Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:ATADP)
Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, or the other Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid essays.
Wikipedia discussions
Arguments to avoid in
Arguments to make
Common outcomes

On Wikipedia, talk pages serve a variety of functions. One of the main purposes is for Wikipedia editors to discuss how the article should be written, and what material should be included or not.

While involved in a discussion, there are arguments that can make or break a case. Inclusion of material can hinge on what existing policies and guidelines allow for. Therefore, all arguments in such a discussion should be based on these, and not one's personal perceptions.

Unlike a deletion discussion, where people "vote" with terms like "keep," "delete," and a variety of other actions, talk page discussions are not as formal and can follow any number of structures. The examples below use terms like "include" and "remove" just to get the point across. But a real discussion may appear quite differently.

Arguments without arguments

[edit]

Just a vote

[edit]

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in Wikipedia discussions.

Examples:

It is important when engaging in a discussion that your comments are not votes. It helps in reaching a consensus when each person who comments gives a reason why they believe in their decision.

Per others

[edit]

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in Wikipedia discussions.

Examples:

Discussions are a place where people present ideas in working toward a solution. Simply going along with the crowd does not present any new ideas. If you agree with one or more other users, you should specify why you think their ideas are good.

There must be sources

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia:But there must be sources!

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in Wikipedia discussions.

Examples:

We keep content because we know it can be sourced, not because we assume it can, without having seen them. Any claim that sources exist must be verifiable, and unless you can indicate what and where the sources are, they are not verifiable.

Just pointing at a policy or guideline

[edit]
Further information: WP:VAGUEWAVE

Examples:

While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that content should be removed, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy.

As noted above, content discussions are not "votes". They are discussions with the goal of determining consensus. Rather than merely writing "Original research", or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. "Original research: Contains speculation not attributed to any sources" or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability – only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts". Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article.

Keep in mind that content can often be improved, and may not need to be deleted if the specific problems can be identified and corrected (see surmountable problems, below.)

Also, while citing essays that summarize a position can be useful shorthand, citing an essay (like this one) just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill-advised, for the reasons explained above.

Begging for mercy

[edit]

Examples:

Such arguments make no use of policy or guidelines whatsoever. They are merely a campaign on the part of the commentator to alter others' points-of-view. They are of no help in reaching a consensus, and anyone responding to such pleas is not helping either.

You should also make yourself familiar with Wikipedia's canvassing guidelines before you solicit "votes" one way or the other in a discussion.

If you feel you need more time to work on new content, an option may be to request userfication, where you can spend as much time as you wish to improve the content until it meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Once this has been accomplished, you can reintroduce it into main article space.

Personal point of view

[edit]
Shortcut
See also: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Personal point of view, and Wikipedia:I just don't like it

Article appearance

[edit]

Content on Wikipedia is judged based on its compliance with policies and guidelines, not its physical appearance. Once you can make all the content comply, you can then work with that and tidy it up.

Personal taste

[edit]

Such arguments are purely personal point-of-view. They make no use of policies, guidelines, or even logic. The message behind any of these is that "I don't like it, therefore it should not be included". On Wikipedia, inclusion of content is determined by a series of policies and guidelines set by consensus, not by people saying "I think this belongs" or "I do not think this belongs". All of that is personal opinion, and the only comment less helpful than personal opinion is a simple vote. It is impossible to please everyone. But it is possible to comply with guidelines, and this will decide what is included and what not. Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals, and potentially any subject or topic may be liked or disliked by some editor somewhere. However, personal preference is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article or other content.

As stated at Wikipedia:Verifiability:

In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.

In other words, a person or group may well be the greatest example of what they do in the history of everything, but if no other verifiable reliable sources have been written about them that are relevant to the scope of the article, they cannot be included. If your favourite song/computer game/webcomic/whatever is as great as you believe, someone will likely write about it eventually, so please just be patient. On the other hand, claims that content should be excluded require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for removing it.

In general, the scope and purpose of the article must be kept in mind when considering inclusion or exclusion of information or sources. When sources significantly deviate from the scope of an article's topic, or subject, this may create room for disputes. Therefore, careful considerations such as weight and relevance should also be taken into account in making decisions.

It's interesting

[edit]

There are many interesting facts out there. There are also lots of things you may perceive no one is interested in reading. You never know. Once again, this is opinion.

