cliques pushing their narrow agendas. Sometimes, a holy war erupts between supporters of various viewpoints; in this case a relatively neutral article may be hammered out. More often, an article remains solidly in the camp of those with the training and inclination to defend their point of view.

WP lacks any mechanism that succeeds in eliminating bias or even in enforcing a consistent bias in favor of Western-style scientific rationality. The attempt is made, in some cases, and in some cases succeeds -- but the principle of NPOV is a long way from inviolate.

  • "All comment, all exposition, is made from some definite point of view": Comment is verboten, and exposition is to be derived from the literature.
  • "POV" when they mean "biased": I beg your pardon? Color me illiterate, but it was my impression that the two are synonymous, with the former connoting a statement about the creator.
  • "not even" ... "consistent" ... "bias" ... "cliques" ... : Growing pains again.
  • "articles on some subjects are fairly bland": Arrrgh! "Bland" and "objective" have no causal relationship!
  • "Western-style scientific rationality": You are aware that this gave rise to the encyclopedia as we understand it?
  • "long way from inviolate": In anything but self-indulgement, perfection is a direction rather than a goal.
"POV" is an acronym and a poor substitute for "viewpoint", a noun. "Biased" is an adjective. The two are not interchangeable even at the level of grammar.
I object to the acronym-as-adjective because this has the effect of Orwellian Newspeak. It is commonplace to say, "This article has a point of view." It is easier to demonize without understanding by saying, "This article is POV and must be deleted."
Unless you are a mathematician, you should agree that every word you speak reveals bias. If you are a mathematician, you may or may not agree, depending on your religion (set theorist or analyst). I say that every article is biased in some way -- some far more than others. My bias is in favor of what I think of as "the objective view" and others might call "materialism". See WP:BULL. I say that once you abandon this Cartesian, objectivist-materialist viewpoint you are no longer entitled to any academic consideration whatsoever -- even if you reveal great and important mystic truths.
Instead of pretending to publish unbiased articles, we should decide upon a point of view, define it, uphold it, and exclude those who oppose it. — Xiong熊talk* 21:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is free content

Linked ironically to Wikipedia:Copyrights, this assertion is better founded than the others. Indeed, WP is available free of direct charge; it is however available only to those privileged to an internet connection and a computer of sufficient power to run a modern web browser. This is really a rather small subset of humanity. Even those with access generally pay some infinitesimal amount per page view, as that access is itself granted only on cash payment.

The words "...that anyone may edit" are simple balderdash. Officially, many pages are protected from editing -- arguably, many of those more popular pages which the average user might want to edit. Technically, it requires considerable talent and ability to insert an edit into an article, the difficulty increasing with the size, scope, and detail of such edit. While my claim may be brushed aside by experienced editors, I ask for a second look. Does your Aunt Martha edit WP? Can she? (Without you standing over her shoulder!) The world is full of computer users who are barely able to retrieve their own email.

I find it fairly easy to assemble an edit from among the peculiar markup and social conventions that obtain here; but then I have the benefit of 30 years of experience in computer science, programming, typesetting, publishing, and graphic design, as well as quite a few edits on this project. Aunt Martha doesn't think that anyone can edit WP. There is nothing transparent or accessible about MediaWiki, let alone the byzantine social structure that forbids the majority of edits that the average user might want to make.

This leads us to the social difficulty of editing WP. I say the Wikipedian Community is vicious and intemperate despite all attempts to encourage civility. The new editor is subjected to thinly veiled abuse -- ever so polite insults -- that appear designed to frighten him away. So very many policies exist that one would have to spend days researching -- or months editing -- even to begin to hope to make edits without receiving harsh, terse criticism in return.

There is the question of significant editing. Have I edited an article if my edit is instantly reverted? While we may urge editors to WP:AGF and seek compromise, the wholesale revert is commonplace. It's not easy to make an edit stick -- and if a new article is created, well, don't be astonished to find it up on AfD sooner or later. In part, yes, this is the natural operation of any wiki -- in part, it is ruthless groupthink.

At the other end, the emphasis on "free" content excludes much of value from the project. Permissions may be sought -- but often are not. An editor might go to great lengths to secure permission of a type acceptable to the project and still have the material deleted because Somebody is too lazy to research the matter properly, and shoots from the hip.

I'd say that the copyright fascists do a better job than anyone else of protecting their cherished value; but I'm not convinced of the benefit. Other sites do very well, allowing most material to stand until challenged by someone claiming to represent the copyright owner. While I might not advance such an extreme position here, still I ask: How many babies have we thrown out with the bathwater?

At the last, I'll concede that copyleft content is a pretty firmly enforced description of WP. But then, so is a great deal of garbage. Is this core value sufficient to describe a major project?

