Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia project/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
|||
| (40 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Talkarchive}}
== WIKIPEDIA SILLY-O-METER ALERT ==
Line 87:
** Matt: According to you, there is no wide consensus for wikipedia being an encyclopedia? Interesting. [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 02:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
*** According to me, there is wide consensus for every one of the principles in this page being upheld. There is '''not''' widespread consensus for labelling this page as official policy, because we already have official policy pages for this purpose. Such labelling is at best redundant, and potentially confusing. A restatement of official policy is not itself policy, and nor should it be. [[User:Lupin|'''Lupin''']]|[[User_talk:Lupin|talk]]|[[Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups|popups]] 02:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
**** Interesting remark, but no. Any restatement of official policy is by definition also official policy. This is so because the policy pages are based on the way we (think we should) behave, and not the other way around. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<
*****For those who accept this line of reasoning ("any restatement of official policy is by definition official policy"), please explain why I should not restate official policies on my user page, and use the {policy} template there. (Besides the fact it would violate [[WP:POINT]] :)). It is better for us to have fewer policies than more, as that reduces the reading load on new users and reduces the potential for contradictory policies. Why on earth would we want to [[WP:FORK|content fork]] our policies? [[User Talk:Stevage|Stevage]] 19:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*****I agree with Stevage's comment. Also, if you believe that any restatement of policy deserves to be called official then you wind up with the problem of having to decide whether or not something is actually a restatement or a subtle distortion (intentional or not). It seems far better to circumvent this entire issue and clearly distinguish what is canonical policy and what is not, and the tool of choice for making such a distinction should be the {{tl|policy}} tag in my opinion. I'm afraid I don't understand the relevance of Radiant's third sentence above to whether or not restatements of policy should be tagged as official policy or not. [[User:Lupin|'''Lupin''']]|[[User_talk:Lupin|talk]]|[[Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups|popups]] 19:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Not a policy
== Humour v. Policy ==
Line 121:
:: It would undermine the actual official policies? Excellent. Then we can fall back on mere guidelines. (such as consensus, and don't disrupt) :-) [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 09:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
:::everybody seems to be forgetting that the page may be ''edited'' to fit its scope better. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" certainly qualifies as policy. Maybe not even policy but an ''axiom''. ([[:Category:Wikipedia axioms]], anyone?); there is no reason why policy should not be spelled out in allcaps for once. The "humour" thing can be adapted. "Wikipedia is not a Hot Dog" is gone (that triggered the "humour" categorization in the first place). I would like this page to be about what Wikipedia ''is'', but right now, it emphasizes on [[WP:NOT]]s again after the first statement. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 13:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
*Anything that restates official policy, by definition ''is'' official policy. That said, what's the friggin' big deal? The only thing that's wildly inappropriate here is the "proposed" tag, because that sounds as if we're proposing that Wikipedia should become an encyclopedia. DUH. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<
:Why restate when you can use existing policies. In addition, this page is not simply restating official policies, it distorts them when it says "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DUMPING GROUND FOR RANDOM INFORMATION" (not to be found in an official policy to my knowledge?). If we go about "restating" bits and pieces of official policies right left and center, it will be more confusing for all, and it will be easier for people to make subtle distortions to low-traffic "policies" and then use those subtle distortions to justify their own causes. -- [[User:Paxomen|Paxomen]] 00:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
== Proposed text change ==
Line 138 ⟶ 139:
[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 23:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
* Please avoid dumbing down this page by referring to "big stuff" and such. Wikipedia is not a ten-year old. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<
:"Important stuff", as written by [[User:Grue|Grue]] does suit it better. But that's besides the point: isn't dumbing down the basic stuff the current objective of the page anyway? Otherwise, it wouldn't be in big letters. ≈ [[User:Ekevu|Eke<b >vu</b >]] ([[User talk:Ekevu|♥]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ekevu|★]]) 15:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