Simple truth

[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is actually quite a lot of true and sourceable information out in this world that does not belong on Wikipedia, or in a particular article. For example, Wikipedia is not a collection of statistics, trivia, or how to information. And besides, you would not write facts about an apple tree in an article about sharks. Simply saying something is "verifiable" or "sourced" does not show how it is relevant to the subject or why it otherwise belongs.

It's useful

[edit]
Shortcuts

Example:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it should include useful encyclopedic content. But many useful things do not belong in an encyclopedia and are excluded. Just saying something is useful or useless without providing explanation and context is not helpful or persuasive in the discussion. You need to say why content is useful or useless; this way other editors can judge whether it's useful and encyclopedic, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies.

A list of all the phone numbers in New York would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a directory. A page simply defining the word useful would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a dictionary (we have Wiktionary for that). A guide to the best restaurants in Paris would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a travel guide (there is a Wikivoyage for that). Usefulness is a subjective judgment and should be avoided unless it supports a cogent argument.

If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject."

There are some pages within Wikipedia that are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument.

It doesn't do any harm

[edit]
Shortcut

Examples:

No content on Wikipedia is censored. Just because content does not directly hurt anyone does not mean it should stay in an article. For example, if there has not been any verifiable information published in reliable sources about the subject, then there is no way to check whether the information is true, and it may damage the reputation of the subject and the project. Even if it is true, without the ability to check it, false information could very well start to seep in. As for content that does not conform to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping it actually can do more harm than one realizes – it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here.

The "it does not do any harm" claim and its rebuttal are at the center of the philosophical editing debate of inclusionism versus deletionism. For more information and arguments, see the Meta articles Inclusionism and Deletionism.

In some cases, such as WP:BLP, whether content is harmful is often a relevant issue. The rules provide that inherently disruptive pages, for instance, may be deleted. The argument "it's not hurting anything" is less persuasive, however, when WP:NOT clearly prohibits the content in question (e.g. a full-fledged blog in userspace) from being hosted here.

It's valuable

[edit]

Examples:

  • Include valuable. – Gollum, 05:05, 16 Demember 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove adds nothing of value – Scrooge, 05:05, 16 Demember 2012 (UTC)
  • Include: This was not an advertisement, but VALUABLE INFORMATION about our groundbreaking product that everyone on the Internet seeks on Wikipedia! – I. Wanda Publicize-Sumthin,
  • Include: This content is for a really good cause...it is about a charitable group that is trying to save children – SaveTheKids!Please!,
  • Remove: The government of Utopistan notes that military information on this article helps insurgents to plan attacks. – SaveTheTroops!Please!,

Value is subjective. Simply saying it has value or no value with out substantiating the position of why or how is not a helpful or persuasive contribution to a discussion. Remember, you need to say why the content is or is not valuable; this way other editors can judge its value in a certain context, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies. Without that explanation, it does not make a valid argument.

Additionally, Wikipedia is not the place to seek publicity for a cause, product, individual, ideology, etc. Promotional or partisan "information" in particular generally fails Wikipedia's requirements of neutrality and verifiability. See also WP:NOBLECAUSE and "It's useful".

Surmountable problems

[edit]

Quality of writing

[edit]

Material that is included on Wikipedia is judged on its accuracy and strength of sourcing, not on the quality of writing. A paragraph or two that has spelling, grammar, or punctuation problems can always be corrected. Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and content should not be deleted just because no one has felt like cleaning it up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not removed. (If there is no usable content, however, it may well be best to remove it.)

In the Wiki model, content which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such content is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and it can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such content is cleanup, not removal.

With that said, if content is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then removing it now, and possibly adding it back later, is often a better option. For example, problems like copyright infringement, advertising, patent nonsense, or unsourced negative statements about living people, need to be resolved as quickly as possible. Additionally, if specific problems with content have been known for some time, such as when statements are tagged with a {{citation needed}} template, that may be grounds for concluding that no sources actually exist.

Sources are inaccessible

[edit]

On Wikipedia, we assume good faith. Unless we have good reason to suspect that an editor is mistaken or dishonest, we take their contributions to discussions at face value. This doesn't mean we can't doubt what someone says, but it means that we need actual reasons to do so.

