Wikipedia:Historical archive/Policy/Rules to consider: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:47, 8 April 2002

Latest revision as of 22:14, 22 October 2024

(80 intermediate revisions by 35 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{whai

Since this is a WikiWiki, there are no (official) editors. We must rely on developing our own good habits and occasionally taking a bit of time to correct the results of someone else's bad habits. But it might help to specifically enunciate particularly rules that ''some'' of us wish we'd make an effort to follow. So here's a page containing such rules. Two suggested features of this page are: add your name to a list of the rule's "supporters" to get an idea of how strongly [[Wikipedians]] support a rule, and "[nameofrule]Debate" pages where we can talk about the merits of the proposed rule. (The latter will help keep this page nice and clean for those people who are mainly interested in the rules themselves.)

| type = policy

| description = The earliest formulations of policy on Wikipedia, and associated discussions

| active-period = February 2001 to April 2002

}}

{{for|the modern-day rules, some of which are based on this page|Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines}}

See also [[naming conventions]] and [[editing policy]].

Since this is a WikiWiki, there are no (official) editors. We must rely on developing our own good habits and occasionally taking a bit of time to correct the results of someone else's bad habits. But it might help to specifically enunciate particular rules that ''some'' of us wish we'd make an effort to follow. So here's a page containing such rules. Two suggested features of this page are: add your name to a list of the rule's "supporters" or "opponents" to get an idea of how strongly [[Wikipedians]] support a rule, and create <nowiki>wikipedia:Name Of Rule debate</nowiki> pages where we can talk about the merits of the proposed rule. (The latter will help keep this page nice and clean for those people who are mainly interested in the rules themselves.)

Rules are established according to the vigor of their enforcement; but realistically, enforcement depends on whether enough supporters of a rule keep track of changing pages and newly created ones. In practice, this community gets most vigorous about enforcement when a page has [[special:RecentChanges|just been changed]].

See also [[Wikipedia:naming conventions|naming conventions]] and [[Wikipedia:editing policy|editing policy]].

Rules are established according to the vigor of their enforcement; but realistically, enforcement depends on whether enough supporters of a rule keep track of changing pages and newly created ones. In practice, this community gets most vigorous about enforcement when a page has [[Recent Changes|just been changed]].)

----

'''Ignore all rules.''' If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business.

Supporters include: [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]],

[[User:WojPob|WojPob]],

[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]],

[[User:AyeSpy|AyeSpy]],

[[User:OprgaG|OprgaG]],

[[User:Invictus|Invictus]], and [[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|Koyaanis Qatsi]],

[[User:Pinkunicorn|Pinkunicorn]],

[[User:sjc|sjc]],

[[User:mike dill|mike dill]],

[[User:Taw|Taw]],

[[User:GWO|GWO]],

[[user:Enchanter|Enchanter]]

Opponents include: [[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]],

[[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]] (deliberatly breaking them is fine; ignoring them is not -- ignorance is bad.)

''See [[wikipedia:Ignore All Rules debate]]''

''I now pleasantly ponder the paradox encountered by those who seek to rigorously follow this rule.'' --[[Jimbo Wales]]

''Well, what about the related paradox that there is no Rule to decide that something is a Rule (and so should be ignored)'' --[[OprgaG]]

I don't know what's going on but I'm sure [http://encarta.msn.co.uk/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761572232 Kurt Gödel] would have something to say about it.

''My [[MBTI]] is [[INTJ]]. I'' live ''to'' make ''the rules. :-)'' &lt;&gt;&lt; [[tbc]]

''See IgnoreAllRulesDebate''

----

'''Always leave something undone.''' Whenever you write a page, never finish it. Always leave something obvious to do: an uncompleted sentence, a question in the text (with a not-too-obscure answer someone can supply), wikied links that are of interest, requests for help from specific other Wikipedians, the beginning of a provocative argument that someone simply ''must'' fill in, etc. The purpose of this rule is to encourage ''others'' to keep working on the wiki.

Supporters include: [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]],

[[User:TimShell|TimShell]],

[[User:Invictus|Invictus]],

[[User:LinusTolke|LinusTolke]],

[[User:Pinkunicorn|Pinkunicorn]],

[[User:sjc|sjc]],

[[User:Janet Davis|Janet Davis]],

[[User:mike dill|mike dill]],

[[User:GWO|GWO]],

24,

[[user:Enchanter|Enchanter]]

Opponents include:

[[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]],

[[User:Mark Christensen|Mark Christensen]]

Alternative rule:

Line 56 ⟶ 59:

Supporters include:

AxelBoldt,

[[User:Mark Christensen|Mark Christensen]],

24,

[[user:Enchanter|Enchanter]]

Opponents include:

''see [[wikipedia:Always Leave Something Undone debate]]''

''see AlwaysLeaveSomethingUndoneDebate''

----

'''Explain jargon.''' It would be great if you would hyperlink all jargon (area-specific terminology that someone who might happen not to have had a college course in your subject might not understand) and explain it, and then explain all the jargon you use to explain ''that,'' until you've reached terms that ordinary educated people can understand.