  • "small subset of humanity": That's not Wikipedia's problem.
  • The words "...that anyone may edit" are simple balderdash.: The presumption is that nobody cares about total dicks. I agree that the wording is misleading in a literalist context. OTOH, try editing the Britannica.
  • "world is full of computer users who are barely able to retrieve their own email": Is it necessary or desirable for everyone on Earth to have at least a few edits on Wikipedia?
  • "structure that forbids the majority of edits that the average user might want to make": Forbid? Dear aunty Martha, please be bold, nobody's going to kill you. Promise.
  • "So very many policies exist that one would have to spend days researching -- or months editing -- even to begin to hope to make edits without receiving harsh, terse criticism in return.": That's not my experience. But generally speaking, I agree that Wikipedia can seem daunting, even to one as brash as me, and that the treatment of new editors can be improved.
  • "seek compromise": Consensus is not the same as compromise. If you compromise just to attain consensus, that is your choice. I prefer to find my consensus in the brutal world of Hello Kitty convince or be convinced.
  • "WP:AGF" ... "wholesale revert is commonplace": While some editors failing to AGF may prefer reverts over communication, a revert is not implicitly WP:ABF. Besides, what do we have WP:3RR for?
  • "It's not easy": Life is unfair. Gravity sucks. Welcome to the world of Hello Kitty. ;)
  • "Somebody is too lazy to research the matter properly, and shoots from the hip.": Communicate. Revert. WP:3RD. ...
  • OT: "copyright fascists": May I express my happiness at seeing a soulmate on this matter? :)
  • "stand until challenged": Damn, there is a Frege quote that would have been perfect here, I just can't find it now. Anyway, the problem with this approach is that there will usually be work building on the challenged material. Consider this scenario: Wikipedia 1.0 is out, lots of copies printed, distribution is about to begin. A couple of jerks sue for infringement, judge rules in their favor. Consequence: A forest died for nothing. Don't count on my support for that.
  • "Is this core value sufficient to describe a major project?": Oh, c'mon! You're not telling me you're into some holographic philosophy? A part is a part, it doesn't have to describe the entire project.
  • Ok, I'm hungry, I have a fridge, and I won't hesitate to use it! Later, Paradoctor (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I object to the use of the word free to define WP because (like "love") it has so many meanings that (although it has much "mouth appeal") it doesn't really nail the project up to any standard of quality or performance. What do we mean by "free"?
If we say WP is free because anyone can edit, I say "No, that's not so"; I think that's obvious. I don't say anyone should be allowed to edit; I just say that we shouldn't pretend.
If we say WP is free as in free beer, I accept about half of that. To anyone with an internet connection and the ability to point and click, yes, WP is free-beer free. But then, most of the content on the net is free-beer and much of it is worthless crap. I say WP ought to remain free beer -- but that this is insufficiently defining.
If we say WP is free to reuse, that's not true either. GFDL was never intended for copylefting of general material and it shows. The current move to crosslicense with Creative Commons will address some of this difficulty (although I fear somewhere down the road, a lawyer may eat).
There is no project justification or core principle inherent in this "pillar", free. It's just a word that sounds real good in the mouth. — Xiong熊talk* 22:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia has a code of conduct

This links to WP:EQ. I'm not going to beat this into the ground; anyone who has edited this project for any length of time can provide counterexample galore. Yes, we have a standard; it is violated more often than obeyed. When it is obeyed, it is followed to the letter far more often than in the spirit.

It is not only possible -- it is quite easy -- to be superficially polite while being a dick. And (without pretending that I have never been a dick myself), I say we have far more regular, daily dicks in this project than should ever have been permitted. And holy Mary mother of God how loud are the dicks!

Whatever WP stands for above all things, it does not stand for a place where adults may engage in civilized discourse without enduring a steady rain of peanut shells and monkey urine.

  • "violated more often than obeyed": Well, what are the alternatives? Indefblocking until everyone in here complies? That might work, but I don't think that it would improve the situation. ;)
  • "to the letter far more often than in the spirit": Lobby for attention to these matters.
  • "And holy Mary mother of God how loud are the dicks!": Ok, that was funny. ^_^
  • "adults" ... "without" ... "monkey": I have a problem reconciling this statement with WP:AGF.
  • Generally speaking, what is your complaint: Lack of perfection? Or do you want community attention shifted towards improving user behavior? If you do, you might want to get more input than your own personal experience. My experience so far was not bad. Is there really a problem requiring the attention of the community at large? If there is, by all means, make your case. Thus far you have only broad generalizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradoctor (talk • contribs) 20:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia does not have firm rules

Ignore all rules. What??

I can't possibly criticize this; it is perfect -- perfect nonsense. And if this project, this community, possesses a core value, yes, this is it: There are no core values, no unbreakable rules.

