Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize 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.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Obvious?

I'm not sure whether this essay just states the obvious or tries to question WP:ENC in an elaborate way.

What's obvious is that edits in Wikipedia are made not only to articles; as such the leading phrase "There's no problem with doing things on Wikipedia that aren't immediately about the articles." brings forth nothing new.

What's puzzling is the "Not everyone can write articles" section. To me, all activities mentioned there are related to writing articles and building an encyclopedia:

"some are good with template code" - good, pretty articles require pretty templates
"some with images" - an image in an article says a thousand words
"some with finding references/typos" - that's direct article editing (not "writing" per se but still direct)
"some are good with bots" - tell me all about it, whether they edit articles directly or support what's behind the curtains, they help build an encyclopedia

Is your point that all activities on Wikipedia should directly or indirectly support the creation of a free encyclopedia? In that case we are in full agreement, but the essay's title is very misleading. Миша 13 11:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each time you shout out "go edit an encyclopedia kplzthx" you are missing the point. If you can't work with the community, then you can't work with the encyclopedia. Many people have an issue with this - trying to sweep it under the rug by saying "it's improving the encyclopedia" is not helpful. This is my response to that argument. Trying to stop legitimate discussions about your illegitimate bots by trying to tell people to go back to the encyclopedia is ridiculous. Majorly ^talk 12:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The writing articles section is about... writing the text. Not cleaning it up, or polishing someone elses work. It's about doing it yourself. Some people are good at doing the prose, others the gnome work. Majorly ^talk 12:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're well-aware that it's not "just another facebook"-type community. It's one that's focused on writing an encyclopedia. In fact, this is why WP:IAR was invented - if it is improving the encyclopedia then that's it - do it.

Regarding the parts of your answer where you attack my actions, your suggestion that I don't work with the community is ridiculous. I didn't invent the jobs my bots are doing on my own. The necessity comes exactly from my interaction with and careful observation of the community - be it people in CVN channels or the image deletion process.

And I'm not sweeping any real issues under the rug. If you have an actual concern with my actions, why don't you come directly to my talk page? If it's a real issue, we'll deal with this, so it doesn't happen again (and I've done it in the past). But if you come and tell me to fill in form FX-133/A with attachment IP6/67.8/a so that I'm in compliance with regulation YQ-67(c) then in my heart I want to reply "GT-F/O". I hope you understand my view. Миша 13 17:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How difficult is it to file an admin request for it? You (BAG) demand other bots go through a process to get them approved. Why are you special? Exaggerating what is a simple issue here isn't helpful. Majorly ^talk 17:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is tangential to the subject of the essay, but perhaps you could file it? Since you're the one who cares more about regulations and process being satisfied. I'm in no way special - it's just that my bots were approved once and I'm not willing to go through yet another approval process. Also, I am not a member of BAG as you seem to think - in fact, I don't even recognize BAG (as a whole and at this point) as a body competent for adminbot assessment. Миша 13 18:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where/when were your bots approved? Majorly ^talk 18:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long time ago, through a process I described as "alternative approach" on WP:BOT (in lack of any other reasonable process). Over the two years, the community was made aware of their existence on several occasions and once they learned the details, they gave a nod of approval, if not applauded their work. Details regarding the image deletion bot I could prolly dig up in archives of image copyright discussions (a very extensive thread that started with the title "why bother uploading images if a bot's going to delete them?") unless it was VP, in which case it's "lost" in page history; the username and pagemove blocking bots were discussed mainly on IRC, but it did occasionally appear on AN/I or my talk page, where it usually ends up along the lines of "oh, but it seems to be working fine, so ok, move along". I know that the issue with DennisGay (talk · contribs) hurts you for some reason, but note that I have admitted my mistake immediately and removed the fatal regex from the bot's rules.