Supporters include: [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]],

[[User:JerryMuelver|JerryMuelver]],

[[User:TimShell|TimShell]],

[[User:Pinkunicorn|Pinkunicorn]],

[[User:AyeSpy|AyeSpy]] (fervently),

[[User:Janet Davis|Janet Davis]],

[[User:drj|drj]],

[[User:GWO|GWO]],

[[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]],

[[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]],

[[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|Koyaanis Qatsi]],

[[user:Enchanter|Enchanter]]

Opponents include:

24 ''(See debate)''

''See [[Wikipedia talk:Explain jargon]]''

''See ExplainJargonDebate''

----

'''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary|Wikipedia is not a dictionary]].''' If, on the other hand, a word is ''not'' jargon, please don't just write a definition of a word and then stop; please don't just list the different senses that a word has. People who read an encyclopedia are not interested in ''words'' per se and their bare meanings, but in knowledge, information, facts about the items that the words identify. This doesn't mean we want only long articles, or that we don't want "stub" articles--it does mean, though, that "stub" articles should not consist just of a definition of a term.

Supporters of this rule include: [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]],

[[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|Koyaanis Qatsi]],

[[User:sjc|sjc]],

[[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]],

[[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]]

[[user:J Hofmann KempJHK|J Hofmann KempJHK]],

[[user:Enchanter|Enchanter]]

Opponents include:

24 - ''(See [[Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary]])''

----

'''Avoid bias.''' Since this is an encyclopedia, after a fashion, it would be best if you represented your controversial views either (1) not at all, (2) on *Debate, *Talk, or *Discussion pages linked from the bottom of the page that you're tempted to grace, or (3) represented in a fact-stating fashion, i.e., which attributes a particular opinion to a particular person or group, rather than asserting the opinion as fact. (3) is strongly preferred. See the [[neutral point of view]] article for elaboration.

Supporters include: [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]], JerryMuelver,

[[User:Pinkunicorn|Pinkunicorn]], AyeSpy,

[[User:Janet Davis|Janet Davis]],

[[User:drj|drj]],

[[User:mike dill|mike dill]],

[[User:GWO|GWO]],

[[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]],

[[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]],

[[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|Koyaanis Qatsi]]

[[user:J Hofmann KempJHK|J Hofmann KempJHK]],

[[user:Enchanter|Enchanter]]

Opponents include:

24 - ''(See debate)''

''See AvoidBiasDebate[[wikipedia:Avoid Bias debate]]''

----

Line 117 ⟶ 127:

Wikipedia articles in the end shouldn't be a series of disjointed comments about a subject, but unified, seamless, and ever-expanding expositions of the subject. (Rule introduced 29-Mar-2001)

Supporters include: [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]],

[[User:LinusTolke|LinusTolke]],

[[User:Pinkunicorn|Pinkunicorn]] (strongly),

[[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|Koyaanis Qatsi]], and [[User:sjc|sjc]],

[[User:Janet Davis|Janet Davis]],

[[User:drj|drj]],

[[User:mike dill|mike dill]] (hard isn't it?),

[[User:Damian Yerrick|Damian Yerrick]] (who personally doesn't think it's that hard),

[[User:GWO|GWO]],

[[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]],

[[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]]

24,

[[user:Enchanter|Enchanter]]

Opponents include:

''See [[Rules_to_consider/IntegrateWikipedia changes debate|talk:Integrate changes debate]]''

----

'''Delete patent nonsense.''' When you run across [[patent nonsense]], simply put the deleted text on the [[Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense]] page. The problem with this is that people disagree about what is patent nonsense. So be careful, anyway. It's possible that this makes supporters of this rule "[http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiReductionists wiki reductionists]".

Supporters include: [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]],

[[User:TimShell|TimShell]],

[[User:JerryMuelver|JerryMuelver]],

[[User:Pinkunicorn|Pinkunicorn]],

[[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|Koyaanis Qatsi]],

[[User:Janet Davis|Janet Davis]],

[[User:drj|drj]],

[[User:Taw|Taw]],

[[User:GWO|GWO]],

[[User:Damian Yerrick|Damian Yerrick]],

[[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]],

[[User:clasqm|clasqm]],

[[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]],

[[user:Enchanter|Enchanter]]

Opponents include:

24

''See [[wikipedia:Delete patent nonsense debate]]''

''See DeletePatentNonsenseDebate''

----

'''Give the author a chance.''' Add comments at the bottom of a page instead of within the text when you disagree with an author and deleting or re-writing portions of his or her material would substantially alter its meaning. Then the author may make changes in his or her own style, and/or discussion of the material can be moved to a [[Talk Page]]. Of course, when you encounter obvious vandalism of another's work, delete the [[patent nonsense]].