There is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. Offline sources are just as legitimate as those that are accessible to everyone online. If content is sourced to offline sources, even exclusively offline sources, we give the creator (and other contributors) the benefit of the doubt in accepting their accuracy. Since Wikipedia is written collaboratively, it is always possible for other editors to add online sources on top of the offline ones already there. However, this is not a requirement, and they need not exist to sustain the content. That said, all sources must be verifiably published and thus accessible somehow (even if at expense and trouble), as well as reliable.

Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement)

[edit]
Shortcut

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in Wikipedia discussions.

Examples:

There are variants, such as "maybe someday but probably not" handwaving, and "who'll ever work on it?" attempts to skirt the rules:

Sometimes content is not being worked on very much, or has not been edited in a long time, and thus might not be in very good shape. This does not necessarily mean that the material is unsuitable for Wikipedia; it may be that the topic is obscure or difficult to write about. Content should be assessed on its own merits, not how frequently it has been edited to date. Remember that there is no deadline.

Content shouldn't be removed just because no one has improved it yet; that would prevent editors from improving it in the future. Conversely it's not enough to promise to make the content better; editors should explain how to do it. If the editor fails to follow through on the promise, other editors who arrive later can step in and keep improving it. This way, the fate of the content is not dependent on one single editor doing the work; Wikipedia is written in a collaborative way.

Similarly, whether a merge, split, move, category/list conversion, userspacing/draftification, or other action might entail more long-term work, might not produce immediate major improvements, or exists in a state someone things "begs for attention" of a different kind, is never a rationale to avoid compliance with policies and guidelines on matters such as when to merge (WP:MERGE, WP:CFORK, WP:POVFORK), when to split (WP:SPLIT, WP:SUMMARY, WP:COATRACK), when to move a page (WP:AT, WP:RM, WP:DAB, WP:NAMESPACE), when to listify (WP:CLNT), when to userspace of draftify (WP:DRAFT), etc., etc.

Conversely, a vague suggestion that something reasonable might eventually come of substandard material is not a very good rationale for retaining it, especially if its compliance with policies and guidelines seems dubious. If the entire page is trash, but the subject does need an article, the WP:TNT principle may apply.

Exceptions:

See also:

Relevance and significance fallacies

[edit]
Shortcut

Sourcing

[edit]

On Wikipedia, inclusion is based on verifiability, not truth. All included information must be verifiable by reliable sources.

Personal knowledge

[edit]
Shortcut

No original research is allowed on Wikipedia. Word-of-mouth info that is not from published sources is not considered to be verifiable.

Unreliable sources

[edit]

Verifiability requires that content must be sourced to reliable sources. Sites like blogs and personal pages that can be created or edited by anyone with little or no restriction are generally not seen as reliable sources of information. While such sites may be written in good faith and may be seen by some as accurate and/or neutral, there is little or no control or proof of these details, and there is even a chance they may have been created or edited by the very same person who created or contributed to the Wikipedia article.

On the other hand, blogs can be written by professional journalists and subject to editorial control, and personal sites can belong to established experts in the subject. There are also pages bearing the URLs of blogs that have mirrored news articles that do constitute reliable sources. For sites including user-generated content, assess whether the content is self-published or can be attributed to an independent professional writer with a record of reliable publishing. News sources that publish in a blog format may be as reliable as a traditional newspaper.

Trivial information

[edit]

In order to meet the general notability guideline, an article must be sourced by reliable sources with substantial coverage. If only the trivia in an article is and can be sourced, it is doubtful whether or not it can be included, and this should indeed be examined.

The subject doesn't have to be the main topic of the source material, as long as we have enough sources to write from a neutral point of view. Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers and prestigious awards are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions that have been used to establish notability and are useful to write Reception sections (see the specific guidelines for books, films, music and artists); common sense and editorial judgement should be used to reach a consensus about the sources available.

Longevity and false consensus

[edit]

Shortcuts
See also: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Article age, and Wikipedia:Gaming the system § Gaming the consensus-building process

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in Wikipedia discussions.

The argument also exists in inverted form:

On Wikipedia, nothing is set in stone. If material is not suitable for Wikipedia according to the current standards, it will be deleted or corrected regardless of how old it is. Any text on any page is subject to change at any time, no matter how long it has been that way. If there is a good reason to remove long-standing text, the length of time it has been there should not be an obstacle.