I say that this is silliness squared. My purpose from the outset has been to show that WP stands for nothing, embraces no principle totally, does not define itself in any positive, absolute way. Here we see that not only do some editors agree with me, they actually uphold this formlessness and lack of purpose.

Congratulations.

— Xiong熊talk* 21:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

  • "I can't possibly criticize this.": Then what use is the rest of this section? Be bold, see if you can come up with a substantial criticism.
  • "WP stands for nothing" ... "does not define itself in any positive, absolute way": If refer you to the quote provided above, In a nutshell.
  • Because I can't resist:
“ In many of the more relaxed civilizations, the Wikipedia has already supplanted the great Encyclopedia Britannica as the standard repository of all knowledge and wisdom, for though it has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate, it scores over the older, more pedestrian work in two important respects.
First, it is slightly cheaper; and secondly it has the words Come as You Are inscribed in large friendly letters on its cover.		 ”

—with apologies to the D. A.
  • I'll see if I can summarize the core of Wikipedia such that the hard parts become obvious. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You know what? You're right. Let's nuke this place from orbit, and find a warmer sun. Paradoctor (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

As an editor here on Wikipedia for a little over four years, I have always struggled with the WP:OR policy (the first of the five pillars). The reason I struggle with it, and the reason why I think Wikipedia should remove the policy banning original research, lays partly due to common sense, and mainly, due to the fact that everything on here amounts to some form of original research. Isn't that the whole point of an eneyclopedia? To be a collaboration of original research? In technicality, everything ever written, everything ever published in the history of mankind has been some form of "Original Research" and quite frankly, I am stupefied at the fact that WP would take such a position as to not allow it. Original research is part of our daily lives. Newspaper articles, television news reports, magazine articles and entire publications, to high school essays and the college thesis paper, are all a form of original research, and I think it's time Wikipedia be bold itself, and begin to realize a little common sense. Srosenow 98 (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The "original research" applies to what Wikipedia editors write as part of articles, not what others have written outside of WP. --MASEM (t) 12:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure that you've misunderstood the policy. You might want to look at some of Jimbo's posts to the mailing list around the time the policy was adopted. --causa sui talk 13:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Where would I find those? Srosenow 98 (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll weigh in here with a commonsense example. Let's say you are editing the article on the noble Ant. You break for lunch and repair to your backyard with a ham and cheese sandwich; you observe that dropped bits of cheese attract more ants than does ham. WP policy says that you ought not include this original research in your edit.
On the other hand, you might type up your observation and send it away to the Journal of Ant Studies; further, let us say that said journal publishes your paper. Now you may, if you like, include your observation in the WP article, citing the journal paper.
Clear? — Xiong熊talk* 19:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem I see with that assertion, is that in some cases, original research is just as viable and credible as it would be if say, I were to follow the example you've provided. Encyclopedias, although academic in nature, are nothing more than a collaboration of original research, as are the subject matters contained within.
Also, if I were to follow the example above, another Wikipedia editor may refute the reference citing a conflict-of-interest. Speaking from personal experience, my userpage makes a blatant reference to me owning a website titled GilligCoaches.NET (although without using the name explicitly), and I've uploaded several photos from my website with the GilligCoaches.NET watermark due to copyrights. Another editor here on Wikipedia failed to do proper investigation of the matter and instead tagged the images in question as being in copyright violation (even though I took the photos, and I uploaded them - and I own the website they were posted from). It may not be of a writing stance, but it's along the same vein.
The problem with the Original Research rule is that it prohibits a lot of articles from attaining their full potential. It's wrong to tell an editor (or contributor) "Hey, you can't publish your own research unless you have it published elsewhere, first." If we all followed that mentality, then books themselves would never get published. In high school, college, and beyond everything that is written about a dedicated subject matter, including the articles here on Wikipedia, constitute a form of original research. Srosenow 98 (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, there is "original research" that is necessary to compile a set of existing facts into an article - which is acceptable for the purposes of WP editing - and then there is "Original Research" in the introduction of new ideas (facts, opinions, theories, data, etc.) into the total informational codex that did not exist before that writing. WP cannot engage in the second within mainspace pages, as that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia, though once those ideas have been published elsewhere, we can go about including them per summaries generated through lower-case "original research". --MASEM (t) 12:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Licence

Shouldn't the licence pillar be changed since the vote went through? It should at least mention it.Pisharov (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting consensus lacking addition elsewhere

As it is relevant to this page, please note Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Conflicting.2Fconfusing_guidelines concerning a unilateral addition to that page made a mere month ago and without gaining any kind of consensus first thereby creating a contradiction with our First pillar. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Five_pillars"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs