Wikipedia:Why Santa is important
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Santa Claus is not real, and it is not Wikipedia's job to censor this fact from children. |
Why telling the truth about Santa is important
In 2007, David Shankbone expanded the Santa Claus article with a well-sourced, international criticism section. He was one of the main editors who argued for telling the truth about Santa's mythical nature, and per the lead guideline, he also outlined the major controversies. These actions made him unpopular with a few editors. But it is important to Wikipedia to not support people who want to hide Santa’s mythical nature, or try to make it appear he is real (originally editors were proposing a Santa Claus page for kids saying he is real).
- Wikipedia is not censored, including for children. This policy allows for the free exchange of information, and for truth about Santa Claus to be presented.
- One must always present the truth as best one can. Although "truth" is a tricky concept, it is not when it comes to Santa Claus. Besides the fact that the myth is traceable, and every adult is told at some point that it has always been their parents who have purchased the gifts found under the tree. All known laws of physics make it impossible; elves don't exist, etc.
- It hurts one's credibility to do anything but tell the unadulterated, unabashed truth as best they can. Many Wikipedia editors have spent countless hours and a good deal of money on this "hobby" to build an encyclopedia people trust enough to use. Anything that hurts the work they have put into it—such as supporting a falsehood—hurts the work all editors have put into the Wikipedia project.
- Wikipedia should never knowingly represent falsehoods as truthful.
- While many people believe that God orchestrated the process of the Big Bang and evolution, some people believe the Earth is flat, or that it is only 6,000 years old. Some people feel that God created the Earth in only six 24-hour days and interpret the days in the Genesis creation narrative as literal 24-hour days as opposed to longer periods of time. These people are adults, and take this particular interpretation of the Bible as literal truth. The overwhelming scientific evidence contradicts them, and there is no evidence except for belief in this particular interpretation of the Bible that these things are true. Those people are welcome to edit on Wikipedia, but if they want this interpretation featured prominently in the Earth article, they should join their fellows at Conservapedia, where belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis is all it takes.
- Some people also believe humanity has never been to the moon. Some people also believe Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster. Some people believe Jesus never existed. Some people believe the Holocaust never happened (and even offer "proof").
- To tell falsehoods about Santa (e.g., to falsely claim that Santa is a currently living magical being) violates the core policy Wikipedia:Verifiability; to fail to tell the truth (e.g., to omit the fact that Santa is not a currently living person) violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. To not discuss the controversies over Santa Claus at the top of the article violates WP:LEAD. To offer "scientific" proofs for Santa Claus (e.g., to state that radar and other scientific technologies can be used to track his location by organizations such as NORAD) violates WP:FRINGE.
- If one is going to edit on Wikipedia, one should form principles and stick to them. Many of the people who were "Supporting Santa" were unprincipled in their "defense" of this fiction, no matter their reasoning. However, many of those same people would likely have problems if the items in No. 5 and No. 6 were ever being represented as factual on Wikipedia. When one does not apply principles evenly, they hurt their own credibility and Wikipedia. No matter the season.
In the spring of 2019, an RfC regarding the lead section of the Santa Claus article was held on whether the lead section should be "agnostic" about the existence of Santa Claus. The end result was that editors agreed that the lead section of the article should make it clear that Santa Claus does not exist, in line with policies such as WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV. The consensus formed by the editors further reinforces that Wikipedia is not a website where stories universally accepted as imaginary are to be given a chance to come true.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!