Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Five pillars

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.163.108.192 (talk) at 02:32, 12 January 2013 (→Accessibility and equality: reply to Trovatore). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconWikipedia essays Top‑impact
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis page has been rated as Top-impact on the project's impact scale.
Note icon
The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Disseminating information

There has been a discussion t User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 111#More pillars which discussed performance aspects. I think there is a wider problem of the pillars only concentrating on producing an encyclopedia and that there is no mission statement about what the purpose is, in particular that the purpose is to produce educational material and to disseminate the information effectively and globally.as stated in meta:mission. This would put a greater emphasis on readability from all sorts of devices and on making the material easier easier to get into for people new to a subject. Dmcq (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That might be out of scope for this particular essay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that the question in the first place? As far as I can see the purpose of this page is to act as a short summary of the principles under which Wikipedia operates so new editors can start on the right track. Do you think that the purpose of Wikipedia should be something new editors have to search for rather than have presented to them up front? What is more of a principle than what it is all in aid of? Dmcq (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about as an introductory paragraph:

The aim of Wikipedia is to create educational content in the form of a free and reliable encyclopaedia which can be effectively disseminated globally. The fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates are summarized in the form of five "pillars":

Dmcq (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 'effectively disseminated globally' comes straight from the meta mission but I think the language is rather cludgy. The essential idea is that we're not here just to collect up and write stuff up but that it has be be put in a form people can read and digest easily on the internet. Anyone goy a better way of saying that? Dmcq (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "disseminate it effectively and globally" text is the mission of the WMF and is not the mission of Wikipedia—WMF disseminates material generated by Wikipedia and other projects. I agree that, if it were possible without undue distraction, a very brief mission statement with one link might be helpful, but I can't see how that could be achieved. The three links in the proposed text do not lead to useful places, and that dilutes the value of 5P because if a new editor starts by reading those linked pages they are going to get tired or distracted before reaching the meat of 5P. I also agree that keeping an eye on what helps material be disseminated would be desirable, but there's not much value here in a generic statement that doesn't give guidance. Until there is a policy or guideline saying how an editor could assist disseminate information effectively and globally, I don't see a reason to mention it here. Johnuniq (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you think Wikipedia is in aid of? Do you even agree with WP:PAPER and if so why if the aim is simply to produce an encyclopaedia without bothering about the aims of the foundation supporting the project? Personally I see no point in producing an encyclopaedia without it being designed to be read and to inform. I had a look around for stuff supportive of making the contents readable and only came up with that plus WP:SIZE, WP:TECHNICAL and WP:ACCESSIBILITY, plus WP:MOSINTRO has a nod towards that. It seems to me too often editors are writing for themselves or other editors and what I've seen of WP:FAC seems more aimed at paper articles rather than the web and they seem to find summary style for instance very hard to do properly. Dmcq (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PAPER is of course correct, but is also widely abused to claim that junk articles don't matter and should be kept because someone will find them interesting or amusing. Finding the balance between delete/include is difficult, and is outside the scope of 5P. My concern is that 5P has useful guidance and anything added should also include useful guidance, and I just don't see how to do that. I can see the point of suggesting that a summary style would be helpful in some places, but everything at 5P is very solidly supported by community consensus, whereas I'm not sure there would be such support for text that might encourage editors to put every fact into an infobox, or to cut into featured articles with summaries. I'll probably leave this for now so others can comment without my clutter. Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about whether Wikipedia should aim to be readable and to inform rather than just be crammed with facts. Please note the concentration here on readers, not on setting up more articles. Dmcq (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page is a summary for brand-new people. I don't think that they're going to care so much in the beginning about the formal mission statement or the challenges of multi-platform global dissemination. I think they're going to care more about the basics, like whether they should be working with other people or defending "their" article against all comers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think the problem is well illustrated by the problems with article size. Many editors think of the article size guidelines as a limit to the size of their articles and an impediment to cramming more information in. The question I believe should be how to present the information best so it can be read easily and people are informed by it. That is where the Wikimedia mission comes in, we should be producing stuff suitable for the foundations mission. You are right that it isn't our job to provide the servers but we are failing badly if what we actually produce is unfit for the purpose of informing readers.
You may not think talking about why articles are being written is important but it is. A simple one sentence pointer can make all the difference. The main thing they are asked to do at the moment is produce a free reliable encyclopaedia - and they are succeeding at that. What they are not asked to do is make it readable and informative or to cater for readers in any way at all. There is no mention of anything at all to do with reader requirements in the 5P. The attitude seems to be that information is collected and it is free and they don't even think of beyond that.
Just cramming information into Wikipedia is not good enough. I know there are other important things like performance that should not be mentioned because they would impact badly on the main aims, but having the stuff be read and having it inform people is something that editors should be aware of. What they are producing at the moment is warehouses without loading bays rather than department stores with good shop windows. Dmcq (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping in to say that the mission statement is critical to these 5P's, I would like to see the mission addressed in the intro paragraph. As far as extending "dissemination" to include other notable technology channels, I agree this is within the scope of "dissemination"; however I don't believe this is the page to push the details on that important issue until it has been reasonably addressed elsewhere. Attempts to help with "purpose" resulted in Purpose_(disambiguation). It would be great if there were unity of purpose on wikipedia. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point of view