***Ekevu, please don't revert my changes because I hadn't discussed them on the talk page, when there's several other people that have been making changes that haven't been discussed either. There is a difference between making simple statements ("Wikipedia is not a blog") and making dumb statements ("Wikipedia has good stuff that isn't yours") - the main difference is that people will take the former more seriously than the latter. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<
**** OOh, I have some trouble with both radiants version (beans? ;-) ) and some slight issues with Ekevus version ("notability" has never been defined well) , but like, welcome to the wiki world guys. Edit the page 'till you both like it. :-) [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 15:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 150 ⟶ 151:
::Plus, there is a merger in the works on ''that'' page. With the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|Five pillars]]. Which this is an alternative to. I also '''oppose''' this and suggest keeping this page in existence. --'''[[User:Wcquidditch|<font color="red">WC</font>''<font color="#999933">Quidditch</font>'']]''' <big>[[User talk:Wcquidditch|<font color="red">☎</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wcquidditch|<font color="#999933">✎</font>]]</big> 23:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
:This page is a Good Thing as it is. Let's not tinker with it for no reason, eh? [[User:MarkGallagher|fuddlemark]] ([[User talk:MarkGallagher|fuddle me!]]) 23:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
*This page used to be funny and to the point. As a result of some recent edits to a rather child-like tone, it is now neither. So yes, I'd agree to a merge. Or a revert. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<
If "Wikipedia was an encyclopaedia" was explicit and actually answered anyone's questions about what Wikipedia is, this page, Wikipedia in 8 words, and [[WP:NOT]] wouldn't exist. [[User Talk:Stevage|Stevage]] 11:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 163 ⟶ 164:
[[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 02:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
*[[WP:FLOW|Wikipedia is a flower garden]]. Not bad for a metaphor; the top is very pretty but the bottom is really just dirt or manure, and there's thorns all over the place. I can't really do much with the sandpit metaphor unless there's quicksand involved. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<
:: Who said anything about metaphor? ;-) Perhaps we could get consensus that wikipedia is a, um um, elephant? You just know that this encyclopedia thing is never gonna fly as policy. What was jimbo thinking? :-P [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 12:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 169 ⟶ 170:
:::::What the hell? "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" is one of the core tenets of the project, and like NPOV, is one thing Jimbo has said is not negotiable. Nice try, but no cigar. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 04:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::I apologise for omitting to enclose my attempt at cigar obtainment within <irony></irony> tags. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small><sup>[[User talk:Splash|talk]]</sup></small> 01:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
:::*Wikipedia is an [[Elephant]] because it has [[WP:5P|four pillars and a trunk]]. Also, it has a long [[Special:History|memory]], is [[WP:CON|slow-moving]], is visible from a [[Wikipedia:In the news|long distance]], makes a lot of [[WP:VP|noise]], tramples [[Nupedia|smaller creatures]], and people want to kill it for the [[WP:FAC|ivory]]. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<
== Presentation of this page ==
Line 175 ⟶ 176:
:Which would give us what, [[WP:NOT]]? Joking aside I see your point... but now it's tagged as humor (or an attempt at it). Restating the basics of [[WP:NOT]] in a non-frustrated/sarcastic/whatever way would be useful though... I wonder how many new users (who would actually benefit from this page) ever see it though... it seems like it's mostly wikipedia veterans here. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 23:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
:: Calling it humor is a nice spin , but still when I first look at this page , I get the idea that someone is mad and frustrated at the editors and is yelling at them with a megaphone. But that is just me.--[[User:CltFn|CltFn]] 00:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
::*You do have a point, but the reason is that some people apparently ''need'' being yelled at with a megaphone. For instance, we get policy proposals to censor Wikipedia on a regular basis. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<
:::*that's the idea. This is the page you show people when they are in need of being shouted at. I.e. after about five tries of clenching your teeth and not biting. It says "WP is an encyclopedia" right on the Main page, anyone willing to read policy, or (gasp) [[encyclopedia]] does not need to be shown this page. Therefore, this page '''<big>IS NOT INTENDED AS HUMOUR</big>''' :oP It is intended for shouting at people who deserve it. If you do not deserve being shouted at, you will not be offended by this page, since you know what it is saying, anyway. If we '''''need''''' a smiley at the top of the page, make it a rollseyes one. Warning: All these warning boxes are slowly taking over. Why does every page need to be headed by boxes saying "This page", "This user", "This article", to the point of drowning out the page's actual content? I can see the need for some of these, but "This page uses Unicode", or "This page may be too complicated and advanced for you", and "This page is humour"?? Please. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 13:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 189 ⟶ 190:
I've struck this. While it's true that nothing is always fair, saying WP isn't always fair DOES NOT help promote NPOV. NPOV is a kind of fairness, and the kind of fairness that IS ESSENTIAL to Wikipedia. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 14:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*Agreed. Additionally if a user is unfairly treated by another user or admin, the "victim" should not simply be referred to a page stating "hey, WP is unfair, tough luck dude". [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<
::depends on what you mean by "fair". If NPOV is fairness, "WP is fair" is certainly policy. If "fair" means, all Wikipedians are treated fairly at all times, "WP is fair" is certainly not policy. If fair as in "pretty" is intended, it depends on what css you are using :) [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 15:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*Is this a reaction to people who say stuff along the lines of "It's not fair that the article on my garage band/webcomic/self etc. was deleted!" or "It's not fair that I was blocked for blatently trolling!" Because stuff like that is fair. It just might not ''seem'' fair to biased parties. I think Wikipedia should strive for fairness... but that's that's an endlessly complicated topic. At any rate, not being fair isn't a policy... I hope... --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 16:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 202 ⟶ 203:
:Mayhaps a better solution would be to put something below it, so that it's not just sitting there. Maybe something like the old "This page is intended as humor" box? <sup>[[User:Lubaf|Thanks]],</sup> <sub>[[User_talk:Lubaf|Luc "Somethingorother" French]]</sub> 06:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
::I just bold-ized the text, and now believe that it is rather legible. It might be improved by darkening a bit... any lighter would be very difficult for us color-blind people to read. [[User:Matt Yeager|<b
:::Looks good to me. Thanks Matt. [[User:Iamthejabberwock|TheJabberwock]] 04:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
::::Hey, any excuse to [[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|be bold]]. [[image:smiley.png|20px]] [[User:Matt Yeager|<b
== I'm about to change the definition ==
Line 230 ⟶ 231:
I really like the conciseness of this article, but the caps are just too much. I couldn't bear sending a vandal candidate here because it would seem like I'm screaming at them, when I just want to introduce them to the true Wikipedia. It didn't feel good to send them to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|five pillars]] either (which I did), because the five pillars include too much detail and fancy terms for a clear and quick summary. I don't mind the larger font (in fact, I like it) but the caps render this article useless for me - In important articles with titles as serious as this one I definitely favor clarity and usability over humor. [[User:Wintran|Wintran]] 01:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
:I agree. Screaming at vandals does noone any good. I'd suggest selective Capitalisation of Keywords. :) -[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 03:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
:Why don't you be [[WP:BOLD]] and try normal caps out. If there turns out to be controversy, we can discuss it here. <font color="silver">TheJ</font>[[User:Iamthejabberwock|<font color="blue">a</font>]]<font color="silver">bb</font>[[
::Done. -[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 05:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Thanks. I did some further changes, feel free to check it out. [[User:Wintran|Wintran]] 12:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Line 315 ⟶ 316:
I have a couple of problems with these statements. If wikipedia was not censored then people would not go around deleting the material of others. That in and of itself is censorship of material. Also, if this is not a democracy then why are there democratic voting processes for some parts of the site? If it is not a democracy then why can people come here and post articles and then if they feel they have been wronged by the actions of an admin take those complaints before others to have a course of action voted upon and decided upon by the majority? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Saatana|Saatana]] ([[User talk:Saatana|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Saatana|contribs]]) 12:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC) (UTC{{{3|}}})</small>
:Wikipedia is based on consensus, not on votes. Voting is usually discouraged, as well (see [[Wikipedia:Voting is evil]], for example). Censorship is with regards to potentially offensive material that may be rated PG or such in terms of social acceptability, which means that if article material is verifiable, notable, and relevant, then it should be included in an article. An example of Wikipedia not being censored would be the graphic images in articles relating to human sexual organs and such. [[User:Cowman109|<
*Exactly. Removing information does not equate to censorship; what matters is the motive for doing so. I don't know where you got the impression that dispute resolution uses majority voting; let me assure you that it doesn't. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><
== Encyclopedia vs Reference Work ==
Wikipedia is a '''reference work''' not an encyclopedia. It has elements of an [[almanac]]: It covers current events in timelines, it contains lists of things. It has elements of a [[gazetteer]]: every population center has an entry. It doesn't resemble Britannica at all, it has evolved into an '''encyclopedic reference work'''. --[[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )]] 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*Well, then I suppose you should contact Jimbo and have him change the site name to Wikanac or Wiferencework or Wiketteer. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><
*I'm not sure you are making a meaningful distinction. Many dictionaries list city names with population and a short description, but they are still dictionaries. Many traditional encyclopedias do in fact contain timelines, moon information, etc, but are still encyclopedias. —[[User:Centrx|Centrx]]→[[User talk:Centrx|''talk'']] • 23:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
== This is unprofessional ==
Comments like "thank you for your time" and "we're not in your fact most of this time" on this page seem somewhat childish to me. I can understand the "don't take offense", but come on: let's act like a professional site here and tweak this. — '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]][[User talk:Deckiller|er]]''' 12:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
