Wikipedia talk:Five pillars

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Five pillars page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 180 days

view · edit Frequently asked questions Is this page a policy or guideline, or the source for all policies and guidelines? It is none of those. It is a non-binding description of some of the fundamental principles, begun by User:Neutrality in 2005 as a simple introduction for new users. For comparison, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and WP:IAR were first written down on Wikipedia in 2001, and WP:NOR and WP:V were written in 2003. What was this page originally based on? It was an expansion of WP:Trifecta. May I please put (pick one) {{essay}}, {{policy}}, {{information page}}, {{supplement}}, or a custom banner at the top of this page? Please don't. Wikipedia:Not every page needs a tag. Does the title refer to the Five Pillars of Islam? No. It also has nothing to do with the Five Precepts of Buddhism or the Five Pillars puzzle. Even though it has nothing to do with the Five Pillars of Islam, won't Muslim people be offended anyway? Muslim editors commenting here have confirmed that there is nothing offensive in this. The Arabic Wikipedia uses exactly the same words to title their version of this essay. The words "five pillars" are not inherently sacred; the same words might be used by Muslims in everyday speech, such as to describe architectural elements in a building. Does this page list every single important principle? No. It does not discuss the importance of using common sense, not charging money to readers, cooperating with Wikipedias in other languages, the desirability of making pages accessible to people with disabilities or limited internet access, or any number of other principles that the community has identified as important over the years. Where can I find similar pages? See Wikipedia:Principles.

Essays Top‑impact

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages Top This page has been rated as Top-impact on the project's impact scale. The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Text and/or other creative content from Wikipedia:Five pillars was copied or moved into Wikipedia:Wikipedia is free content with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

I propose that the phrase "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" link to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia instead of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. When I made the change earlier today, I was (appropriately) reverted and asked to raise the issue on the talk page because it has come up multiple times before, most recently in July (diff).

The arguments for linking to WP:NOT appear to be:

1. WP:NOT is, unlike WP:ENC, a policy.
2. WP:NOT contains a lot of useful content.

The arguments for linking to WP:ENC include:

1. It is counterintuitive for a positive statement (Wikipedia is X") to lead to a list of negative statements ("Wikipedia is not X, Y, and Z").
2. WP:ENC is neither wrong nor controversial. It contains a definition of the term "encyclopedia", a modified statement of the first and third pillars, and a link to WP:NOT.
3. The first pillar currently contains two links to WP:NOT, as well as multiple links to individual sections.

Changing the link from WP:NOT to WP:ENC does not, in my view, take away anything since WP:NOT will remain prominently linked both on this page and at WP:ENC. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the point of linking to something that says nothing new, in fact says practically nothing, and isn't a policy or guideline. Dmcq (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment at "02:23, 23 August 2013" in the preceding section. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who did the reversion and requested this be brought here, as I recalled a previous discussion about this very topic. I agree with Dmcq. Even though the 5P itself is only an essay it should link important ideas to the nearest relevant policy or in specific cases guidelines and not have links going to essays. Which by definition essays may not even be accepted by a substantial minority of the Community, let alone a majority.Camelbinky (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that linking to NOT helps new users more than linking to ENC. Andrew³²⁷ 19:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the Title, WP:NOT actually describes what Wikipedia is in the first sentence, and in the nutshell. It then elaborates on that premise, with answers to common FAQs around the root-question "Is Wikipedia a ... ?"

In addition to that, WP:ENC served a completely different purpose for many years (2005 till early 2013 it looked like this). It is still a very oddly conceived page, that is placed at a prominent title - ifwecoulddoitalloveragain, we'd probably just make it redirect to WP:NOT, and/or retitle WP:NOT to "What Wikipedia is and is not".

Therefore, I believe the pillar should continue to link to WP:NOT. It's a bit WP:ZEN, but then so are a lot of things around here (eg. WP:IAR). –Quiddity (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this could most easily be resolved by renaming (i.e. moving, and leaving a redirect) Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is and is not? Given the opening sentence described above, that would seem to be a more appropriate name in any case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that. –Quiddity (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So a month later and the move still hasn't happened...Camelbinky (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're moving/rename NOT, you would need to gain consensus to change it there. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the WP:VPP would be the more appropriate place as a larger audience would have a say and be a more neutral area, whereas on the WT:NOT would be heavily influenced by those with a bias to keeping things the way it is.Camelbinky (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irregardless, the point is that the page that is being moved needs to be notified; the decision can't be made elsewhere without mention there. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and 'the sum of all knowledge'. Wikipedia is a compendium of secondary sources that meet certain rules. Sure, primary sources are allowed occasionally, but this thing is really aiming to be 'the sum of all reputable, published, summary of secondary source knowledge'. If they're not published somewhere reputable then it doesn't rate a mention. If that message got out I think there'd be many less new editors wondering why their new articles were deleted. AnonNep (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link should stay to WP:NOT. The goal here is to communicate what (some of) the policies are (at least in theory). ENC says next to nothing and it's just going to be some chaff to distract the new user from clicking on the underlying WP:NOT policy that the admins will throw at them chapter and verse if god help them they try to add something controversial. Wnt (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this page is fully protected I don't think anyone should be making edits without talking about it first. Otherwise there is a risk of this being an admin only page. Chillum 16:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might have checked your premise before you take sideswipes at "anyone" based on it. The page is semiprotected. Bishonen | talk 16:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I was not naming names to avoid being rude. I misread the protection and read the move protection. My apologies if I have offended you.