This doesn't make sense [1]. Please explain, who means "major" here? The WP:NPOV policy says "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WEIGHT. Also note the 'significant' in what you quoted. What do you think significant means? Dmcq (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. Expressly from WP:RS it means "all majority and significant minority views". Applying "major" in the principle would seem to exclude the significant minority views. That's why the principle should say "reliably sourced"; maybe with a link, because, the WP:RS guidance is fine. WP:Weight could be better addressed in the principle too. It's reasonable to conclude that the balance of an article will cover the major views; however, significant minority views are to be covered too. Wouldn't be good to lead the 5P readers astray on these important issues with "major". Probably best to get them onto reliable sources early in their editing. This means, applying something with authority to the NPOV balance. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On first thought, I would be most comfortable with the word 'significant' in that location, since using 'majority' seems to discount substantive 'minority' viewpoints that would still be appropriate here, and 'reliable' seems to bring too much credit to fringe theories, which may meet normal standards of reliability but still not be appropriate. Note that 'significant' is how the issue is characterized in the lead of Wikipedia:Fringe theories. NTox · talk 21:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with significant. A notable fringe theory can have some minor significance. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. NTox · talk 22:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A recent change (correctly reverted) was "We strive for articles that document and explain the major reliably sourced points of view". Lots of nonsense can be "reliably" sourced yet is correctly excluded by considerations like WP:ONEWAY. The word "major" does not mean "what most people think" (as in "majority"), but 5P cannot explain all the subtleties. In any case, 5P does not define procedures—people are going to have to study the linked policies if they want the details. The word "significant" is not helpful here because the fact that an astonishingly large percentage of Americans claim to believe in creationism is significant—creationism is a significant point of view. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think significant would be the wrong word to use here as it is too open to misinterpretation. The policy with it in has lots more words in it to explain but 5P needs to be something people can read without reading the referenced policies and guidelines. Major does not cover the whole truth but saying the major points of view are covered does not imply that only the major points of view are covered - it simply says that we don't just cover the one main point of view. There's no need to read things into sentences, that sort of approach would drag th whole contents of the policies and guidelines here. Dmcq (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can the two of you elaborate on your arguments? I'll be honest and simply say that I don't understand what either of you are saying. I have understood the part about how the 5P should not be concerned with minutia (which I agree with), but what exactly do you believe is problematic with using 'significant' as a broad term, and why is it worse than 'major' or 'majority'? NTox · talk 01:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is significant take be taken in a personal way whereas major is normally not personal. A person can think something is significant even if only a tiny minority have discussed it. That pillar is all about a non personal neutral point of view so I think it is best to avoid something so liable to misinterpretation that way. Dmcq (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. That makes more sense — and there is a part of me that can sympathize with that reasoning. I suppose it does depend on how one understands the meaning of these terms, and it would be rational to identify the meaning that a general readership is likely to bring to the statement. i.e., to me, 'significant' usually makes me think 'large' or 'many', but I understand that to others it would mean 'important' or 'valuable'. NTox · talk 17:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant" makes sense; because, that what the sourced Wikipedia policies and guidelines say. This way, we don't have to take into consideration personal views on what it means, there is of plenty of context to link for its proper interpretation. Ironically, saying major does not mean majority or significant is a personal view, are really kind of fringe concepts. Major does not cover the whole truth. Signifcant has important and express meaning here, if also statistically not by chance, and is most relevant to the Wikipedia governance context. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, consistency is important. If 'significant' is in fact used to describe this concept across the English Wikipedia, we can in all likelihood assume that it has some kind of semantic consensus. And it still remains my personal favorite. Where else besides Wikipedia:Fringe theories is 'significant' used? (I haven't looked). NTox · talk 00:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The pillars are not a policy or guideline, they are a summary of principles but more importantly they are a basic background beginners should know when starting to edit Wikipedia, they should not need to read policies and guidelines and learn about Wiki versions of things like verifiabilty not truth or what is meant here by original research unless people start complaining about what they have written. Dmcq (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as I'm concerned, when you're dealing with a page that is explicitly designed to summarize an almost universal consensus, efforts should be made to make it consistent with the meanings that are expressed in policies and guidelines. This may indeed be an 'essay', but it is much more functional than that — in one sense, its purpose is to describe the spirit that underpins all of our policies and guidelines. The interconnection in both intent and actual community usage is so strong that we should try to use consistent language. NTox · talk 01:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Along with beginners, experienced editors will benefit from the word "significant" too; because, they both may learn to be inclusive and agreeable where reliable sources beg for notable content. There is always a need to generously improve the content with significant views from the sources. Whereas almost be definition, "major" excludes the minor ... a bad lesson for all involved with setting up dichotomies which may inflame fighting. "Significant" gives praise to importance, weight and magnitude, without making an exclusive division. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have to consider what it is aimed at and most useful for. It is not for you or me to learn much from. It is a general statement of principles so new people can get up to steam quickly without getting mired in wikispeak bureaucracy. We need to generally agree with the sentiments but we don't have to make it consistent with wikipedia policy jargon. Dmcq (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are some areas in which I would disagree with you, even though I understand your reasons. I don't personally see the five pillars as something aimed or useful only for newcomers. Most of our newcomers who write content after all are IP editors who come, go, and never take a look at project space. In fact, the entire manner in which I found this discussion was because I was reading this page as I often do to keep what's important in focus. Obviously, I know the stuff, but it is important to be reminded. In any case, I don't really believe that the terms we're discussing here really have such specific definitions to run the risk of jargon. We're merely talking about a general meaning of a common word, 'significant'. NTox · talk 19:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what does the fact that many IPs don't read any introduction at all before editing have to do with anything? I didn't say solely for newcomers, but that many newcomers don't read anything is irrelevant, and one needs to weigh how important to good editing is having somebody like you who is well versed in the policies looking at it compared to having a new editor reading it and having a reasonable understanding. Dmcq (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify: in no way am I suggesting that we should focus less on making this page understandable to newcomers. Catering to them is certainly an admirable (and necessary) goal, and on that count I think you have a great point. What I mean is that I think newcomers - who usually edit under IPs - read this page less often than many of us think. (I wish I had hard numbers!) Thus, the fact that they do not often read this stuff is relevant because it means that a huge percentage of the 5P's readership is experienced editors. Therefore, we should also work hard to cater this page to them, as we do for newcomers. As said, I think every one of us, no matter experience, have a need to learn from this page (including myself, of course!). In effect, the idea is to cater this page to both, and thus why terminology/meaning as we know it elsewhere in project space is important here. NTox · talk 22:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've considered what this page is aimed for, as well as this talk section. Now the beginner and experienced editor issues are off track; because, like Wikipedia, this page is to benefit all significant readers, not only the minor beginner and the major experienced editor. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as the most difficult guideline to interpret and enforce.
This is because it seeks to operate on assumptions that might not actually be workable.
1. Neutral viewpoint. Does such a thing actually exist? If you have just one viewpoint, how can it be neutral? You can't see enough from just one viewpoint to understand a subject well. The alternative to the fabled "neutral viewpoint" is the concept of multiple viewpoints. In other words, we can suppose that if you look at a subject from enough different, defined viewpoints, an overall improved understanding of that subject could result. I have never read an encyclopedia with a "neutral viewpoint" and this is also true of this encyclopedia. I think it would be more workable to go in the direction of defining viewpoints and connecting data with various defined viewpoints.
2. Reliable sources. Recent work in different ways of gaining access to information (observation and analysis of objects, observation and analysis of processes, documentation and other artifacts, human memory, remote viewing) has turned this whole subject into a can of worms.
We have seen presumably "reliable sources" (peer-reviewed published research) being fudged for financial gain (pharmaceutical studies), which opens up the whole question of how long this has been going on and how widespread it really is. We have to find a definition for "reliable" that is not based simply on "authoritative." The answer seems to rely on assessing the workability of the information. However, this may take time to assess. That leaves almost any very current information somewhat suspect, regardless of the "reliability" of its source.
As mirrored by what subatomic physics is currently going through, our assumptions are being challenged by the realization that all is not as it appears to be. And in particular, that human intention seems to play a larger role in the creation of information (even "scientific" observation) than previously imagined. The only way out of this, it seems to me, is to bring human intention into the process, rather than trying to enforce "neutrality" or "objectivity" in a world where these, increasingly, seem to be unachievable. L e cox (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read these statements as containing jargon. It's not "neutral" and "reliable"; it's "wikineutral" and "wikireliable". A wikineutral article presents all significant (and no insignificant) points of view, in due proportion to each view's prominence in wikireliable sources. Whether this involves multiple points of view depends on the subject: Addition and Subtraction probably only get one point of view, Norway-Sweden relations probably gets two, and United States presidential election, 2012 might get half a dozen. We also require that each point of view be presented in due proportion, so that a mainstream viewpoint is accurately presented as being the mainstream viewpoint and that a minority viewpoint is presented as a minority viewpoint. That's what we mean by saying something is "neutral". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some

