User:Aditya Kabir

Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information

Wikipedia is not a message board or blog service

Wikipedia is not for unsourced material

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Wikipedia is not censored

Wikipedia is not a democracy

Wikipedia is not a free advertising space

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your opinions

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your new ideas

Wikipedia aims to be a neutral compilation of verifiable, established facts.

WIKIPEDIA IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA

It's fairly simple.

---

But, no original research, please. Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any personal analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position the editor may hold. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. See this example for more details.

(See: WP:NOR)

Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

(See: WP:VERIFY)

Think ahead. Try to imagine whether or not people might doubt what you wrote, or need more information about it. Supporting what is written by referring to clear and reliable sources will add credibility to your contribution.

(See: WP:CITE)

---

When the notability of your article is challenged, don't sit pretty like a duck. Go for the Heymann Standard. Improve the article beyond doubt.

(See: WP:NN)

And, yes, it's okay to use your brain. Be bold. Take the right step. Just take care that the step is really right.

(See: WP:BOLD)

es, Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone, anyone at all, anyone from your 2-year-old cousin to your 78-year-old Harvard professor has full editorial authority over. Yes, anyone includes that guy who stands on the street corner with the big sign that says, "REPENT!" and it includes that woman who constantly rants and raves in the lunch room about how anyone who believes in God hasn't got a brain, and it includes the teenager with a can of spray paint who just improved your car with an image of his middle finger. It includes the person who can't spell, the person who thinks they are always right, and the person who is always right. It includes people who know what they are talking about and people who don't, and people who can make anything sound good, regardless of the truth or lack thereof in the statement.

Anyone can edit. See a typo? Fix it! Out of date? Not for long! Error? Fix it! Poorly organized? Not once you're done! False info? Remove it! Missing info? Add it! Needs a picture? Take one! Needs a diagram? Draw one! Wrote an article but don't know everything about the subject? Wait a while, someone will add to it. Made a spelling error and didn't notice? It'll get fixed! Anyone can edit, and it's awesome!

Anyone can edit. That guy who improved your car? He just improved your article the same way. Mr. Street Corner and Ms. Lunch Room are having at it on the article about the Second Coming. Your 2-year old cousin replaced the text of General Relativity with "wonnfeo hfor frfhibher frfrufh4 oerv04vr vr fu". And the Harvard professor has had it up to his neck with someone who absolutely demands proof that the moon is not made out of green cheese.

See also: Wikipedia culture (especially, WP:BJAODN to find out the outer limits of what counts as edits) and Wikipedia history

“	I'd rather have an image from a wikipedian that's not quite as good, than a professional image which we can only use under the very narrow doctrine of fair use. We're not fundamentally about having a really pretty encyclopedia, we're fundamentally about having a free encyclopedia, and in the end that's far more pretty.	”
— Jimbo Wales, Opening Plenary of Wikimania 2006 (transcript)

magine you're a vegan. Or maybe you are a vegan, in which case you don't have to imagine it. Now imagine you hear about an event coming up in your area billed as The Vegan Potluck Dinner Anyone Can Contribute To. You make up a batch of your favorite couscous salad recipe and go to the dinner.

When you walk in, the first thing you notice on the table is a large platter of fried chicken. You say to the host, "I thought this was a vegan potluck?"

The host answers, "Well, it is, but everyone has agreed to allow some animal-based foods under certain restricted circumstances."

"Under certain restricted circumstances? Like what? Why is there fried chicken here?" you ask.

"Well, even though there are many good meat analogues available, for things like hamburgers and sausages, there's no meat analogue for fried chicken. It's simply not replaceable with a vegan equivalent," the host replies.

You pick up a bowl, walk resolutely past the chicken, and help yourself to some minestrone. You proclaim it delicious, and the person who made it says, "Thanks! I made it with beef stock, but there's so little meat in there you hardly notice it, do you?"

You quickly put down the minestrone, pick up a plate, and take some corn on the cob. You bite in and discover that it has been coated not with margarine but with real butter. You turn to the host in disbelief and say, "This isn't so little that I don't notice, I noticed instantly! And you can't say butter isn't replaceable with margarine. Why does this corn have butter on it?"

And the host replies, "Well, some people just feel butter is higher-quality than margarine."

So you put down the corn, pick up a clean plate, and head for the desserts. There you see a large chocolate cake. You take a piece, bite into it, and are delighted! You ask the person who made it how he got it so light and fluffy. "I've never managed to get a cake this texture using tofu and soy milk."