*The point is that while Wikipedia is not childish, some editors are, and need some [[WP:TROUT]]whacking to get the point across that Really, We Do Not Want an article about your (grandma / little doggy / high school teacher / word you made up / etc) even if you get your friends in to vote for it. Wikipedia is not the internet. That's what the internet is for. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><
**Fair enough, although I see this being used in a manner to insult someone else's intelligence. — '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]][[User talk:Deckiller|er]]''' 14:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
***Possibly, but people who want to insult others' intelligence do not need this page or any other particular page in order to do so. You get to whack them back with [[WP:CIV]], though :) [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><
****True; perhaps we need to create an essay entitled [[Wikipedia:Policy Mallet]]? — '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]][[User talk:Deckiller|er]]''' 20:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
*I agree that these comments dilute the page. They seem to be trying to apologize for the in-one's-face nature of the page. The first ("Wikipedia is not nearly this in-your-face most of the time") should be obvious to anyone who has used Wikipedia. The second ("Thank you for your time.") is unnecessary and perhaps patronizing. <b>[[User:Audacity|<font color="black">Λυδ</font><font color="blue">α</font><font color="black">cιτγ</font>]]</b> 00:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC) And as Quiddity [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_an_encyclopedia&diff=73703753&oldid=73695027 said] a while ago, "this page is NOT for newbies, it is for Problem Users". <b>[[User:Audacity|<font color="black">Λυδ</font><font color="blue">α</font><font color="black">cιτγ</font>]]</b> 00:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
**Wikipedia is not juice concentrate. It therefore cannot be diluted. [[User:Splash|Splash]] - [[User talk:Splash|tk]] 23:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
== Hour-glass display ==
Who ever sorted the entries to display like an hour glass, well done. I like the attention to detail. -- '''[[User:Basar|Basar]]''' ([[User talk:Basar|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Basar|contribs]]) 01:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
== <noinclude> ==
Does anyone object if I add <noinclude> tags here so this can be safely transcluded? I'd like to use this at the top of my userpage. :-) - [[User:I do not exist|<span style="color:teal">∅</span>]] ([[User talk:I do not exist|<span style="color: gold; font-weight: bold;">∅</span>]]), 15:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
:Just put <nowiki>{{subst:Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia}}</nowiki> on your user page (sans nowikis), and edit your userpage to suit your needs. No need to put <noinclude> here. <sup>[[User:Lubaf|Thanks]],</sup> <sub>[[User_talk:Lubaf|Luc "Somethingorother" French]]</sub> 18:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
::Well, other editors might want to do the same. And if I subst it I'll have to update it manually when this page changes, and I'm a lazy old skunk. ;-) I don't see how adding noincludes could harm anyone. :-) - [[User:I do not exist|<span style="color:teal">∅</span>]] ([[User talk:I do not exist|<span style="color: gold; font-weight: bold;">∅</span>]]), 02:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
:::And I don't see any good reason to include [[WP:ENC]] on a User page. <sup>[[User:Lubaf|Thanks]],</sup> <sub>[[User_talk:Lubaf|Luc "Somethingorother" French]]</sub> 02:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
== All caps, part two ==
This was initially discussed in 2006, [[Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_an_encyclopedia#Let.27s_get_rid_of_the_CAPS|here]], and the change was made to remove the "in your face, shouting at you" all caps. I am unsure when, or why it was reverted back to all caps, but I would tend to agree that it is a bit [[WP:BITE]]-y, and I really think that removing the caps, and instead using big tags, and bolding, would be more appropriate, and less authoritative. This page is helpful to direct new users to, but in doing so, it occurs to me that it may actually put some editors off, sort of as if they went to a new school, and upon walking in the door, were directed to the principal's office, where they met a drill sergeant who shouted the rules to them in their face. I would like to see a "quieter", gentler version of this page. Would anyone object if I redesigned it? (I would change no wording significantly.) <small>[[user:ArielGold|<font color="8B00FF">'''Ariel'''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/ArielGold|<font color="F64A8A">♥</font>]][[User_talk:ArielGold|<font color="007FFF">'''Gold'''</font>]]</small> 10:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:I am sorry but this page is '''INTENDED''' (scuse 'bitey' shouting) to be shouting in your face. It is its entire point. You should think about whether this is appropriate to the situation before you point people here. Genuinely confused but non-obnoxious newbies should not be sent here, of course, but to [[WP:5P]]. You are called to [[WP:UCS]] to evaluate which applies to a given case. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 10:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::Please take a look at [[User:ArielGold/Projects|this alternate]] version that would be helpful to explain to younger editors, or very brand new editors, I think a middle ground is needed, instead of pointing someone to [[WP:NOT]] (which is not very short or to the point, but is a pretty long read that many younger editors would likely not bother with initially), to show new editors the very basics, summed up, without shouting at them or coming across as mean. I disagree that this page is intended to bite, if someone is acting inappropriately, that is what [[WP:TT|talk page templates]] are for, to notify them of what specific policy/guideline they have possibly gone against. This page should not be used to send someone here to be shouted at, in lieu of a warning about inappropriate behavior. I came across this page, while checking out a variety of welcome templates at the [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates|Wikipedia Welcoming Committee]], and it was in [[User:Ac1983fan/Welcome|this template]]. I honestly think that this page should not be used to send "obnoxious" editors to, and should instead, be used to direct very inexperienced editors to a very short, concise place that they can find a listing of what is, and isn't appropriate, without feeling shouted at. I do appreciate your input, but I would like to see it used to welcome those who don't want to wade through pages of policies, and to give a very broad overview of the project. <small>[[user:ArielGold|<font color="8B00FF">'''Ariel'''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/ArielGold|<font color="F64A8A">♥</font>]][[User_talk:ArielGold|<font color="007FFF">'''Gold'''</font>]]</small> 10:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't think this page is appropriate as is. I fail to see how it qualifies as 'humour' (per the page's listed categories), and since when did we condone "shouting" at even our worst vandals and trolls? My [[WP:UCS|common sense]] tells me that there's no good use for this current page as is; it's not particularly humorous or appropriately helpful. [[WP:CIVIL]] should always apply, even when needing to use the largest of cluesticks. ArielGold's improvements wouldn't alter the text but remove the bite. ~[[User:Eliz81|<span style="color:#1E90FF; font-family:Comic Sans Ms;">'''Eliz'''</span>]][[User_talk:Eliz81|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans Ms; color:#9966CC;">'''81'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Eliz81|<sup style="color:#1E90FF;">(C)</sup>]] 10:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::::(Humour cat removed, shouldn't have been there)
::::I've never pointed other users to this page, so have no strong investment in how it ends up appearance-wise. Both perspectives make sense, and if it has conflicting usages, perhaps it should just be forked? -- [[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] <small>([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]])</small> 20:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::Yeah actually, I was discussing the possibility of a fork with someone last night, one aimed perhaps at younger editors, (or those who have acted in an immature way), rewording it to be more in the context of MySpace, not a level-up game, not a chat room, homepage, etc. Sort of a children's edition, so if that seems a better compromise, it would be something I'd be happy to put together. <small>[[user:ArielGold|<font color="8B00FF">'''Ariel'''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/ArielGold|<font color="F64A8A">♥</font>]][[User_talk:ArielGold|<font color="007FFF">'''Gold'''</font>]]</small> 04:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
:This has been changed to lowercase at least twice, and reverted back to all caps again. For my part I much prefer the all-caps version with the cute hourglass shape, and the original color scheme. - [[User:I do not exist|<span style="color:teal">∅</span>]] ([[User talk:I do not exist|<span style="color: gold; font-weight: bold;">∅</span>]]), 05:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
::I see that the page has been summarily reverted without discussion to the all-caps version, which is inappropriate given the continuing discussion here. Sanctioning the biting of newbies or even established vandals/trolls is counter to [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:AGF]] and our goals as a community. ~[[User:Eliz81|<span style="color:#1E90FF; font-family:Comic Sans Ms;">'''Eliz'''</span>]][[User_talk:Eliz81|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans Ms; color:#9966CC;">'''81'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Eliz81|<sup style="color:#1E90FF;">(C)</sup>]] 19:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
:::My longer explanation edit-conflicted with the above. I certainly wasn't ignoring this discussion. • WRT "Sanctioning the biting of newbies": That is very severely misunderstanding the idea behind this page. That would be akin to suggesting that [[WP:BAN]] sanctions the biting of newbies. WRT "established vandals": [[WP:AGF]] does not apply; there's nothing to assume. By definition, they are established as deliberately making unproductive edits. —<small>[[User:DragonHawk|DragonHawk]] ([[User talk:DragonHawk|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/DragonHawk|hist]])</small> 20:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
: I saw the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikipedia_is_an_encyclopedia&diff=177953545&oldid=177942927 change to mixed-case]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_an_encyclopedia&diff=next&oldid=177953764 I reverted it] to the "ALL CAPS" version. Please understand: This page is a [[clue-by-four]]. It is ''supposed'' to SHOUT. This page is not supposed to be friendly. It has been like that from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_an_encyclopedia&oldid=29677059 day one]. Attempts to make this page by nice, welcoming, friendly, etc., are missing the point. This page is ''supposed'' to bite the reader. Note that that does not mean this page is in violation of anything. One should ''never'' refer a [[WP:BITE|newcomer]] to this page. One should ''never'' reference this page when one should be [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]]. If someone does so, that someone should be called for it, because they're the one's using it wrong.