I admit I've been evasive in the first months (those were different times) but have since become open to constructive criticism (though procedural wonking goes out of the window). Also, I really have no hidden agenda to destroy Wikipedia, if you could assume that for a second, please? Миша 13 19:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So your bots weren't approved properly. However, this is off topic for this page. I really don't understand your issue with requesting rights legitimately. If your bots work so well, you'll pass them through the relevant process with no issues whatsoever. Majorly ^talk 19:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already have the rights and gotten them legitimately, thank you. The approval process was proper as well (given the circumstances; read: an absurd requirement to go through an RfA - this is where IAR played its role and provided an alternative). Finally, before I even consider re-approving my bots retroactively, I'd like to see this process in action on new proposals (call it a dry run of the policy itself, which by the way leaves a lot of details unsaid and open to creative interpretation - it's simply not ready yet to be applied). Миша 13 19:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware you have admin rights. However, you were voted in, not your bot. Majorly ^talk 19:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was decided whether I could use the admin tools responsbily. So I'm guilty of understanding the word "use" too broadly and I'm afraid we'll remain in disagreement on this. I once tried to explain to someone that, while the policy says about giving adminship to an account, we are in fact granting it to a person (how else could admins return under a different account and get the tools back with a *snap*?) but they refused to listen (simply because "the policy says otherwise", as if the policies were set in stone). Миша 13 19:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original "puzzlement" above in this Obvious section seems to have not been fully answered. So, despite the time lag, and because I feel it's an important ongoing issue (and perhaps because it fits my situation!), I'm back to one indent level.

I feel that saying "Not everyone can write articles" is making a very helpful distinction between the initial creation of good, useful content, which some people can do brilliantly, and the subsequent tasks of editing, enhancing and maintaining that content, which other people may be much better at. It's about the differences between writing and editing. Majorly touches on this in his comment above that "some people are good at doing the prose". This does not negate the WP principle that "everyone is an editor", but it acknowledges, even celebrates, individual differences. The aim of the section is to encourage people who feel able to do some of the follow-up work to do so, boldly of course, even though perhaps they don't feel as able to write original content. Such follow-up work is just as valuable to WP and its readers as the initial creative writing. Bricaniwi (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

vandalized = vandalised

It can be spelled both ways:o).(olive (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia== - uptodate coverage of news stories

I would not like to edit a page which seems to be the views of a few Wikipedia administrators, but I wonder whether there should be something here about how Wikipedia has helped to transcend the boundaries between newspapers and encyclopaedias? We are not quite Wikinews, but probably more so than in most encyclopaedias (including online ones),one can find coverage of stories in the news here. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone can edit articles

Can I suggest that, in addition to the excellent "Not everyone can write articles" section, there should also be a "Not everyone can edit articles" section too.

Wikipedia is nerd/geek heaven, but for the vast majority of people, the sight of a plain-text edit box, mark-up tags and templates is extremely off-putting.(^{yes, I know, citation required!}) Even if they are highly motivated to contribute and think they might have a go anyway, most people with enough knowledge of their field to write WP-standard content would then probably have a look at the Help for some tips ... (you see where I'm going with this, eh). The level of motivation (and time) required to get started, let alone keep going, is beyond most people.

What I think is needed is, first, an acknowledgement that some potentially excellent contributors to WP need to be seriously encouraged to write for WP even if they cannot or will not use the existing WP input methods, and second, processes to encourage and assist them to contribute. They need to be presented with a very clear path that invites them in and allows them to write content in the environment and format they are comfortable with and with the tools they know, and then pass that content to other WP editors to convert to WP format.

I have not seen any reference in WP to such a concept, but if any work has been done on it I would appreciate a pointer, thanks. Bricaniwi (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding out-dated time-dependent wording

I know this article is not the place for content guidelines, but as the issue of being up-to-date has been alluded to on this Talk page, can anyone please point me to guidance on how articles can be written or edited to ensure the wording of articles remains current? What is the policy or procedure for time-dependent or time-relative wording for information about events that are in the future at the time of writing? For example, in Waterboarding:

"The OPR is set to conclude its investigation in June 2009 and reportedly will recommend professional sanctions, if not criminal prosecution, against the authors of the memos."

I feel such forward-looking content is often very helpful to understand context at the time it is written, but annoying when the "predicted" date has long passed.

Should the original editors who write such content be responsible for diarying themselves to update the article when the appointed date arrives?

Thanks, Bricaniwi (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rework to make an impact

I think this essay matters, because many readers (and indeed editors) perceive Wikipedia as the free encylopedia (rather than the project to create a free encyclopedia) and the blurring of this distinction results in many confusions and misunderstandings. If any editors want to help sharpen up this essay, please comment here. Geometry guy 23:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]