Supporters include: [[User:AyeSpy|AyeSpy]], [[User:TimShell|TimShell]], [[User:JerryMuelver|JerryMuelver]],

and [[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]]

[[Damian Yerrick]] (except not at the bottom of a page but rather in each page's [[talk:Rules_to_consider|/Talk]] section, with a pointer in the user's [[talk:Rules_to_consider|/Talk]] section),

and [[tbc]]

Opponents include: [[User:clasqm|clasqm]] (This rule assumes that all authors periodically check everything they have written so far. Too much of an assumption),

[[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]] (either rewrite, or start discussion on <nowiki>/Talk</nowiki>), agreed 24 (once you've touched it, basically, you own it, Talk increases the chance that someone will respond),

[[user:Damian Yerrick|Damian Yerrick]] (Give the author a chance? What is this, [[Everything2|E2]]?),

[[User:Robert Merkel|Robert Merkel]] (in general, see the debate article for more details).

[[user:JHK|JHK]]

''See [[Wikipedia:Give the author a chance debate]]''

Opponents include: [[clasqm]] (This rule assumes that all authors periodically check everything they have written so far. Too much of an assumption),

[[AxelBoldt]] (either rewrite, or start discussion on <nowiki>/Talk</nowiki>)

[[Robert Merkel]] (in general, see the debate article for more details).

[[user:J Hofmann Kemp|J Hofmann Kemp]]

''See GiveTheAuthorAChanceDebate''

----

'''Establish Context.''' Almost every entry in the Wikipedia should begin with a line or two that establishes context. These opening lines should include the most basic facts about the subject, including a short description/definition.

'''[[RulesToConsider/Establish Context|Establish Context]]'''

An article on Charles Darwin should not begin with "Darwin created controversy with the publication of the Origin of Species...." It should begin with "Charles Darwin was a 19th century biologist who proposed the modern theory of evolution."

Supporters include: [[Jimbo Wales]],

[[Larry Sanger]],

Supporters include: [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]],

[[TimShell]],

[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]],

[[LinusTolke]],

[[User:TimShell|TimShell]],

[[Janet Davis]],

[[User:LinusTolke|LinusTolke]],

[[drj]] strongly,

[[User:Janet Davis|Janet Davis]],

[[Koyaanis Qatsi]],

[[User:drj|drj]] strongly,

[[GWO]],

[[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|Koyaanis Qatsi]],

[[Damian Yerrick]],

[[tbcUser:GWO|GWO]],

[[User:Damian Yerrick|Damian Yerrick]],

[[AxelBoldt]]

[[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]],

[[user:J Hofmann Kemp|J Hofmann Kemp]]

[[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]]

[[user:JHK|JHK]],

[[user:Enchanter|Enchanter]]

Opponents include:

24 ''(See debate)''

''See [[wikipedia:Establish Context debate]]''

----

'''[[Wikipedia:RulesToConsider/Define and Describe|Define and Describe]]''' ''similar to Explain Jargon''

Supporters include: [[User:TimShell|TimShell]],

[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]], and [[User:LinusTolke|LinusTolke]],

[[User:drj|drj]],

[[User:mike dill|mike dill]],

[[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|Koyaanis Qatsi]],

[[User:GWO|GWO]],

[[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]],

[[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]],

[[user:Enchanter|Enchanter]]

Opponents include:

24 - in my experience people learn jargon far better from good examples, good in-context use. This would be a better rule: ALWAYS include an "i.e." ("that is", restating the thing in different words), ALWAYS include an "e.g." ("for example", giving a more specific case).

----

'''Keep rules simple.''' If a rule cannot fit on this page, but is so long it has to be on a subpage, maybe it is too complicated to attract followers. --[[User:LA2|LA2]],

[[User:drj|drj]],

[[User:mike dill|mike dill]]

Supporters include [[User:LA2|LA2]],

[[User:drj|drj]],

[[User:mike dill|mike dill]]

24

Opponents include: [[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]] (nitpicky -- subpages are fine),

[[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]] (if a rule can be stated in one sentence, maybe it is too simplistic to attract followers)

----

Line 217 ⟶ 240:

[[Sahara]] is a [[desert]] in [[Africa]],

[[enlightenment]] happened in the [[18th century]]). Make sideways links to neighboring articles (for [[proton]] see also [[electron]],

[[Oregon]] borders on [[California]]). Don't build category trees too deep and narrow, or too flat. Writing category directories first (top-down) will help ensure that subcategory articles get useful names ([[Christianity|church names are not good now]]). --[[User:LA2|LA2]]

This may be found to contradict the "Make only links relevant to the context" rule.

