Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Five pillars

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

Some of the FAQ should be moved to the article page

[edit]

The FAQ already reflects a long-standing consensus about what this page is and provides important context necessary to avoid misunderstandings (e.g., "OMG this is the constitution of Wikipedia!!!!1111oneoneone"). I think at least a simple statement somewhere that "This is not a policy or guideline, or the source for all policies and guidelines" is worth making somewhere in the article, either in a hatnote or an infobox. FOARP (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The more you write the more people like that will get confused or argue. NadVolum (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the reality is that it has a strong place, even though we don't have a category for such a thing. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but whilst we don't have a name for what it is, we do have an agreed definition of what it ain't, which possibly should be given a higher billing. FOARP (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is your proposal to add an {{Essay}} tag to the top? –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No? The proposal is what it says on the tin. My preference is for the FAQ to be in an infobox low down on the page, preferably in the same line but on the opposite side to the existing box for the audio version. If the text is too long it can be truncated with a click-to-expand.
We have the FAQ. The FAQ has consensus. It has existed for a comparable amount of time to the content of the article itself (originally added in 2010 though I think there was an earlier version). It provides important context to the article and should be included there. FOARP (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not. I think we need a new category for a very very very short list of highly consensus ed core but vague items like this and until then I'd rather not add anything that takes away from it.North8000 (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically dilution as in the average weight of each of the five pillars goes down as you add more text outside of them? NadVolum (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not what I meant.....I meant that that wording emphasizes things (and also seem to argue for) that minimize 5P's position in Wikipedia. I'd rather not repeat that on the front page. Also, I don't know the history of the talk page FAQ but in general they are less vetted and get more presence-by-default than the actual page and so this would be a decision to elevate the contents of that FAQ. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I think a lot of what's in WP:5P is presence-by-default. That goes particularly for the bit about gazetteers, and even more for the bit about almanacs which I've never seen anyone seriously defend except by reference to it having been in there a long time and 5P generally not meaning all that much. But if your position is that the FAQ is wrong, then it should be removed entirely. FOARP (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is wrong but there's degrees of wrongness. Removing things that are imperfect is a route to Śūnyatā :-) NadVolum (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add WP:5 as a shortcut?

[edit]

The revision history shows that many users attempted to add the shortcut WP:5 to this page, but these edits were reverted. This shows that a consensus is needed for us to add this shortcut or not.

Use oppose if you oppose this addition, or support if you agree with adding the WP:5 shortcut. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NadVolum, will try to change your mind the old-fashioned way. Will hypnotize you. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

expression "Five Pillars" is unhelpful

[edit]

The term "five pillars" is clearly borrowed from Islam, and despite the assertion above that the expression is "not sacred" and does not offend Muslims, it remains, IMHO, rather problematic as a disconcerting and unnecessarily religious reference. I'm not arguing that it is necessarily offensive to Muslims, but consider as well the genuine critics of the Muslim religion - of which there are not a few - they too ought to feel free to participate in Wikipedia without any implicit or explicit hostility. I'm left wondering, and can't decide, whether use of the term "five pillars" might be used either to mock Islam flippantly, or else to compliment Islam reverently? Or perhaps both? Wouldn't entertaining this question at all be something better off simply avoided entirely? I would say so. Neutrality ought to be demonstrated by a matter-of-fact stating of the "Rules" - thereby avoiding cringy terminology that is unnecessarily quirky and off-putting. Enri999 (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots of uses of 'five pillars'. Do you find someone talking about 'the ten commandments' or 'written in stone' annoying when they're talking about for instance company rules? NadVolum (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you speak for yourself you can seek to delight your in-group by using whatever witty expressions you think clever, but when you speak on behalf of many others in a collective capacity you have to be more professional. It displays a tone-deaf arrogance to do otherwise. One person at a company sales meeting might harmlessly use a religious metaphor, but it would be inappropriate for the company itself to officially invoke religious language since that risks alienating stakeholders (employees, suppliers, the community) with its unnecessary flippancy. We might also detect here that tendency when a mistake is made to entrench in the bad decision defensively out of pride rather than back down and cut one's losses by doing the right thing. The "Five Pillars of Wikipedia" is a cringe inducing expression that will never become non-controversial by the passage of time. Enri999 (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a lot of Muslims around. They don't need you to invent grieviances on their behalf. NadVolum (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't Enri999 (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, it is already quite non-controversial. For my view, I find the use neither flippantly mocking nor reverent. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is this page?

