User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity/Welcome to Wikipedia (with warnings)

Heads Up

If you are new to Wikipedia, welcome! If you have been gone for a very long time, welcome back!

Especially if you want to participate in WikiProject Intellectual Diversity, you may need to learn a few important things, before you participate much.

If you are already very familiar with Wikipedia rules in general, please skip ahead to Important tips that WPID must be aware of.

An introduction to Wikipedia rules

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, soapbox, newspaper, etc. It can look like a soapbox, if reliable sources uniformly take a controversial point of view—but then, on Wikipedia, such a view is not regarded as controversial at all. In that case, it might look like soapboxing to you, if you are more inclined to fringe theories, but the fact is that it is actually encyclopedic. If your view is not fully documented and accepted by reliable sources, then you certainly cannot use Wikipedia to advocate for it.

We follow a neutral point of view, but we mean something very specific by this, and it is easy to misunderstand. You see, some views are more neutral than others. If a view is found in reliable sources, then it is neutral. If it is not, it is biased (or, as we said, fringe). Of course, experts disagree, and so, when there are different theories found especially in approved secondary sources, then we are very careful to represent them fairly. We do not pick winners or losers. But we do declare certain sources to be unreliable, and so any theory found only in such sources cannot be expressed in Wikipedia, except as documented by reliable sources as an object of objective study.

You must be careful not to bother editors, especially if they are established (as determined by edit count and other marks of status), with complaints that views that are not found in mainstream news, academic, and other sources are not represented in Wikipedia. Too many of such complaints may result in your being blocked. When in doubt, to avoid charges of POV-pushing, be very sure to provide reliable sources (on which, see the next item).

We are devoted to verifiability using reliable sources. Claims are not regarded as verifiable, even if they are made by direct witnesses, world-renowned experts, or the subjects of articles, unless they are made by reliable sources. A good guide to what sources we think of as reliable can be found on the perennial sources page; you may not say that the page is a policy or guideline page, but it is treated as one by most of our editors.

While our policies and guidelines regarding reliable sources are complex, there are a few good rules of thumb. First, we prefer secondary sources to primary sources; once the information has been digested by approved organs of academia and journalism, it is suitable for use on Wikipedia. Second, Wikipedians have carefully examined and debated hundreds of news sources, and it just so happens that almost all conservative and libertarian news sources, in the English Wikipedia, have been found to be unreliable; it is a shame that conservative media contains so much misinformation, isn't it? With some exceptions, news sources from outside of the power centers of the West are also generally disapproved. In short, as a rule of thumb, "mainstream" Western media is reliable. Third, we accept high-ranking academic journals and other professional publications, unless we deem them to advocate for fringe theories.

Learn the rules about consensus. When there is an entrenched disagreement, sometimes a vote (a so-called RfC, Request for Comment) will be taken. At some point (sometimes a date is set, sometimes not), someone—not anyone in particular, just somebody who feels bold and experienced enough to do it—looks over the discussion and declares what the consensus is. Occasionally, the decision is "no consensus." Sometimes, the closer does not even follow the majority; the quality of arguments, as judged by the closer, is what matters. This is not a democracy, after all. Once a consensus has been declared, then everyone on opposing sides must stand down and accept that there is now a consensus—even if they are strongly opposed to it.

We feel strongly about civility and good faith. We go out of our way to exhibit all the forms of politeness, even (or rather, especially) if we are about to block you. Regardless of how absurd you may think your fellow editor is being, you must assume that the person is acting in good faith—even if you think you see excellent evidence that they are acting in bad faith. By requiring that we extend everyone the same courtesy that we would give to good friends, we ensure that Wikipedia preserves the social atmosphere it is known for.

Bear in mind that this goes double for new people. While you will be welcomed heartily, by welcome forms, after you participate much, it might seem as if you must walk on eggshells if you are new here. This is widely admitted to be a problem, but our rules are more important than your comfort and motivation levels. Suffice to say that Administrators can be very harsh and peremptory to new people, especially those who violate rules of civility.