Just as inclusion is not an indicator of notability, it is also not an indicator of significance or relevance. Bits of outright hoax material have survived in articles sometimes for years, and proclamations of would-be "guidelines" at WikiProject advice pages have contradicted actual policy for a long time without being corrected. While WP:Consensus policy reminds us that any undiscussed edit that is not disputed by later can be assumed to have consensus, a good-faith challenge by an editor nullifies that default assumption. "It's been here a long time" is not the same as "it's had actual consensus for a long time". Material may remain unchallenged due to a lack of relevance, significance or applicability, or because the problems with it were subtle or simply went undiscovered until recently.

There is a big difference between material that no one had bothered to talk about until now, and material that has been repeatedly challenged and retained as the result of policy-based discussion, as opposed to a false consensus). Outside mainspace, material that has become integral to how Wikipedia operates is also not subject to sudden removal or radical alteration simply because someone isn't clear where consensus established it back when. However, no amount of longevity of some item in an article or other page is sufficient to surmount a conflict with current Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which may have changed since the material was inserted. Consensus can change, and a standard operating procedure on Wikipedia is the normalization of old material to incremental changes in policy.

There is also a difference between resisting poorly thought-out changes without solid rationale, and status-quo stonewalling to exert control over a page, even if proposed changes are well-justified. Per the the Editing policy, it is not necessary for any editor to seek "permission" before making good-faith changes. That said, being a new addition that might be improved upon does not somehow "protect" a change from being challenged or reverted pending further discussion.

(See also § Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement), noting that a page or section not being edited in a long time is also not grounds for removal.)

Google test

[edit]
See also: Wikipedia:Search engine test

Examples:

Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number. A more detailed description of the problems that can be encountered using a search engine to determine suitability can be found at Wikipedia:Search engine test.

Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. WP:BIO, for instance, specifically states, Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking). One would not expect to find 100,000 hits on an ancient Estonian god. However, the search-engine test may be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet. A search on an alleged "Internet meme" that returns only one or two distinct sources is a reasonable indication that the topic is not as important as has been claimed. As well, numerous hits that refer to X as "Y" can demonstrate that "Y" is a plausible redirect to the article on X.

Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving content than the default Google web search. However, since content can be verified entirely by offline sources such as books and newspapers, a lack of search results there is not proof in itself that content should be kept or deleted.

Number of editors involved

[edit]

Examples:

The number of editors involved may point out the level of interest in a subject, but it does not measure the number of reliable sources or its compliance with other policies and guidelines. An article can be made into a good article, either by one person or by a dozen. And if no reliable sources exist at all, then no matter how many editors they are, they will not be found.

Article size

[edit]

Examples:

Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. An article could have many paragraphs or even pages of information. If any of that information is not and cannot be properly sourced, it does not belong. On the other hand, even a small amount of information can be eligible for inclusion, provided that the inclusion guidelines are met. Even if the article on a subject is very short, it may just be waiting for expansion. Likewise, information being too detailed may be a good argument for moving it to a more specialized article, but is not in itself a reason to remove it entirely.

Subjective importance

[edit]
Shortcut

Examples:

Lots of things are well-known to a select group of people. A woman may be considered the greatest crocheter in a local crochet group, which may make her famous in that community, but that isn't necessarily significant enough to include in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, meaning that some things are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable information published in reliable sources before content can even be considered for inclusion, otherwise it could be considered original research. If the only sources that have written about a subject are those within a small community it's likely (but not always the case) that those sources are not reliable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia.

Arguments that state a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia. To avoid this, Wikipedia should include all significant information, even if it isn't significant within the English-speaking population or within more populous or Internet-connected nations. Likewise, arguments that state that because information is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality do not mean the information cannot be included.

See also: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Subjective importance

Crystal ball

[edit]

Examples:

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and editors should avoid using one when commenting. It is difficult to determine precisely what people believe in the present, even more difficult to predict how perceptions will change in the future, and completely unnecessary to even try. Inclusion is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources have already taken notice, not on subjective judgments of whether people will or should take notice in the future. Focusing on the objective evidence helps the discussion reach a logical conclusion; injecting your personal predictions does not.

Inaction by sources

[edit]

Examples:

Inclusion of content is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources already exist, not on subjective judgments of why there aren't more or newer sources. Focusing on the objective evidence helps the discussion reach a logical conclusion; injecting your personal supposition does not.

However, especially for science-related material where understanding in the field may change rapidly, old sources that are contradicted by newer, equally reliable ones, must not be given undue weight.


Inaction by editors

[edit]
Shortcuts
See also: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Past inaction by editors

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in Wikipedia discussions.