:Perhaps that means one should reserve mention of this page for the most egregious and flagrant of violations. Perhaps that means this page should only be used in conjunction with [[WP:BAN|serious sanctions]], or as a last-ditch alternative to same. Perhaps that means this page should ''never'' be referred to in any serious discussion. But this page is the way it is for a reason: Because some just don't get it, and indeed refuse to get it. There are already nice ways to say what this page says ([[WP:NOT]] and [[WP:5]] come to mind); turning this page into them will just make this page redundant. Perhaps all that means this page should be [[WP:MFD|deleted]]; dunno. But you can't make it warm and cuddly.
:I suspect the above is why this page was once tagged as [[:Category:Wikipedia humor|funny]] -- because one can make the argument that any serious use of this page is a violation of [[WP:CIVIL]]. Though it may be worth pointing out that just because something is funny doesn't mean it's not true. "When a thing is funny, search it carefully for a hidden truth." (George B Shaw) —<small>[[User:DragonHawk|DragonHawk]] ([[User talk:DragonHawk|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/DragonHawk|hist]])</small> 20:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
:Postscript: Another, even better suggestion for a page to send newbies to when AGF'ing would be [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia in brief]]. —<small>[[User:DragonHawk|DragonHawk]] ([[User talk:DragonHawk|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/DragonHawk|hist]])</small> 01:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
may I, somewhat facetiously, remind everyone that [[WP:ENC|Wikipedia is an encyclopedia!]] We should be writing articles, rather than wrack our brains in prolongued caucus over how to best cater to the "younger editors, or those who have acted in an immature way". [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 19:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to add my voice to those opposed to the all-caps, [[WP:BITE|BITE]]-violating tone of this page. It is completely inappropriate for this page to be linked from [[Wikipedia:Five pillars]]. I went there looking for helpful information to point a new editor toward, and instead found this piece of screaming rage linked from Wikipedia's core principles document. It seems to me that this page needs to either be toned way down, or the link from Wikipedia:Five pillars should be removed.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler|talk]]) 04:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
:I would have to agree that a link to this page from [[WP:5]] isn't really appropriate. • At the same time, again, this page does not violate [[WP:BITE]] any more than [[WP:BAN]] does. This page is not for newcomers. If someone sends a newcomer to this page, ''that someone'' has violated [[WP:BITE]]. • One thing that does occur to me is that perhaps the page title, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", is encouraging casual linking without really understanding the idea behind this page. Perhaps this page should be renamed and something else filed under the current title. —<small>[[User:DragonHawk|DragonHawk]] ([[User talk:DragonHawk|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/DragonHawk|hist]])</small> 05:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
:Two points: 1) I don't see why a link to this page from [[Wikipedia:Five pillars]] is inappropriate. It is a bit of hyperbole to describe it as a "piece of screaming rage". 2) But at the same time, I don't see that using all caps is in any way effective. Such "shouting", IMO, does little more than make it easier for people to dismiss the page altogether (which is precisely counterproductive to the purpose). [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 20:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
*Why do we link to this page instead of the established, uncontroversial Wikipedia policy [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is Not]] ? --[[User:causa sui|causa sui]] [[User talk:causa sui|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] 04:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
{{Talkarchive}}
| |||