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

From Encyclosphere Project Wiki
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 17: Line 17:
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.
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.


If you are already very familiar with Wikipedia rules in general, please skip ahead to [[User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity/Welcome to Wikipedia (with warnings)#Important tips that WPID must be aware of|Important tips that WPID must be aware of]].
== An introduction to Wikipedia rules ==
[[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.
[[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.


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.
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.


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).
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 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 [[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.
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.
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.


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.
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.
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, [[WP:NPA|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.)
 
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.
 
# Wikipedia is a game—not a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|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. If it looks like someone is baiting you into an outburst,
# Use reliable sources. Really—and yes, as defined by the current definition. If you do not, you may be blocked. So, just don't do it.
#

Revision as of 15:55, 1 May 2026

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.

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, 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 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-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 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.

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. 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.)

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Civility really does rule. Keep your unkind words to yourself, no matter what happens. Keep your cool. If it looks like someone is baiting you into an outburst,
  4. Use reliable sources. Really—and yes, as defined by the current definition. If you do not, you may be blocked. So, just don't do it.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.encyclosphere.org/index.php?title=User:Larry_Sanger/WikiProject_Intellectual_Diversity/Welcome_to_Wikipedia_(with_warnings)&oldid=1081"