Examples:

  • Remove: Nobody has added sources for this information, so it's not verifiable. – HopToIt, 13:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Reverting again since you didn't resolve the problem I pointed out, and it doesn't really matter if others don't see it. – MyWayOrHighway, 09:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove until you fix the problems with the rest of the article.
  • Remove because nobody added this to the other article on the same topic.

Verifiability is based upon whether reliable sources exist, rather than the state of sourcing in articles; Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires that information be verifiable not already verified. If the very existence of sources cannot be ascertained, this may be a valid rationale for removal. Only in biographies of living people (for defamation legal reasons) is lack of a citation by itself grounds for deletion of material that clearly can be but has not yet been sourced.

In actual practice, many additions without sources are reverted pending further discussion and sourcing. However, if the addition is not controversial and sources have been identified but not yet added, it may be interpreted as "gaming the system" to insist on its removal pending the citations, especially if the editor who added it has requested help with the sourcing (e.g. because the source is behind a journal site's paywall and they no longer have access to it).

Similar arguments are sometimes made along the lines that the objector's concerns have not been addressed yet, even though a solution to (or refutation of) them has already been provided, and there appears to be no agreement that the objector's position is correct. Consensus need not be unanimous to be achieved, and other editors' efforts to continue improving a page are not held hostage by unreasonable demands. A call for action by one editor does not create an obligation on the part of any other to act upon it.

(See also § Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement), for the related argument that the content must not be worthy if people aren't working on it.)

Subjects are connected

[edit]

Examples:

Content does not qualify for inclusion merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject. We can't argue that "____ should be included, because it is associated with Important Subject." If subjects seem to be related, but no sources connect them to each other, making the connection in Wikipedia is original research.

Sources about one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that group. Discuss based upon the individual subject, not the subject's overarching classification or type. In addition, information about a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always apply to the subordinate entities.

Wikipedias in other languages

[edit]

Examples

  • Include: given that its also in corresponding articles on other Wikipedias (de:Foo, es:Foo, fr:Foo, it:Foo, la:Foo, pt:Foo). They can't all be wrong. – Interwikis=Notability, 14:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Include: there was a long discussion at the French Wikipedia and they decided to include it.
  • Remove: This material about Mexico isn't covered in the same article at the Spanish Wikipedia. – TrappedBehindTheLanguageBarrier, 01:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove: This material would be against policy on the Arabic Wikipedia.
  • Delete: German Wikipedia doesn't have a guideline about this, so we shouldn't either.

Information will often be covered by Wikipedia articles in many languages other than English; however, this does not indicate, by itself, that it should be included here. Other Wikipedias may have different inclusion criteria from the English Wikipedia. Other versions of Wikipedia are not reliable sources, and many articles in other Wikipedias are based on translations of English Wikipedia articles. Moreover, because of the availability of online translation tools, it's easier to create cross-wiki spam. The hoax article Jean Moufot was first posted on Netherlands Wikipedia and then translated into several other languages, including English. Of course, if the other Wikipedia articles cite any reliable sources not in the English Wikipedia article, they can be added to it.

On the other hand, the fact that corresponding articles at other Wikipedias don't have something that en.Wikipedia does is not a reason that the information should be removed. It may be the case that nobody has yet added this to the other language's Wikipedia or that it just hasn't been linked to from the English language article. It may also be the information is important in the English-speaking world, but of little relevance to speakers of other languages, or vice versa. En.Wikipedia also sees more editorial activity on most topics than other-language Wikipedias do. Finally, all of the various Wikipedias set most of their policies and guidelines independently, aside from legal and WMF-mission-related requirements mandated by WP:OFFICE.

Individual merit

[edit]

What about other content?

[edit]
Shortcuts
See also: Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists

Examples:

On Wikipedia, anyone can create or contribute to articles. This means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether similar content exists on another page. While consistency with other pages is not a good argument by itself, comparisons between pages are often made in order to illustrate a more substantial argument; as such, comparative statements should not be dismissed out of hand unless they lack any deeper reasoning. While relying on comparisons to other articles is generally unconvincing, articles that have been through some form of quality review—such as featured articles, good articles, or articles that have achieved a WikiProject A-class rating—are often the way they are for good reasons informed by site policy. If such articles have remained current with policy since their promotion, they are often more compelling examples to illustrate arguments.