"Well, I used eggs and cow's milk. You said yourself, you just can't get the right consistency with vegan ingredients. Besides, don't be so paranoid – eating meat and other animal products isn't illegal; no one is going to sue us!"

As you stand there sputtering in disbelief, the host says, "I know how you feel, but you have to understand: We have two goals at this vegan dinner: to be vegan, and to be a dinner. And those goals sometimes conflict with each other, so we have to find a middle ground between them. Of course we prefer vegan dishes whenever they're practical – did you try the couscous salad someone brought? – but surely you concede it isn't possible to have a really high-quality dinner without any animal products at all."

Finally in exasperation you cry, "What on earth is the matter with you people? What does fear of getting sued have to do with anything? And where did you get the idea that a meal's being vegan is conflict with its being a high-quality dinner? And if you were going to have animal-based foods here, why the hell did you advertise it as a vegan potluck dinner? Vegan means no animal products of any kind! Ever!"

There is a stunned silence for a moment. Then you hear a few people call you an "extremist". One person calls you a "wacko".

See also: Copyright FlowChart

Debates on AfD lack guidance and become very hard to establish consensus.

• People make defenses on inadequate rhetorical grounds
• Ad hominem defenses: all articles should be judged on their own merits, not on the personalities of the people involved in the discussion, INCLUDING the original nominator.
• Bad faith nominations of a deletable article should not be dismissed off hand.
• Bad faith nominations of keepable articles can easily establish notability, and are easy to spot and correct
  • Autobiographical articles can STILL be about notable people. This requires a massive rewrite, not deletion. If the subject is worthy of keeping, in all cases, it should never be deleted.
• Notability is related to the SUBJECT, not on the WRITING.
  • Many articles are created as stubs, with the intent to have them expanded later.
  • A poorly written article can be written about an inherently notable subject.
  • An excellently written article can be written about an inherently non-notable subject
  • Articles often lack references, which come to light during AfD discussions.

Every article is to be judged on its own merit, not in comparison to other articles.

• One obvious exception is to largely similar articles covered by established AfD precedents.
• The existence of other deleteable articles does not make the article under discussion keepable. People OFTEN cite this as a keep reason: "This other shitty article exists, so mine should be kept too".
• The existence of other superficially similar articles that ARE notable is no reason to keep either. People often say "if you delete this article, you should also delete all XXX articles".

Clear notability guidelines can make AFD processes more easy to work through, and can simultaneously improve the article in question. The AFD process should center around the presentation and discussion of EVIDENCE.

• People arguing for delete can cite the lack of credible, nontrivial references.
• people arguing for keep can provide those references.
• With such evidence, or lack thereof, can reduce AfD discussions to moot: Most of AfDs are fraught with the above logical fallacies. These falacies become moot when presented with the evidence. Most editors (if we assume good faith) are capable of making good decisions based on this evidence.

These quotes give insight on how deletionism looks to the external world, for whose people who think that "deleting first, ask questions later" is a way to improve our image.

New York Review of Books: "a lot of good work—verifiable, informative, brain-leapingly strange—is being cast out of this paperless, infinitely expandable accordion folder by people who have a narrow, almost grade-schoolish notion of what sort of curiosity an online encyclopedia will be able to satisfy in the years to come...There are some people on Wikipedia now who are just bullies, who take pleasure in wrecking and mocking peoples' work"[1]
The Economist: "The behaviour of Wikipedia's self-appointed deletionist guardians, who excise anything that does not meet their standards, justifying their actions with a blizzard of acronyms, is now known as “wiki-lawyering”.[2]
The Guardian: "And then self-promoted leaf-pile guards appeared, doubters and deprecators who would look askance at your proffered handful and shake their heads, saying that your leaves were too crumpled or too slimy or too common, throwing them to the side."[3]
The Telegraph "The rise of the deletionists is threatening the hitherto peaceful growth of the world's most popular information source. It's on the discussion pages of articles nominated for deletion that anger creeps in. Policy documents are referred to only by abbreviations...the favourite of the deletionists WP:NOTE (notability)...The notability debate has spread across the discussions like a rash."[4]
PC Pro magazine: "For an example of the dark side running out of control, though, check out Wikipedia...It seems Wikipedia has completed the journey by arriving at an online equivalent of the midnight door-knock and the book bonfire"
Los Angeles Times"...if even a small number of useful articles are being deleted in the name of keeping Wikipedia clean, isn't that like allowing a few innocent men to hang in favor of a lower crime rate?...Wikipedia's community has become so rushed, so immediatist, that it is not willing to allow embryonic articles even a tiny modicum of time to incubate"[5]
The Telegraph:"Wikipedia should delete the deletionists"[6]
"Wikipedia: A Quantiative Analysis", PHD: "the Wikipedia community needs to rein in so-called deletionists -- editors who shoot first and ask questions later."[7] [...]