Supporters of this rule include: [[User:LA2|LA2]],

[[User:sjc|sjc]] strongly,

[[User:mike dill|mike dill]],

[[User:GWO|GWO]],

[[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]],

[[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]],

[[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|Koyaanis Qatsi]],

24 strongly,

[[user:Enchanter|Enchanter]]

Opponents include:

Line 235 ⟶ 260:

'''Don't use external links where we'll want Wikipedia links.''' Don't put in links [http://www.wikipedia.com like this] to external URLs linking text that ''we'' will want articles on Wikipedia about. Put external links in a "links" section at the end of the article. For example, if you're writing an article about Descartes and you know of a great article about Rationalism online, don't link the word "Rationalism" to that article. Put in a "Links" section and simplify wikify the word "Rationalism" like this: [[Rationalism]]. (Rule introduced June 29, 2001.)

Supporters include: [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]],

[[User:Janet Davis|Janet Davis]],

[[User:sjc|sjc]],

[[User:GWO|GWO]] (see [[seem:When should I link externally|Wikipedia_commentary/When should I link externally]]?),

[[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]],

[[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]],

24 strongly,

[[user:Enchanter|Enchanter]]

Opponents include:

----

Line 251 ⟶ 279:

If an article has a large number of sources, consider creating a separate [[Rules_to_consider/Bibliography|/Bibliography]] subtopic.

Supporters include: [[User:Janet Davis|Janet Davis]],

[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]],

[[User:drj|drj]] strongly,

[[User:sjc|sjc]],

[[User:mike dill|mike dill]],

[[User:Taw|Taw]],

[[User:Damian Yerrick|Damian Yerrick]],

[[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]] (strongly!),

[[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]],

[[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|Koyaanis Qatsi]] (mostly just concerned that controversial statements be attributed & not presented as "Wikipedia-opinion")

[[user:J Hofmann KempJHK|J Hofmann KempJHK]] strongly

[[user:DanKeshet|Dan Keshet]] strongly,

[[user:Enchanter|Enchanter]] (strongly)

Opponents include:

24 - ''(See debate)''

''See also: CiteYourSourcesDebate[[Wikipedia talk:Cite your sources debate]]''

'''List links to references and primary sources''' List external references and primary sources, using links to web resources. You can take advantage of Wikipedia's autofootnoting of bracketed urls and/or make a list at the bottom of the page. See the [[September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack]] pages for examples.

Line 271 ⟶ 302:

(The Open Directory Project database would be excellent for this if it were actually open, and not under AOL's control. A wiki/FDL/public ___domain web directory would be an excellent complement to Wikipedia.)

Supporters of this rule include: [[User:The Cunctator|The Cunctator]], [[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]]

''See also the "Cite Your Sources" rule above anand "Proper referencing" below.''

'''Use proper references.''' References and external links relevant to an article should be collected at the end of the article, clearly separated from the rest of the material.

Line 281 ⟶ 312:

Preferably, every reference should come with a one sentence summary.

Supporters of this rule include: [[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]], [[user:J Hofmann KempJHK|J Hofmann KempJHK]]

Opponents include:

24 - hypertext has different rules. Don't provide data easily discoverable on google or bookfinder - but yes do make the references visible in a printout - names of authors should ALL have their own wiki entries, even if totally obscure - that helps us differentiate - also use the longest form of the name to allow for future Albert Einsteins, etc.

But watch out for the following:

Line 292 ⟶ 324:

Opponents include:

24 - to hell with trademarks - kleenex, xerox, etc., are legitimate verbs if they serve the purpose of illustrating a point, and things like informatics or metadata even more so. But keep your citing within fair use, don't confuse generic and proper use, e.g. don't say MetaData if you mean metadata, and don't mention any source that actually cares about trademarks

----

Line 298 ⟶ 331:

This may not be as necessary for "minor changes", but "fixed typo and spelling" would be nice even then.

Supporters include: [[User:Taw|Taw]],

[[User:Geronimo Jones|Geronimo Jones]],

[[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]], [[User:The Cunctator|The Cunctator]], [[User:MichaelTinkler|MichaelTinkler]],

[[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]], [[user:Enchanter|Enchanter]]

24 - in talk files, summarize what you said to who so it can be prioritized - in articles, summarize the claims in quick phrases taht you added adn documented

Opponents include:

Line 313 ⟶ 347:

Use the color red only for the purpose to alert something, show up serious errors, and even then make it a dark red.