Civil behavior means, among other things, no personal attacks. This can be confusing. You might witness personal attacks that appear to be acceptable, since they are made by trusted, long-standing editors who are familiar with the rules. You can be accused of violating various rules; speculation can be made about your motives; but this is not a personal attack, and you must not say that it is. As a new contributor, the best way forward is simply not to assume that you have the same prerogatives as established editors. (You don't.)

Violating these rules may result in your being blocked. Especially if your account is new, your block might be "indefinite," which usually means "permanent." This is a serious problem. Generally, this essential work, which helps keep the wiki civil and free of riff-raff, is done by any administrator who feels that you have committed a blockable offense. There are procedures for appeals, but appeals almost always fail, regardless of how ridiculous the matter is. Frankly, your rights are few. You do not have a right to a jury trial; indeed, the procedure is: warning (sometimes), then sentence, then explanation by the blocking Admin. Again, it is important to be careful, because there is no trial and no right for you, or a representative, to speak formally in your defense before sentencing. There is no jury; the decision is up to the (typically anonymous) Admin, one of a self-selected pool of about 800. So—be careful!

There are many other rules to pay attention to, of course.

Important tips that WPID must be aware of

We members of WPID believe Wikipedia needs help with its tolerance of intellectual diversity. So some Wikipedians may not look upon us and our work kindly. Here, with tongue removed from cheek, is our advice on rules that it is particularly important for us to follow.

Follow the rules. Wikipedia is a game—not a battleground, but a place in which those who play most expertly by the rules will thrive. Those who violate the rules will be quickly spotted and eliminated by the referees. Thus it is particularly important that you take the rules seriously. If you do not, you will be blocked.
If you receive a warning from an administrator (or even a veiled threat from a high-ranking editor), take it seriously. Avoid arguing, even if you think you are in the right. If in any clear, objective way you have violated the rules, admit it, apologize, and commit to doing better. You cannot win every fight.
Civility really does rule. Keep your unkind words to yourself, no matter what happens. Keep your cool. Those who appear to be baiting you into an outburst might be doing exactly that. Do not take the bait, ever.
Do not call for votes or support for your particular position on particular pages. This might be tempting, and whatever you may expect about what your opponents are doing behind the scenes, this is canvassing, and it is an enormous no-no. In fact, we will kick you out of the WPID (after a warning) if you do this.
Do not edit in groups. This is also canvassing. If you and your friends routinely edit the same pages, you may all be blocked. Resist the temptation.
Use reliable sources. Really—and yes, as defined by the current definition. If you do not, you may be blocked—again, really. So, just don't do it.
Take it to the talk page. Do not directly edit an article (or a policy, guideline, or essay) if you think someone might object to your edit. Like it or not, that is how the system works. Discuss your edit first; and look for previous discussion of your sort of edit.
Learn the difference between policy, guideline, and essay. If someone or some text is violating policy, it cannot be defended. Guidelines provide often overlapping ways to interpret policies, sometimes providing contrary guidance on the same case. Essays are merely matters of opinion and you can point this fact out.
Avoid building a single-purpose account. Edit a variety of topics; having plenty of edits on a variety of topics may make administrators think twice before blocking you.
Do not mention WPID on talk pages as part of your WPID work. This may be used to accuse you (and therefore, us) of canvassing.

Wait—isn't WPID canvassing?

No, no more so than any other previous Wikipedia reform group. And if you use the WPID talk pages for canvassing—calling for specific votes or organizing group edits on particular articles—we will remove you from WPID.

WPID is not canvassing because we are neither calling for particular votes nor organizing editing campaigns on specific articles. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Wikipedians coming together in support of particular policy goals, as others have done before us; see the precedents like WikiProject Inclusion listed at the end of our invitation page. See also the essay by User:Larry Sanger arguing that, in fact, "editorial parties" should be supported here on Wikipedia.