Wikipedia:Words of wisdom

This is a collection of pages that were meant to be policy, but were too narrow, unpopular, or redundant to actually succeed.

The universe does not revolve around you

Wikipedia is not a forum or a soapbox. Editors should remember that their egos are not on the line while they are here at Wikipedia. Please remember that the majority of the editors are human and are prone to mistakes, errors, flared up emotions and stress. Editors should remember that the goal is encyclopedic information and should attempt to set aside their egos while they are here at Wikipedia.

While editors' points of view are certainly welcomed, please remember that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy with regards to writing articles. To that effect, editors should work with other editors despite their conflicting egos and points of view. Through collaboration and presentation of either a neutral point of view or all points of view article, Wikipedia helps to illustrate good information.

By remembering that the universe does not revolve around you, editors avoid disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

See also

• m:MPOV

On Wikipedia and the cabal

A common complaint in online communities is that there are groups of users (usually longtime senior members of the community) who have all the power, make all the decisions, police the behavior of everyone else, and disclaim any responsibility for such actions -- i.e. a cabal. See There is no cabal for further discussion of this concept (and the history of the acronym TINC).

Depending on how you look at it, one could say that the claim "there's a cabal!" is completely wrong, completely right, or in some gray area.

There is no cabal

FNORD!

Because of Wikipedia's fundamental commitment to openness, there really is no cabal. Or at least there shouldn't be!

There is a cabal

As Wikipedia grows, its governance mechanisms become more complex, hierarchies of powers (admin,bureaucrat,sysop, etc.) are established, and closed decision-making structures like invite-only IRC channels and mailing lists are used, human nature lends itself to cabal-like actions. Thus, there is a cabal.

There is a cabal if you want there to be one

"When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you." —khaosworks.

However, it is also human nature to call groups that are a little too cohesive and prominent for one's taste a faction or an oligarchy. or you could consider the possibility that they're only human, and have a tendency to stick together when confronted with hostility towards all of them.

It's much more productive to refute the arguments of the majority than implying they are wrong because it is the majority, or implying you are being repressed because it doesn't agree with you. If you attack people who oppose you as if they were a collective with an agenda against you, then whether they were or not, they will certainly become one.