Supporters include: [[User:StefanRybo|StefanRybo]],

[[User:drj|drj]] strongly,

[[User:sjc|sjc]],

[[User:GWO|GWO]] strongly,

[[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]],

[[User:Damian Yerrick|Damian Yerrick]],

[[User:Josh Grosse|Josh Grosse]],

[[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]],

[[user:Enchanter|Enchanter]],

24 strongly - color should be added by the user interface for other things, it should never be part of the text itself.

Opponents include:

Line 327 ⟶ 363:

'''Do not highlight every instance of title item in text body.''' The reader knows what article he or she is reading from both the title at the top of the page and the browser's title bar. Making every instance highlight with bold typing style is unnecessary.

Supporters include: [[User:StefanRybo|StefanRybo]],

[[User:drj|drj]],

[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]],

[[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|Koyaanis Qatsi]],

[[User:GWO|GWO]],

[[User:Damian Yerrick|Damian Yerrick]],

[[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]] (strongly!),

[[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]],

[[user:Enchanter|Enchanter]]

Opponents include:

24 - ok, I support this rule mostly. But if the sense in which the words in the title are being used is important, i.e. you are defining them specifically in the context of the phrase, then you should boldface that usage in the text where it matters, i.e. use of any other word would be wrong. Also, in the title itself, I like linking the words if and only if what the user sees on the other end is going to be wholly relevant to the phrase that I'm defining

''The complementary rule:''

Line 342 ⟶ 380:

'''Bold the phrase or word that the article is about.''' When writing an article, put bold markers around the word the article describes. This makes it easier for the casual reader to identify the topic.

Supporters include: [[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]] (strongly!), [[Koyaanis Qatsi]], [[Larry Sanger]]

[[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|Koyaanis Qatsi]],

[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]],

[[user:Enchanter|Enchanter]],

24 strongly - typography matters

Opponents include:

[[User:Josh Grosse|Josh Grosse]] - the title tells you what the article about, the '''bold''' just annoys you by constantly directing your eyes to something you already know.

know.

''A very similar rule:''

'''Link only one or a few instances of the same item.''' Do not link all instances of it. [[Rules_to_consider/Make links relevant|Make links relevant]]. ''There's also a rule about this below; see below and see [[Wikipedia:Rules_to_consider/Make only links relevant to the context debate|Make only links relevant to the context debate]].''

Supporters include: [[User:StefanRybo|StefanRybo]],

[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]],

[[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|Koyaanis Qatsi]],

[[User:Josh Grosse|Josh Grosse]],

[[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]],

[[user:Enchanter|Enchanter]],

24 - link the few instances where you have actually encapsulated complexity, i.e. where you could have gone on for a page here but decided you couldn't. It's fair to use the same phrase in incidental explanation, where it's not absolutely essential to understanding, but signal that it's not so critical here by not linking it. In other words, when someone actually sees a link, it should be because you thought there was a reasonable chance they would need to follow it.

Opponents include:

Line 364 ⟶ 407:

'''use font size only one step size''' larger or smaller than the group of text it refers to. (Very big fonts only make sense if you have a detailed outline structure that needs several levels of headers.)

Supporters include: [[User:StefanRybo|StefanRybo]],

[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]],

[[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|Koyaanis Qatsi]],

[[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]],

[[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]]

Opponents include:

24 - use only one font size - let the user interface handle this as per color.

----

'''Group things to about seven items plus or minus three.''' The human who is information processing has a capability to store this many items in short term memory. Longer lists, unending prose and unwieldy sentences are uncomfortable for most readers to process. Use all kinds of grouping instead. Use lists, sublists, paragraphing. And use short sentences.

Supporters include: [[User:StefanRybo|StefanRybo]],

[[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]]

Opponents include:

[[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]] (strongly). ("Short sentences", "Seven items"?? Are we writing a powerpoint presentation?)

[[user:J Hofmann KempJHK|J Hofmann KempJHK]] what Axel said

24 strongly - the topic is as complex as it is, period. That said, likely you are putting too much in one article if you find you have just long laundry lists, which probably should only apply to names... also multiple layers or subheadings helps.

[[user:Lee Daniel Crocker|LDC]] The study that came out with the "7 +/- 3" statistic was fatally flawed, and it's basically nonsense. Einstein said it best: "Things should be a simple as possible, ''but no simpler''."

----

'''Balance parts of a page.''' Let there be a balance in weight of the parts of an article according to its length (e.g. content, bibliography, etc.) It does not make sense to have a few sentences on a topic and a huge list of literature links. (This may be difficult to obey when an item is new, though.)

Supporters include: [[User:StefanRybo|StefanRybo]],

[[User:sjc|sjc]],

[[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]]

Opponents include:

24 strongly - some topics are so controversial this is the best you can do.

----

Line 397 ⟶ 444:

Imagine someone is reading your words in 1,000 years time. Will they make sense of it?