Regardless of the state of protection if you are reverted then you should discuss it and not remove the same text again.

The text you removed did not claim this page was a fundamental principle. It says it summarizes our fundamental principles. The 5 pages linked are indeed the founding principals of the project, at least that is what I was told when I joined 8 years ago and they have all stood since. So I don't think the line should be removed. Chillum 16:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - while we're all here, we can vote on whether we keep or remove. clearly it's at 1-1 - Chillum says keep and Bish says remove - let's get consensus on this. I could take it or leave it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove please. Not necessary. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PG first para. last sentence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alanscottwalker, I was the most recent person to edit the particular sentence you refer to. I assure you that when I wrote that 5P is "a popular summary of the most pertinent principles", that I did not mean "5P is a policy". WP:Principles and WP:Policies are not the same thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • • The intro sentence does not say it is policy, so your point about whatever you meant does not address my argument. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not wrong, and concise introductory text is a hallmark of good writing. Lagrange613 05:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove per... the fact we've had this discussion so many times and it is always a vocal minority that continues to oppose removing/ r at least rewording the sentence to make it clear, as What states- these are just SOME of the principles.Camelbinky (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the general question of what to say (by way of introductory sentence), it's been discussed a couple of times in the last couple of years. One of my favorite formulations runs something like "Some of Wikipedia's fundamental principles..." What I like about this is that it does not claim to be a complete list. In the current formulation, if what's important to you isn't on the list, then some people read this page and conclude that "_____" (fill in the blank: accessibility, education, not getting sued into oblivion, personality rights, user privacy...) isn't actually important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Some' is especially bad as it makes it sound like a hotch potch. And by the way the things you mentioned are not fundamental principles of this part of Wikipedia. For instance the education aspect is really part of the foundation's aim for what to do with what we do, we're here to get the information organized. Dmcq (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Some" is worse than no introductory text at all. 5P is not a place to be wishy-washy. If there's another fundamental principle then it's time for 6P. Lagrange613 23:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles (from 2001) lists eight principles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's significant overlap between those eight principles and the five pillars, except maybe for principle #4, which is less a fundamental principle than just sound software engineering for a large, open project. Feel free to propose it as the sixth pillar if you disagree, but I don't think you'll get very far. Lagrange613 05:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition - "Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our four...no... amongst our weapons.... amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again." ;-) Dmcq (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am trying to learn wikipedia to contribute arictles for educational propuse.