I think it is more accurate to say that FIVE covers "some of" Wikipedia's fundamental principles. It doesn't necessarily include every fundamental principle. For example, the principle of global dissemination isn't highlighted here, as Dmcq pointed out above. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with you on that one. The five pillars certainly aren't the only principles we can imagine for the English Wikipedia - merely one particular group that has some agreement for describing the heart of things fairly well. An alternative set of pillars could be just as useful, so to say that these are 'the' principles would be a bit misleading. NTox · talk 06:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Introducing "some of" is an attempt to downplay the significance of 5P—previous attempts were in March and May. In some sense, there is no reality, and my rules are just as good as your rules. Pragmatically however, the community has found that the procedures summarized at 5P work well, and are "fundamental" for normal operation. The word "some" implies that there are other fundamental principles which have arbitrarily been omitted from 5P due to lack of space. I do not agree with that assessment—if there is another fundamental principle which is as important as the five listed here, let's add it, and call this the six pillars. The principle of global dissemination is important (and is fundamental for the WMF), but there did not seem to be much enthusiasm for adding it in the discussions above; also, aspirational goals without how-to guidance are unhelpful here. Is anything fundamental missing from 5P? If not, the "some of" should be removed as it conveys a false impression that this page is just an arbitrary collection of links. Johnuniq (talk) 08:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Some of" is vague and non-specific, which begs the question where are the other fundamental principles, per Wikipedia:Weasel_words#Expressions_that_lack_precision, I can't support. If there are other fundamental principles, let's work them in here. "Dissemination" is in the purpose/mission, which should be addressed in this article. The purpose/mission is primal which these fundamental principles should fully support. I suppose derived principles, should be eleswhere, if not linked here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. I'll remove the some again as if one wants to establish they are not the fundfamental principles one should say what other principle is fundamental here first and then establish a consensus that it is fundamental as opposed to what has been said for ages. Dmcq (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, I don't have an incredibly strong opinion on the matter, but in the interest of consensus, I would be one to vote against the truth of the claim that these are the principles, because when I read that, I get the impression that all other principles are excluded. Now, one would be able to suggest all day that other principles are indeed not excluded because they exist inside the 5P or somesuch, but IMHO the effort to objectify these five particular concepts as the truth just seems to shut out alternative viewpoints, like [2] [3] [4] [5]. Compare this to how we write in article space, in which we do not write an assertion in Wikipedia's voice if it has been sufficiently disputed by other sources. While such less formally applies to project space, I offer my disputation in this post. In sum: I agree with the sentiments of the 5P generally but I do not agree that they are the pillars, for the above reasons. I am however prepared to be in the minority on this if necessary. NTox · talk 18:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say they are the principles. It says they are the fundamental principles. I suppose one could say instead the most inportant principles or something like that but just saying some is quite obviously wrong and not a consensus view as far as I can see. Wikipedia is self governing so Jimbo and the foundation don't matter as far as this is concerned, just the consensus here and the principles one is just a big list with no special status. The only other one like this there is the simplified ruleset which reference 5P. One you've missed which has some support is WP:Trifecta but I don't think "don't be a dick" has quite the same support nowadays as it used to have.
The one essay I really would like an idea from here is WP:Purpose. I think there should be a sentence about the background and aim in the first line, Wikipedia isn't there just to accumulate a free factbook but is also a project of the Wikimedia foundation which has a mission to develop educational content and disseminate it effectively. We support the first bit of content but it is not anywhere near as educational or suitable for effective dissemination as it should be because readability has a low profile in the principles. As far as I know WP:NOTPAPER is the only mention of anything like readability in any of the policies. but people only look at the first paragraph there. So I can't say we have a principle that the content should be readable but I certainly can't think of any pinciple that has been missed out that is as important as that. Dmcq (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It could say significant principles. (smile) I take fundamental as the ones that should be adhered too first, as by consensus in this article. Just because it may be fundamental principle, should not mean it was created first in time, it's the significant ones. Really, all these are policies and guidance by now. This article makes a cute summary, strings them together in a common group, and calls them < something > principles for summary effect. Look, this summary Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines has 19 categories but it's not so cuddly and colorfull. That list, includes what I would call "standards"; however, not yet adopted as a governance term in Wikipedia. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there are some fundamental, important principles that are not included on this page. The fundamental principle that what you write is being distributed at no charge to the reader isn't mentioned. Half of Jimbo Wales' Statement of Principles (he names eight, not five) is not mentioned. The importance of accessibility to people with disabilities or limited internet access is not mentioned. The fundamental principle, so fundamental that it is sometimes called "rule zero", of WP:Use common sense isn't mentioned. There are a lot of fundamental principles that aren't mentioned, because they're not of immediate importance to the audience for this page, which is newbies. Newbies don't need to worry about how software changes are handled (a fundamental principle on Wales' list). They don't need to worry about how their writing interacts with screen readers. Merely being fundamental isn't sufficient to earn space on this page. It has to be fundamental and relevant to the principal audience. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Free is in the title of the third pillar, that means without charge. Jimbo's principles are his, not the communities. Accessibility can hardly be anywhere near being a fundamental principle when there is no relevant policy only a guideline. Use common sense is handled under the last pillar. As to accessibility it is one thing which would be more relevant if we could have a principle that producing something generally easy to read was an aim rather than just stuffing the encyclopaedia fill of facts. I was however just hoping for the moment to put that as an aim of the foundation rather than one that Wikipedia has embraced as like the accessibility I have no evidence there is such a consensus principle in Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Before adding a new point, I think we need to be able to say something meaningful about it (meaningful to the intended audience of this page, as WhatamIdoing explained)—when editing an article, what should the editor do? If we can't provide a good answer to that, there is no benefit from noting the point here. BTW, I suspect the third pillar is concerned with freedom as in liberty (Wikipedia does not attempt to control what re-users do with material), and the zero cost factor is a by-product of that. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John is correct: "Free" is in the third pillar, but that's libre, not gratis. The third pillar is about licensing, not about money. We have a firm principle that the WMF-hosted content will be supplied free-as-in-beer, without subscription, advertising or any other effort to monetize it, and that is not mentioned here.
IMO it doesn't need to be mentioned here, because this is principles-for-this-audience, not complete-list-of-all-principles. But it is proof that there are fundamental principles not included here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The basic reason for not having ads is to try and ensure a neutral point of view, it is not some great principle in itself. I agree with Johnuniq that we should say something meaningful to the intended audience which is newish editors wondering how they should go about things. Dmcq (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is quite correct in stating that if Jimbo has 8 and this essay has 5, there are things left out, and the reason is that this is intended as nothing more than a welcome page for newbies. Unfortunately as written in the lede this gives the impression that these are THE fundamental principles, and there are no others, and nothing higher. More and more we will see new editors proclaim some of the things we see "you cant change policy to xxxy because it violates the 5P" or "you cant make this edit because the 5P says yxyy". Well, since the 5P have no authority you cant legitimately make that argument to form a consensus on any edit or policy. For clarity's sake we need to encourage our newbies to read the actual policies, understand the exceptions to the rules (and not just IAR, there are actual exceptions, and slight differences on different types of edits depending on circumstances). We don't want the 5P to be the beginning and end of their learning, we want it to be a stepping stone. A better lede formula other than "The fundamental principles" must exist somewhere. Regardless of what "fundamental" truly means as a word, what people will read out of it is different.Camelbinky (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC) as an aside- the "current" wording is not the wording that has been said for "ages" and is only the wording snuck in every once in awhile till someone catches it and we have this discussion that either removes it or goes no-consensus, which for some reason "no consensus" lets the change stay. despite every thread where we all agree something better should be put in (but one or two obstructionists are allowed to block).[reply]
WP:Core content policies has a perfect disclaimer at the top, which I'm sure will be blocked by a minority of obstructionists on this page. But it is something that explains perfectly that "When in doubt go to the policy page" and encourages editors to READ more.Camelbinky (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't find that last comment anywhere near being a convincing argument. I did try having a look at seven random times over the last few years and the form seemed pretty definite to me. However if you can think of some wording beside just 'some' I'f certainly look at at it. Personally I'd be quite happy for people to just read 5P and not start becoming wikilawyers. Dmcq (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could use new, updated images