Supporters include: [[User:drj|drj]],

[[User:GWO|GWO]] ("now", "recently"),

[[User:Damian Yerrick|Damian Yerrick]] (instead of sixties say 1960s),

[[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]] (ditto),

24 strongly

Opponents include: [[User:sjc|sjc]],

[[User:GWO|GWO]], ("the sixties". Other things will date much faster), [[user:Enchanter|Enchanter]] (It's easy for us to stay up to date)

[[Wikipedia talk:As of/dated|Avoid statements that will date quickly talk]]

----

'''Make only links relevant to the context.''' It is not useful to mark all possible words as hyperlinks; only mark words that are relevant to the context.

Line 411 ⟶ 459:

unless an article relies heavily on the surrounding historical context, the article for a particular year or date is relevant to very few of the articles that link to it.

Supporters include: [[User:HelgeStenstrom|HelgeStenstrom]], 24, [[user:Enchanter|Enchanter]] (strongly)

Opponents include: [[User:sjc|sjc]],

[[User:mike dill|mike dill]],

[[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]]

''See [[Wikipedia:Rules_to_consider/Make only links relevant to the context debate|Make only links relevant to the context debate]]''

See also [[Wikipedia:Rules_to_consider/Make links relevant|Make links relevant]] and [[Wikipedia talk:Rules_to_consider/Make links relevant talk|Make links relevant talk]]

----

'''Pay attention to spelling, particularly of new page names.''' Articles with good spelling and proper grammar will encourage further contributions of good content.

Line 430 ⟶ 478:

Supporters include: 209.122.212.xxx,

[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]],

[[User:mike dill|mike dill]],

[[User:drj|drj]] (articles with good spelling and proper grammar will encourage further contributions of good content),

[[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]] (ditto) (Sloppiness in one aspect of writing can lead to sloppiness in others. Always '''do your best'''.),

[[User:Josh Grosse|Josh Grosse]] (spelling would be easily amended by others, but incorrect page names quickly get copied ''all over the place'', making it difficult),

[[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]],

[[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|Koyaanis Qatsi]]

[[user:J Hofmann KempJHK|J Hofmann KempJHK]],

24

Opponents include: [[User:GWO|GWO]] (good ''content'' is king, other wikipedians easily amend bad spelling),

[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] :-) (I agree with that too), [[User:Taw|Taw]] (if mozilla had a spell checker then maybe), [[user:Enchanter|Enchanter]] (Don't worry, be bold! Some very good articles have started off as poorly written by people who don't even speak fluent English)

[[wikipedia:Pay Attention To Spelling debate]]

[[Rules_to_consider/Pay attention to spelling debate|Pay attention to spelling debate]]

----

'''Don't include copies of primary sources in Wikipedia.'''

Line 448 ⟶ 497:

''unless'' your article analyzes the primary source paragraph-by-paragraph.

Supporters include: [[User:clasqm|clasqm]] (If working with primary sources is your thing, go to Project Gutenberg instead),

[[User:Damian Yerrick|Damian Yerrick]] (if you just want to mirror a Gutenberg etext with links, go to [[Everything2]] instead.)

[[user:J Hofmann KempJHK|J Hofmann KempJHK]] Sources aren't encyclopedic -- descriptions/discussions of sources are

[[user:Enchanter|Enchanter]]

Opponents include: [[User:Geronimo Jones|Geronimo Jones]] (strongly!),

[[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]] (strongly!),

[[User:The Cunctator|The Cunctator]] (though I think a better long-term solution is needed),

[[User:Damian Yerrick|Damian Yerrick]] ([[literary analysis]] benefits from having a copy of the primary source close by)

24 - sometimes the best thing to do is cite and let the reader decide. For instance Gulliver's Travels is an old book, it's hard to read to find the fun passages, so I plucked them to illustrate the point. If I plucked too mcuh, someone else removes the excess.

[[wikipedia:Do Not Include Primary Sources debate]]

[[Rules_to_consider/Do not include primary sources debate|Do not include primary sources debate]]

----

'''Warn people before discussing plot twists in novels, movies, plays, etc.''' For instance, include something to the effect of "'''''[[Wikipedia:Spoiler containswarning|Spoiler spoilerswarning]]'''''.''' Wikipedia is an online open content encycylopedia; as such, it does discuss plot points of movies and books which you may not wish to read if you have not yet seen the movie or read the book.''"

Not everyone coming to the site immediately recognizes Wikipedia as an encylopedia, despite the name.