thanks a lot Muuse12 (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done That is not a request to edit this page
May I suggest you look at the links on your talk page - I'd start with Tutorial (just click the blue text) but the other links are good as well. - Arjayay (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently been surprised to find out that very few Wikipedia editors seem to know the difference between the Wikipedia editorial consensus process and what is generally understood as the Consensus process in the general English language. This confusion has caused a number of misunderstandings in my own particular case, as I always assumed that when it said "consensus" in the 5 pillars, that it meant "consensus". It turns out that the "Wikipedia consensus process" we are talking about here is not at all the same as the larger world's understanding of the word "consensus". Read about the larger world's understanding of the word in our Consensus article to find out for yourself if you don't believe me. Our process is kind of like a stripped down go cart version, while the larger world's version is more like the Cadillac version. They both get you there, but not really the same thing. I would propose improving the language of the five pillars to read: "Civility.... Seek Wikipedia editorial consensus and agreement, avoid edit wars." Instead of what seems to me to be its current rather misleading wording: " Seek consensus, avoid edit wars." Scott P. (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article about consensus and it is in line with the Wikipedia meaning. Why don't you devote your energies to something like original research which is a bit surprising. Dmcq (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmcq:, One method only allows the taking of the action after the consensus is arrived at. The other says you can take the action (the edit) first, then sort of have the edit war, discussion, administrative action, or whatever after, as a sort of an afterthought. I like your original research. Scott P. (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there should be a distinction if a new source is introduced to an article, vs just editing existing materials? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ZuluPapa5:, thanks for looking this over. How then would you suggest rewording the sentence "Seek consensus, avoid edit wars." in order to avoid the possible confusion? Scott P. (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of article style it's fine as as is, since the other links aren't specified like proposed. Maybe the point should be made in the Wikipedia editorial consensus article. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ZuluPapa5: the reason I think it should be clarified in 5P is because there are two very different definitions of consensus, the first is the "Simple Dictionary Definition" which Wikipedia is now using for its purposes. The second is the "Professional Group Facilitator's Definition" which is described in Wikipedia's article under Consensus. The Group Facilitation Definition is the style of consensus that Quakers have been using for 300 years. It is also specifically designed to reduce or eliminate conflict, and generally does quite well at this. But maybe this article is not the best venue to be trying to begin explaining this concept...... Thanks for your help though. Scott P. (talk) Comment first edited at 02:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC), last edited at Scott P. (talk) 05:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pinging people if you are just replying to a point. A ping is for something that is personally relevant. This is not an appropriate forum for pushing your ideas about what consensus is. Get agreement at WT:CONSENSUS that it is not consensus as normally understood and then you can point at that agreement here. If you can get no satisfaction on there you can complain at the village pump which can agree a change is needed in multiple places. Otherwise you wasting people's time here with your multiple discussions on the same subject. Dmcq (talk) 08:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to brush up on how not to be a dick and then come back to discussing topics of relevance before continuing to be a bully and shout people down. Civil discussion is the manner in which we have threads, not this half-ass dismissive crap which accomplishes nothing but ill-will and incivility. And anyone may ping anyone they want.Camelbinky (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I reverted that last contribution and another editor also reverted it, and it was put in yet again a third time. I complained at WP:ANI but seemingly the admins there think that is reasonable comment in Wikipedia rather than a personal attack and say I was asinine in my responses so it pretty well reinforces for me why I have gone to semi-retired on Wikipedia. It seems to me that 'Editors should treat each other with respect and civility' is perhaps an unnecessary pillar since one has to do something pretty unusual to go against it. If someone would like to say how I should have responded so it was less asinine be my guest. Dmcq (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Camelbinky's appeal to civility is way less civil than the comment of yours he was responding to, but I'm not sure it rises to the level of a personal attack requiring admin attention. My response would have been to just let it stand; it speaks pretty well for itself. Regardless, it would probably be best if you both backed away from this particular horse while it has a chance at recovery. Nothing productive is likely to come from this slow-motion sniping. Lagrange613 03:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has its own working definition of "consensus" as it has its own unique definition of "notability". Despite whatever theoretical weaknesses these definitions may have, according to some pedantic editors, they have enabled Wikipedia and its volunteer editors to create the number 6 website in the world. The Quakers have failed that challenge, and therefore have little to contribute to this conversation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you get your idea of 'failed' from. I just see the Wikipedia ideas of consensus and notability as being pretty much in line with the common sense ones. Consensus doesn't have to be unanimous as for the Quakers and we don't have precisely identifiable interested parties for a consensus but that's okay as far as the common sense view and the Wikipedia article on it are concerned. The Wikipedia terms I see as being confusing by their divergence are original research and verifiability which are always being misunderstood because they don't correspond closely enough to common notions. Neutral point of view also keeps being interpreted as like on television shows 'balancing' the sides. I am also concerned by Wikipedia's idea of what civility is which I don't think corresponds with any common notion of the same name. Dmcq (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware the Quakers set out to build a popular website. You know everything, Cullen! Let's get our lessons from you instead of a community that's been practicing civility and consensus-building for hundreds of years. Lagrange613 04:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who wishes is welcome to take lessons in civility and consensus-building from the Quakers, who in my experience, are mostly wonderful people. They are a religious denomination while we are an encyclopedia building project. Our definition of consensus works for us. I see no evidence whatsoever that any of our problems are due to shortcomings in our definition of consensus. Perhaps my formulation "failed that challenge" was rhetorical excess. But I feel confident in saying that Wikipedia is far more important and useful to hundreds of millions of people on an every day basis than is Quakerism. Other than the Quakers themselves, that is. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question though was whether the Wikipedia idea of consensus was close enough to the usual understanding of the term to be used straightforwardly without causing problems. I don't doubt that Wikipedia has more impact nowadays but that does not mean no improvement is possible, only that one has to be careful about possible improvements as one may not have figured out the full implications. As to the Quakers their way of working contributed greatly to the Midlands Enlightenment which was a principal basis for modern industrialization, plus of course they were major movers in Abolitionism. Dmcq (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My cousin Richard Nixon was a Quaker, yes I believe he could, as a Quaker, have taught us about consensus, civility, and (expletive deleted) teambuilding.Camelbinky (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The wikitext for this page has a noinclude just before WP:5P5's ending div tag. Is there a reason for this? Presumably if transcluded, this would leave WP:5P5's div tag open. I don't immediately see why we'd want this. (And if we did want an open div tag for some reason, we probably wouldn't want WP:5P5's but a div tag surrounding all the pillars.) Jason Quinn (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Digging into the history it appears that the current nesting of tags was introduced with this edit by Gutza on 14 June 2013. My guess is that it is simply a mistake. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had the time to investigate this properly (I obviously can't remember if there was any logical reason from two years ago), but it appears that the noinclude tag was actually present before my edits (search for it in the diff, and you'll find it in both the left and the right side). It might be that my edits have changed the document structure, and it ended up nesting differently, though (again, no time to investigate this properly right now). --Gutza ^{T T+} 14:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me again – I took a second look, and yes, it was most certainly a mistake; I don't see any possible reason for adding it there. Please address this as you see fit. --Gutza ^{T T+} 14:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]