The images being used for the "Five Pillars" are not a pillars. They are capitals. This has always bothered me. Seriously. I would like to propose new images for discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have specific images in mind? (links?) Or want something created from scratch? (criteria?) Proposals are good, details are better! ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a change recently to use capitals that didn't have the colors. This was reverted because the anchors refer to the colors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New RfC about Categorization of persons

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Categorization of persons: "Should we categorize people according to genetic and cultural heritage, faith, or sexual orientation? If so, what are our criteria for deciding an identity?" Thank you, IZAK (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with the 5P? This kinda sounds like canvassing. This page is only for the 5P page and not for general policy decisions. We write the 5P based off what policy says, this shouldnt be the place for rounding up people to go to other discussions.Camelbinky (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove text that may promote irresponsibility

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result is to keep the text as it is per unanimous decision and lack of recent comments. Non-admin closure. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the fifth pillar it says:

"Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Prior versions of pages are saved, so any mistakes can be corrected."

Wikipedia is extremely popular and many readers place a high level of credence in what they have read. It is therefore irresponsible to have the text quoted above in our fundamental principles. It should be deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the text. I made mistakes when I was a new editor. I suspect that we all did. Alan's first mainspace edit was imperfect: he created an article, and marked that edit as "minor". Several of his early edits were imperfect, e.g., this. Why should we tell a person like Alan to worry about his mistakes? I don't believe that we were irresponsible to tell him that mistakes can be fixed, so don't worry too much about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the text. It could potentially be phrased more clearly, but we need items like this and WP:IAR and WP:PERFECT and WP:WIP to balance out the strong-immediatist perspective. Slow and steady wins the race (and allows imperfect parts the time needed to be groomed into greater quality).
    Note: There's a connected RfC at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy#Remove the section titled "Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required" —Quiddity (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per editor Quiddity the same reasons in my vote for the related RfC linked above. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am in the middle of my first major edit, and a couple of experienced editors are doing their best to scare me off by using bullying tactics. There needs to be a policy that protects novice editors from those editors who think they own certain articles/topics and who want to use the inexperience of others to control what readers may find on Wikipedia. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mistakes are how many editors learn; you shouldn't have to be an expert to edit. With the prevalence of watchlists any bad editing can be quickly corrected. Instaurare (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is indeed one of the most important principles of Wikipedia. Good faith mistakes by newcomers are perfectly acceptable; it's bad-faith vandalism and editors who have been around for a while but can't take a hint who we a have a problem with. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 03:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: though I share the sentiments of Alan Liefting, I regard the issue from another angle – the changes to the content should be encouraged. This wording would benefit from tuning: advise is not to make mistakes, but to avoid refraining from editing out of fear to make mistakes, and this should be made crystal clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czarkoff (talk • contribs) 11:16, 8 October 2012‎
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template

There is an RFC at Template talk:Policy list#rfc_32DAC56 about whether this page should be linked in that template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility and equality

I believe we should modify the third pillar (adding "read"), to "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can read, edit, use, modify, and distribute", and append to its description two sentences, along the lines of:

Readers and editors are welcome, regardless of ethnicity, creed, gender, age, sexuality or disability. Wikipedia's content and tools will aim to meet industry-standard web accessibility guidelines.

Or, alternatively, we should add an additional pillar to that effect. (I discounted making that change in the fourth pillar, because that is about editors, but not readers). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I have asked on the talk pages for Jimbo Wales and Sure Gardner, for support for this, from the board and WMF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A massive yes to this proposal. We should be setting the standard for accessible information. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm generally on board with accessibility. I'm not on board with this initiative. I wish I had more time to discuss it, but I'm up to my eyeballs in work. - Dank (push to talk) 17:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but no. The ability to read Wikipedia is outside of the scope of control of this project. We cannot require that all persons be given the education (or capability) to become literate. We cannot require that all persons have internet access. We cannot require that all persons be able to read English. We cannot require that all users with reading handicaps have access to the technology that may make the project accessible to them. While we can encourage countries to permit access to Wikipedia, we cannot require it. Adding and incorporating features that support the differently-abled is a positive and worthwhile effort. But we must not confuse that with the ability of anyone to read the project.