Supporters include: [[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|Koyaanis Qatsi]] (strongly!),

[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]],

[[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]],

[[User:Robert Merkel|Robert Merkel]],

[[user:Enchanter|Enchanter]]

Opponents include: [[User:The Cunctator|The Cunctator]], [[User:Josh Grosse|Josh Grosse]] (not that we should tell people the butler did it, but in historical and mythological materials the audience might as well know - thinking of the [[Odyssey]] here), 24 let's give 'em the answers to the test on Friday too

For debate, see [[talk:Wikipedia containstalk:Spoiler spoilerswarning]]

----

'''Remember that the main purpose of Wikipedia is being useful for readers.''' Do whatever you see fit, if you think it will make

Line 476 ⟶ 528:

or to improve existing ones, etc.

Supporters include: [[User:Taw|Taw]], [[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]], [[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|Koyaanis Qatsi]]

24 strongly beyond words, see [[m:three billionth user]], [[user:Enchanter|Enchanter]]

Opponents include: [[User:The Cunctator|The Cunctator]]

[[Rules_to_consider/wikipedia:Usefulness forFor readers debate|Usefulness for readersReaders debate]]

----

A corollary to the above: '''Consider the audience in your writing.'''. An article entitled "Use of chromatic scales in early Baroque music" is likely to be read by musicians, and so technical details and jargon are entirely appropriate. But an article entitled "Rap music" is likely to be read by laymen who want a brief and plainly written overview, with links to more detailed information if available.

Supporters include: [[User:Lee Daniel Crocker|Lee Daniel Crocker]], [[User:Damian Yerrick|Damian Yerrick]],

[[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]] (jargon terms should still be linked to explanations though), [[user:J Hofmann KempJHK|JJHK]], Hofmann Kemp[[user:Enchanter|Enchanter]]

Opponents include:

24 - as a protest - law and physics and economics like to steal short words and make them meaningless to everyone else, e.g. "cause", "Standard Model", "fiat" - we are not writing textbooks here with one point of view of one professor - if a field steals a short word, we should challenge that theft if their usage is anything but completely general.

----

'''Look to see whether someone has written an article before you start one yourself.''' A chronic problem we experience here is people writing article [[Wikipedia:stub|stubs]] (and sometimes full-blown articles) when they don't realize that other related articles, perhaps articles on the exact same subject, already exist. This is a problem. (Rule added Sept. 28, 2001.)

:''Corollary'' Look for these under alternate or possibly misspelled titles.

Supporters include: [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]],

[[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]],

[[User:Josh Grosse|Josh Grosse]],

[[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]],

[[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|Koyaanis Qatsi]]

[[user:J Hofmann KempJHK|J Hofmann KempJHK]], Monday, April 8, 2002 This is SOOOO important,

24 strongly,

[[user:Eclecticology|Eclecticology]]

Opponents include:

[[User:Damian Yerrick|Damian Yerrick]] (Doing this is highly non-trivial until Wikipedia begins to allow searching for phrases and for words shorter than four letters. Once this happens, move me to supporters.)

----

'''Write stuff that is true; check your facts.''' Don't write stuff that is false. You should write that P only if it is [[truth|true]] that P; contraposing, if it is not true that P, you should not write that P. This might require that you check your alleged facts. (Rule added Sept. 29, 2001.)

Supporters include: [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]], [[User:Damian Yerrick|Damian Yerrick]], [[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]], [[User:Taw|Taw]], [[user:Enchanter|Enchanter]] (If you are not sure, put it in anyway but say so in talk)

Opponents include: [[Satan]], [[User:The Cunctator|The Cunctator]],

24 - only check what you yourself doubt - not what you don't. If you don't doubt it, you won't remember to check it in the first place ;-0

Opponents include: [[Satan]], [[The Cunctator]]

----

'''Make smart use of soft line breaks.''' This is mere formatting, but it makes the diffs of articles much easier to understand. For instance, the lists of Wikipedians supporting/opposing rules on this page used to be on one, unbroken line. By adding each new name on its own line, it is easy to view the diff of the article to see exactly what changed.

Line 512 ⟶ 570:

For another example, have a look at how [[wikipedia:brilliant prose|brilliant prose]] is organized. (Rule added Sept. 29, 2001.)

Supporters include: [[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]], 24,

[[User:Damian Yerrick|Damian Yerrick]] (strongly; whenever I go through an article, every paragraph I touch becomes "diff-friendly" with a soft line break after)

Opponents include:

Line 525 ⟶ 583:

Supporters of this rule include (at least): [[User:MemoryHole.com|MemoryHole.com]], [[ClasqmUser:clasqm|clasqm]], [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]],

[[User:Damian Yerrick|Damian Yerrick]],

[[User:Josh Grosse|Josh Grosse]],

24

Opponents include:

[[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]] (a chain of links is desirable, but orphans really don't pose a problem, since most people use the search engine anyway)

----

'''Use other languages sparingly.''' In English-language wikipedia, the English form does not always have to come first - sometimes the non-English word is better as the main text with the English in parentheses or set off by commas after it and sometimes not. Non-English words in English-language wikipedia should be given emphasis - either '''bold''' or ''italic,'' depending on context. Non-English words should be used as titles for entries only as a last resort.