When an editor introduces new information to Wikipedia, it may be necessary to consider whether it complies with core policies like neutral point of view and no original research. Dismissing such concerns by pointing to this essay is inappropriate.

Horse trading

[edit]
Shortcut

Examples:

Meta-reasoning

[edit]

Wikipedia should be about everything

[edit]

Examples:

Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, it should convey information on all branches of knowledge. However, "all branches of knowledge" does not necessarily mean "everything". Wikipedia is specifically not an indiscriminate collection of information, which means there are standards for what constitutes information that should be in Wikipedia. Imagine how large an encyclopedia on everything would be: everything would include every idea that has existed or will exist, every person who ever lived, every organization that has existed or exists, every copy of an object that has existed or exists, every website that has existed or exists, etc. The most basic threshold of inclusion is verifiability, not truth. The verifiability requirement alone would prevent writing about every particle and limit the information that could be included on every person. Moreover, the community has decided not to document every verifiable fact and accordingly has established guidelines on what content should be kept, and a due weight policy on what facts are minority views. Even though that guideline is broader than a paper encyclopedia's guidelines, it is also not "everything". So think carefully and exercise judgement when determining what should be included in an encyclopedia.

That's only a guideline, proposal or essay

[edit]
Shortcut
Main page: Wikipedia:The value of essays
See also: Wikipedia:Quote your own essay

Examples:

Wikipedia is not a system of laws. Discussions are not votes, and we encourage people to put forward their opinions. Sometimes, they will find an existing project page which sums up their reasoning already, and rather than reinventing the wheel they will link to it (with a suitable explanation of why it applies). If someone links to an essay, proposal or guideline, they are not suggesting "WP:EXAMPLE says we should do this", but rather "I believe we should do this, WP:EXAMPLE explains the reasons why".

Essays, in general, serve to summarize a position, opinion or argument. Proposals, in addition to their primary function, also summarize positions, opinions and arguments. Frequently, this is done with reference to policies and guidelines, so to glibly brand them as "only an essay" or "only a proposal" may be misleading. It also essentially suggests that the opinion of the person citing the page (as well as those of the people who originally wrote the page) is invalid when it may not be. There are many reasons why some arguments presented in discussions are invalid, based around the substance of the argument or the logic employed in reaching it. "The page you linked to is an essay or proposal" is not one of them.

Guidelines do indeed have exceptions; however, it is unhelpful to suggest "WP:EXAMPLE is only a guideline, we do not have to follow it". We have policies which tell us what to do and why to do it, and guidelines to help us with how to do it. Rather than using a page's "guideline" designation as an excuse to make an exception, suggest reasons why an exception should be made.

About the person

[edit]

Shortcut

Ad hominem

[edit]

Examples:

A content discussion is about the content in question itself. Though the suitability of related content may be mentioned during the discussion, and some discussions are bundled together, the debate is not about the author or any other editors of the article. Content is to be judged on its own merits and not those of its editors or detractors. Even well-respected editors sometimes make edits that others feel should be reverted, and likewise, newbies and those who have created lots of poor content still have the potential to contribute good content in the future.

There is no shame in having one's good-faith efforts opposed by the majority. Wikipedia is not a club of winners and losers. If a user is disrupting the encyclopedia by continually adding information that gets deleted or removing good content from articles, an investigation may be called for into their behavior; this is an independent issue and its result one way or the other should not influence content discussions. Remember, when you comment, personal attacks and accusations of bad faith never help.

Edits by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block may be reverted entirely. This criterion does not apply to edits made before the ban or block, or to pages of topics unrelated to the topic of the ban (unless it is a complete site ban).

Page ownership

[edit]

Examples:

On Wikipedia, pages are not owned, even if created by that user. Once created, it is open for anyone to edit, and once substantially edited by another user, cannot even be deleted at the request of the creator.

Reputation

[edit]

Wikipedia is not advertising space. Content about notable commercial enterprises are permitted, but must be written with a neutral point of view, and are here only to describe the company, and not to promote or disparage it.

Even an article about oneself is not owned by that person. Other editors are permitted to add and modify sourced information within Wikipedia's guidelines. Even if the article says something negative about someone, if it comes from a reliable source, it is perfectly acceptable there (see An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing). Most likely if this happened, the negative information was in the news already, so the public already knows. Importantly, all such content must still meet the strict policies found in WP:Biographies of living persons.

See also

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_on_discussion_pages&oldid=1256800130"