    We don't even have enough editors at this point to maintain the project in its current state; just the work of adding appropriate and useful alt text to the millions of images we currently have in the encyclopedia would take tens of thousands of editing-hours. I agree that features that make Wikipedia more accessible to the differently-abled are a definite positive, and these should be encouraged; but they are not a core value of the encyclopedia. Indeed, the Vector skin was intended to make Wikipedia more accessible; instead, it makes it less so for a lot of users because of its comparatively much slower loading time (many people experience "time-outs" when loading large articles) and the tiny-ness of its fonts which makes it difficult to read on smaller computer screens, or if one has less-than-perfect vision. I believe you are using a very "Western" concept of accessibilty when you are raising this issue. Risker (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    IMO, "We don't even have enough editors at this point to maintain the project in its current state;" is irrelevant, if true. (I don't have an opinion on whether it's true, or evidence either way.) Implementing accessibility is overwhelmingly software-related (skins, Javascript, and other user-interface components), not a matter of article content. I heartily approve of that addition to the 5 pillars. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sympathetic toward the principles at hand here, but to go along with what Risker said, I just don't think we can afford to make this a priority right now, so no. To consistently uphold such a pillar, we would also have to massively resurrect the spoken article project, and I frankly think that at the level of editorship we're at right now, recording nearly every article we have would be an inefficient use of our time (not to mention said articles would quickly become outdated anway due to the nature of a wiki). Against the current (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "we aim to meet accessibility guidelines" doesn't necessarily include recorded articles at all; it would be more straightforward/efficient (and not have the problem of becoming rapidly outdated, as you mentioned) to attempt to make Wikipedia play nicely with screenreaders. (Not to mention that there's other accessibility concerns that don't revolve around audio at all.) It seems to me that it's better to say, "We want everyone to be able to contribute, and we'll do what we can towards that end," rather than, "It would be inefficient to record every (or nearly every) article, so we shouldn't even state that we want to be accessible." Cheyinka (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree that our current limitations in resources justify rejecting this proposal. That this is a valuable objective is undeniable, and its presence in our "constitution" can inform the decisions we do make even if we cannot afford to make it a priority. This has my entire support, as stated, since it explicitly states what our aim should be (not create a burden we cannot hope to meet) even if we can only take baby steps towards it at this time. — Coren (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute 100% support. Wikipedia is about the reader and we should take every step we can to make sure that everything has the ability to be read. Ryan Vesey 19:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly we should aim to make Wikipedia as accessible as possible, but not everything that's good and useful needs to be mentioned in the Five Pillars as a "fundamental principle" of Wikipedia. So I'd rather not.  Sandstein  19:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No accessability is all well and good and all, but guaranteeing that everyone everywhere can read WP is well out of our scope, not to mention impossible (should we tack on 'world peace' and 'a chicken in every pot' while we're at it?) Even setting that aside, if we promise that everyone can read WP, it could be used to justify censorship and bowlderisation if some country threatens to block Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see accessibility encapsulated in "use", so I'm not sure that we need to call out accessibility specifically.

