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

Revision as of 15:22, 1 May 2026

Heads Up

If you are new to Wikipedia, welcome! If 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.

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, excepted 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 not found in mainstream academic, journalism, 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-reknowned 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 rules regarding reliable sources are complex, there are a couple of 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. 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 journals and other professional publications, unless we deem them to advocate for fringe theories.

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 extending 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. It might seem as if you must walk on eggshells if you are new here—suffice to say that Administrators can be very harsh to new people, especially, who violate rules of civility. This means, among other things, no personal attacks. Some might appear acceptable, if they are made by trusted, long-standing editors who are familiar with the rules. Do not assume that you have the same prerogatives. Similarly, you can be accused of violating various rules, and this is not a personal attack, and you must not say that it is.

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 Especially if you want to participate in [[User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity|WikiProject Intellectual Diversity]], you may need to learn a few important things, before you participate much.
-== Basic Policy ==
+[[WP:NOT|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 ''[[WP:FRINGE|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.
-</div>[[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is an encyclopedia]], not a dictionary, soapbox, newspaper, etc. It can ''look'' like a soapbox, if reliable sources uniformly take a very controversial point of view; in that case, it might look like soapboxing ''to you,'' if you are more inclined to fringe theories, but it is actually encyclopedic. If your view is not fully documented and accepted by reliable sources, then you certainly cannot treat Wikipedia as a soapbox.
-We follow a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]. Now, 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." Of course, we know that 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, excepted as documented as an object of objective study in reliable sources. 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 contrary to those found in mainstream academic sources are not represented in Wikipedia. This 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 follow a [[WP:NPOV|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, [[WP:FRINGE|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, excepted as documented by reliable sources as an object of objective study.
+</div>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 ''not'' found in mainstream academic, journalism, 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 [[WP:V|verifiability]] using [[WP:RS|reliable sources]].
+We are devoted to [[WP:V|verifiability]] using [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. Claims are not regarded as verifiable, even if they are made by direct witnesses, world-reknowned 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 [[WP:RSPS|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 rules regarding reliable sources are complex, there are a couple of 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. 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 journals and other professional publications, unless we deem them to advocate for fringe theories.
+We feel strongly about [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] and [[WP:AGF|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 extending ''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. It might seem as if you must walk on eggshells if you are new here—suffice to say that Administrators can be very harsh to new people, especially, who violate rules of civility. This means, among other things, [[WP:NPA|no personal attacks]]. Some ''might appear'' acceptable, if they are made by trusted, long-standing editors who are familiar with the rules. Do not assume that you have the same prerogatives. Similarly, you can be accused of violating various rules, and this is ''not'' a personal attack, and you must not say that it is.