Supporters of this rule include: [[User:MichaelTinkler|MichaelTinkler]]; [[J Hofmann KempUser:JHK|JHK]] Ok non-English titles I can think of are pietas, hubris, and possibly basileus and strategos..., 24 those are now considered English

Opponents include: [[User:Anders Torlind|Anders Torlind]] (<i>nota bene</i> only in cases where not supplying foreign article names violates the '''Useful for readers''' rule. Example: People searching for the [[Sweden/Kings|Swedish kings]] are very likely to be swedes, and so a redirect from the swedish name (or to it, doesn't matter) would be appropriate)

----

'''Contribute what to what you know or are willing to learn about''' ''and'' '''Create stubs responsibly'''

One of the things that makes the Wikipedia great is that anybody can contribute. Another thing that makes it great is that it encourages Wikipedians to stretch their interests and learn about new things, so that they can add to the 'pedia. A third great thing is that it's so easy to create new articles and to learn to wikify articles. The ease with which new articles can be created, however, can be seen as problematic when users get into "creation mode" and create more stubs than coherent articles. This can even be irritating, if the stub is accompanied by a "I don't know much about this -- would someone who does please write the article?" message. So...if you can't create a stub that's accurate and helpful, maybe you should leave that topic for someone else to do by choice, rather than because they feel obligated to edit.

Supporters of this rule include (at least):[[user:J Hofmann KempJHK|J Hofmann KempJHK]], [[user:Danny|Danny]], [[user:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]]

Opponents include:

24 - if you think it should be there, that's useful to others, so write that seemingly useless stub - that's a bit more information than they had before

----

'''When a debate becomes "personal," confer about the problem in e-mail.''' If parties to a dispute start exchanging insults or other unpleasant words, it's preferable to confer privately in e-mail rather than continuing to expose Wikipedia to the unpleasantness. This is ''not'' to say that the ''debate'' should be moved to e-mail, because the debate is in most cases of genuine public interest. So the substantive debate should remain where it is; the unpleasant personal problems should be discussed, as necessary, privately. (Rule added Oct. 15, 2001.) Cf. [[Wikipedia:Etiquette|Wikipetiquette]].

Supporters of this rule include: [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]]

Opponents of this rule include:

24 strongly, either the "unpleasantness" is irrelevant to wiki or it is vital to wiki - in the former case cut it out, in the latter case everyone must hear it out because it probably isn't "personal" but illustrates an ideology or cosmology or ethics dispute; [[user:JHK|JHK]] because the people I disagree with almost always end up being people with whom it is clear that productive dialog will never exist.

[[wikipedia:Confer In E-Mail debate]]

----

'''Sign your posts on Talk pages.''' It makes it easier to follow discussions and understand who said what.

Supporters of this rule include: [[user:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], [[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|Koyaanis Qatsi]] (strongly); [[user:Eclecticology|Eclecticology]] (mostly, but I do forget to do it sometimes); [[user:JHK|JHK]], 24 mostly

[[Rules_to_consider/Confer in e-mail debate|Confer in e-mail debate]]

Opponents of this rule include: Anon.

----

'''No personal attacks on the Wikipedia, period''' -- Explanation: no calling people trolls, no calling people Stupid White Men, no accusations of any kind relating to the character of another person, nor their race, creed, sex, national origin, etc. The only thing that matters is the articles, not the people who write them.

[[talk:Rules_to_consider|/Talk]]

Unlike the other rules, which are community conventions enforced only by our

mutual agreement, this one may also be implemented in extreme cases as <i>policy</i>, i.e. grounds for banning that go beyond our traditional "sheer

vandalism" threshold. If you support this rule, then you support the idea that Jimbo should, in extreme cases after considerable consultation with the community and the offender, actually cut someone off from participation.

Supporters of this rule include: [[user:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] (I promise to avoid calling others names, whether they offend me or not), [[user:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] [[user:Bryan Derksen|Bryan Derksen]], [[user:maveric149|maveric149]], [[user:Chuck Smith|Chuck Smith]], [[user:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] (with [http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-April/001885.html the exception of naming and shaming trolls], which I ''highly'' recommend you [http://www.google.com/search?q=trolls+and+trolling read about]; in almost all other cases, I very strongly oppose anything that can be construed as "personal attack"); [[user:JHK|JHK]] -- except in the case of trolls, etc., [[user:Enchanter|Enchanter]]

Opponents of this rule include: [[user:Lee Daniel Crocker|Lee Daniel Crocker]] - ''(See debate)'' 24 ''(See debate)''

See [[wikipedia:No personal attacks debate]]