    Side note, the bulleting by the above users was horribly inaccessible. :) --Izno (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for fixing my comment. (Am I doing it right this time? Or better, anyway?) The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. (That said, you could have used either type [my edit was primarily for the spacing between bulleted items]; I just prefer the look of ":" myself when it is a reply to a previous comment and am vain enough to make that amendment when I'm doing something else of higher import.) The fact we use lists in general to indicate response is not particularly accessible, but it's what we have for now. --Izno (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support we should have a statement about accessibility right there to force examination of the issue at the developer level. There is no justification for limiting our potential readership by not bothering to test whether things work. For those suggesting universal availability is an unrealistic aim, leave out the "Readers and editors are welcome, regardless of ethnicity, creed, gender, age, sexuality or disability." part of the explanation and simply add "read" and the statement about endeavoring to meet accessibility standards. That is an entirely reasonable aim, indeed it's shameful we don't say that and do that. (I only just learned that we don't.) Leveling the playing field for the disabled is one of the things the internet is for. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I support the spirit of wanting to include everyone, but just saying Wikipedia is an encyclopedia covers that. No one writes an encyclopedia that is not accessible by those visually impaired (intentionally). Just saying "anyone" covers everyone, including those who are not included, such as those who are blocked, and it is the spirit of anyone that is meant, eg for all practical purposes anyone (I can not read the ru encyclopedia, and I suspect some who read ru can not read en), so adding read is redundant and illogical. Adding a sixth "pillar" is a non-starter. Apteva (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Here's what we often see at the foot of emails from WMF:Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. - a quote from Jimbo. If we really believe that it is what we're doing, then we ought to be taking seriously the "every single person" part. That means that we don't just pay lip-service to accessibility, but enshrine it at the core of our principles: the five pillars ought to be six. --RexxS (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per Yngvadottir, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it should be implicit that we want this anyway. It should be a condition of featured articles, strongly advised for good articles and encouraged elsewhere where possible. Beyond that, you cannot do anything more than hope people use good English for the current state of affairs. Do we have any studies for the visually impaired using Wikipedia? Would you advocate the deletion of otherwise perfectly free images if they affect those with epilepsy (possible with an animated GIF) or would you claim WP:NOTCENSORED? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely not - Making this function would mean drawing a considerable chunk of our dwindling regular editor base to throw them at what I see, at best, to be a vanity project. In practice, this is like putting out a campfire with ones own face... Sure, it'll work, but now you have one @%@#ed up face. T.I.M(Contact) 23:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe (perhaps incorrectly) that the brunt of the effort would be dev. time, not editor time. As an example, the poor accessibility of this discussion itself, as Izno mentioned above, is due to the lack of a threaded discussion system, not whether we use ** or *:. (Izno, if I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting what you said, please let me know.) This is typically something that devs, not editors, would need to work on. But you're the 2nd person I saw apparently claiming it would put a disproportionate burden on editors, so perhaps I'm missing something. Can you elaborate why you think it would be an editor effort? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wholehearted support (I said so before, repeating it here in case it needs to be a toplevel comment to be taken in account.) The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not until someone can show how this would help. Is there an article where editors are arguing for a style that is not accessible, and is that being justified on the basis that accessibility is not mentioned in 5P? Of course a lot of content would be extremely difficult to access for some readers, and of course its accessibility should be improved—but how would this proposal help that? It is important that 5P be kept lean and focused on practical principles that apply to editing, and adding world aspirations is not useful because a suggestion that certain ethnic groups are not welcome would be immediately rejected regardless of 5P, and the same applies to the other listed groups. One problem with adding a list is that it would attract other possibly desirable outcomes like opposition to totalitarian governments—we're not going to add that we welcome readers and editors regardless of their political position, or that we welcome those fighting for human rights. If someone from a totalitarian government were to make pointed edits, those edits would be opposed due to violations of the policies mentioned in the current 5P—they would not be opposed because of the person's position. The same applies to the editor's age, sexuality, creed, and so forth. If this proposal is aimed at MediaWiki development, all that is needed is an RfC to make a suitable recommendation. Johnuniq (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless clarified. From the original text, I think the proposal is using "accessibility" to mean, say, that we want to accommodate readers who have limited vision, or something like that, right? I certainly don't have anything against that, though I'm not sure it rises to the level of a "pillar". But I'm afraid this will be interpreted to mean we can't have content that's too difficult for some readers to understand, and will be used as a stick by editors who don't think Wikipedia should contain difficult material. --Trovatore (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't vote in general, because I stopped editing Wikipedia years ago, but I do want to address your concerns. First, the proposed second sentence clearly states "web accessibility guidelines", and links you to further information that should clarify that term, if you're unfamiliar with it. Nowhere in that sentence does it say that text at Wikipedia should be simple; it merely says it should be web accessible, meaning that a screenreader can render it and allow the user to respond. That is already true of the vast majority of the text on this site. The major holdouts are image alt texts (though not as many as have been claimed hyperbolicly in earlier comments) and certain software implementations, such as the page rating system, which I have never been able to use despite being lucky enough not to be blind, dyslexic, or lacking functioning hands. I hope that helps allay your concerns. 68.163.108.192 (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the first part about "regardless of ethnicity, creed, gender, age, sexuality or disability". Why limit our acceptance to those areas - just say "everyone" and leave it at that. Neutral on the second part about accessibility, though. My particular worry here is that most of the things I've seen referred to as "accessibility issues" are not really integrated into the software and take such an extreme level of wiki-savvy to implement that most users don't/won't implement them just as a matter of "It's too complicated to figure out/remember". – Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Five_pillars&oldid=532637340"