“	Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.	”
— Jesus

ome time ago, I discovered a link at a user page to a certain website caught my attention. The sharp criticism of Wikipedia that I saw at that webpage didn't surprise me in the least; we are all rather used to the rants against our project and our community that seem to flourish in the web these days. However, there was a particular phrase that caught my attention immediately, and while I really didn't care much about the other accusations, incredibly enough, this one was actually able to hurt me: Wikipedia is not a place for happy people.

No matter how much I try to push this idea out of my mind, every now and then, I find myself thinking about it. Sometimes I gain enough trust in ourselves to push it far to the bottom of my mind. Other moments, like now, I simply can't. While we're all human, and may (and do) give in to anger, bad mood and hurting speech from time to time, I can hardly think that the reason why we all ended up editing this encyclopedia was to unleash our frustration unto others. And if somebody did, well... the choice of a place to do such thing is odd, to say the least.

Since I joined Wikipedia a couple of months ago, I must tell that never, ever, I've felt diminished nor discriminated in any way by another user; yet I know that it is in my personality to choose dialogue and a friendly approach, and that's simply not the way we're all made - it's in our human nature to be different from each other, and that makes none of us any better than the other. However, I did see, and continue to witness almost everyday, the misjudgments, the unfairness, the elitism, the hurting irony that comes from the mouths of brilliant people towards their peers - or worse, against the newcomers who try in good faith to be heard. I have no intention to judge any members of our community - reprehensible as it is, fighting fire with fire is a natural human instinct, and nobody's free of sin. And that's where we all have the chance to make a small, yet decisive difference: Love - or in our case, Wikilove. Just a little bit of it can make a valuable contributor, a great person, a knowledgeable editor reconsider his/her decision of leaving for good after an edit war or a failed RfA. Just 30 seconds of translating that smile and that hug that you wish you could give in person into a simple edit, can make a big change... in the quality of our encyclopedia.

Just an hour ago, I received an email from somebody who basically told me to shove my attempt of cheering him up in a dark and moist place of my anatomy... on St. Valentine's day... the irony! I feel discouraged - how could I possibly feel otherwise? Wouldn't you? Wouldn't you simply want to dismiss any future attempts of sending a kind word, or a smile to someone who's obviously down? That's exactly how I feel now - but I won't do such a thing. I may be down, but I'm not dead - and my heart's alive and well, and I won't let it bleed for long. I do not take the Internet so seriously as to make me cry, so whatever this gentleman's intentions were, I'm sorry - he failed. But as long as I'm a member of Wikipedia, I will believe in Wikilove; and as long as my heart beats, I will continue to believe in Love. Now that, I do take seriously. And no member of our community, no matter how respected he is, will ever dissuade me... because I want to believe that Wikipedia can be a place for happy people. Sharon - Feb. 14, 2006

See also: A nice cup of tea and a sit down

Chance and Community discussions

• You are assessed for article repairs. £40 for each GA, £115 for each FA
• You have won second place in DYK. Collect £10
• It's your wikibirthday. Collect £10 from User:Jimbo Wales (If you're still trying to get your money three years later and discover Jimbo won't return your calls because he's on a yacht somewhere ... well don't say we didn't warn you...)
• Discretionary sanctions. Fine £20
• Edit warring fine £15
• Unblock request accepted. Collect £20
• Deletion review in your favour. Collect £10
• Pay Arbitration Committee fees of £150
• Pay WMF £100
• Get out of indef for free. (This admin bit may be kept until needed or sold)

• Congratulations! You've won £1000 in the local celebrity art contest.

• The disclaimer says - "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, human anatomy, or sexual acts."
• The policy says - "some articles may include images, text or links that are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal (or inclusion) of content."
• The content guideline says in no unambiguous terms that "A cornerstone of Wikipedia policy is that the project is not censored. Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers."
• The MoS explains that "including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission", though it advises, for example, that "photographs taken in a pornography context would normally be inappropriate for articles about human anatomy".

I guess this gives a clear picture of our stand on "offensive material" (this "our" includes you and I both :D). Please, remember, we refused to remove the images of Prophet Muhammad, though a large number of Muslims were offended very vocally.