[edit]

A policy, a guideline, an essay, a help page, something else? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something else. – Joe (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency of Ideal vs. Reality: "Should"

[edit]

Pillar 4 seems to me to be phrased inconsistently compared to the other pillars. Pillars 1, 2, and 5 in particular set out the ideal of the encyclopedia as reality. Take Pillar 2: "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view" -- we strive for this, we all know of articles that aren't there yet. Why not put Pillar 4 on the same ideal phrasing: "Wikipedia's editors treat each other with respect and civility." -- we know that is not always true (hoping not to get proof of that in reactions here. ;-D ) but it is a pillar just like our encyclopedic, neutral, rule ignoring other ones. Let's remove the "should". -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Likely because we allow limited lapses of civility, since editors and human and frustration can happen. Aspects like No Personal Attack still are requirements, but one can fall in uncivil comments without attacking an editor. — Masem (t) 21:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there can be lapses on anything and another way would be to phrase everything to say they are allowed and it may be that would work better. I know addicts are better at not giving up if they can fogive themselves for an occasional lapse. However personally I'd support removing the 'should' and not have occasional lapses in behaviour something that is especially okay. NadVolum (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The suggested change carries its own opposition. "-- we known that it is not always true". No need to add a deliberate lie into the pillars. But yes, ideas like this are good, the pillars should be edited enough to get to wording that can be set in stone, like the wording of the WP:IAR policy. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone (@NadVolum, @Randy Kryn, @Masem in particular) -- I decided to apply another WP principle (not-pillar, but close) and be bold and rewrite this pillar with a combination of aspiration (editors are...) and assertiveness (editors must...) that I hope balances that the pillar is our foundation (is/ar) with an acknowledgment we're not there yet but are working towards it (must...) With <3 for the community. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)\[reply]
Reverted. "Must"? Or what? Randy Kryn (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted everything. I've re-rid the title of 'should' which I think was particularly bad. A person who comes along and does not treat others with respect is not a proper Wikipedia editor. NadVolum (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 'should; is simply bad practice in these things and is wrong. People who go around insulting each other on Wikipedia should simply be banned, they are not an acceptable exception. NadVolum (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As above, the long-term 'should' fits best here, as just saying that 'editors treat each other with respect' is certainly not always true and the typical slight offense (or even an expression of emotion or banter between wikifriends) is not punished or usually even questioned. No reason to place misstatements in the pillars, especially in the main section descriptors. "Must", as mentioned, contains an impossible directive (and as asked, "Or what?"). This discussion gives me hope that most of the wording of the pillars seems to be spot-on and well-crafted. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Randy Kyrn for your contributions -- the must or" is OR they are not (positively) contributing to Wikipedia" (coherent with pillars 1-3, 5) -- is there a way in your mind that people here who (consistently) edit without civility are actually contributing positively to Wikipedia? I don't see how that's possible, given that recruiting editors with expertise in unusual subjects is one of the main difficulties in growing the (1) encyclopedia with a (2) neutral point of view. <3 (edited 8 minutes later to add bold, etc.) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 11:16 (=11:24), 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Please don't edit war (it's right there, in the pillar!). No consensus for removing 'should' has been achieved and to do so would require more than two editors reverting to their preferred language in long-term titling ('should' has been there for many years, I don't know how many, but lots). To your point, editors who is "consistently" offensive or combative, or whatever else falls way-aside of 'should', usually don't last long. Long-term editors find their way to adhering, most of the time, to this pillar (or should!). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed you've reverted again while saying that this is your second revert and that I have three (" This is my 2nd Revert -- I think that Randy has used his 3rd revert -- I'll stop now and leave to the community -"). It seems that you do not even understand the pillar that you are trying to change. I am not reverting quality edits at this point but disruptive vandalism of long-term language. Please revert on your own and, maybe, actually carefully read the pillar and read about edit wars. I do not want to get an admin involved to decide who is edit warring, as you have no blocks and let's keep it at that if possible. Please revert your edit. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should raise an RfC on it then. I believe 'should' doesn't fit even if it has been there for a while. The argument about minor exceptions applies to everything and the lack of 'should' from the other pillars indicates it is unneeded. A friend may say something that is a bit insulting sometimes, but they won't be for long if that is their actual attitude. A bit of banter is not a lack of respect though one has to be careful on Wikipedia as humour doesn't travel well. I agree 'must' shouldn't be in. NadVolum (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(another Edit (don't want to say "Conflict" say - "Time Distortion!) Hi Randy -- Agreed that there should be no edit waring -- and in 20+ years of editing Wikipedia this is like :-) amazing the first time that I've ever come to a consensus that we're both at the point where we're doing a reasonable amount of reverts and are at a point where we acknowledge we disagree on this issue and no more reverts from either of us will set the community consensus -- so, given that I know that you've done freaking(sp) amazing things for the encyclopedia (I was just petty enough that I looked at your contributions and came back with the impression that "oh, this is someone real!". I hope if you want to respond, you'll do the same for me and maybe feel 1/10th the same way). So I'm not about to lose a colleague/potentital friend/etc. over one word. I do think that I posted 15 days in advance of being bold -- taking the risk of someone might say "WP consensus is to be WP:BOLD and be reverted" and I did not get any significant pushback besides you but otherwise got support for my position in that time. You're an amazing wikipedian. I do still see that Pillars 1-3, 5 represent what WP aspires to be but Pillar 4 with the "should" and no "must" looks like a weak and apologetic pillar -- let's let the community read what we've written (including sub reverted versions) and see what they see as best. I'll look forward to editing with you (per the ideal of Pillar 4) whichever way this turns out! :-) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiblush. Not possible to lose respect or friendship for editors who believe that they are doing the right thing (assuming good faith). Thanks to NadVolum for the revert. Removing 'should' creates a statement of fact which is not fact. Thus it has no place in such a high profile and long-term page. An RfC is anybody's right, and hopefully would be snow closed within a snow-day. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the pillars I can't see a single one which is actually a statement of fact! You've got people being paid to set up entries that advertise organisations, neutral point of view? Jeeeeez look at the various articles on conflicts, copyright text or pictures being inserted, yes editors treating each other with disrespect, and ahem, Wikipedia doesn't have firm rules? Policies and guidelines are where one tries to cope with reality, not aspirations or mission statements. NadVolum (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Randy -- since I believe Wikipedia editors act in good faith, (not just should)  :-) I'm not going to revert -- I think I have one more revert by wikilaw, but I mean Pillar 5 clearly says let's talk and not find rules right?? :-) So pause here. (But if it's about snow: I'm in Honolulu and we're in a once in a decade blizzard snow storm in Mauna Kea mountain just "down the street" (okay 100km) so since we've established we're good folk, let's neither of us assume we know where the WP:SNOW will fall).
We might be on the same page in that it's a bit disappointing that in 16 days only four people (you, me, @NadVolum (applause!) and @Masam) have weighed in on something so fundamental (Pillar) to the encyclopedia -- we disagree on what the answer should be, but we seem to be in complete agreement that how we phrase this is important. -- so I want to work with you -- if you don't see a contradiction with Pillars 1-3, I want to understand better why so I understand; and if, like me, you do see one, I want to work with you to see how to make them similar (not just for grammar police but to make the real Wikipedia and the world better). I hope we can at least agree that (for a few days until we are convinced otherwise) we'll assume we're both on the same page of making WP a better encyclopedia and a place we're both happy when we log in to, and then figure out what's the best thing to do here in the meantime -- this would be like 2 minutes if we were in the same room speaking the same language! sorry it's a long negotiation!. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(my last 3 messages had edit-wa...confl...someth... with people who ended their messages saying something positive about everyone/everyone else here--eek! So if my message deleted/conflicted with something else SORRY! I didn't intend that -- please restore some prior message w/o malice! Thanks all!) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snow in Hawaii, cool (literally). If I were rewriting these pillars (a difficult task, and should be) I'd add 'should' in the neutrality pillar ("Wikipedia should be written from a neutral point of view"). There is a great deal of non-neutrality, mostly in recent events or recent political pages, with many editors involved openly saying that they dislike this or that candidate (Down with Millard Fillmore!) and their edits usually go in the direction that they lean. Human nature. Should pillar two include "should" because pillar four does? Probably, but getting consensus for either change "should" be a walk through some form of hot-coal wikifire. And you think 15 days is a long discussion? Ha. Some go on for years without consensus agreement. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Randy (thanks for the message) -- would everything we've been writing (with "edit wars" -- would you like to make a push for the term "should" also in pillars 1-2 of neutrality? I'd be glad to drop my "should" for "civility" if we could make those together (yes, technically "should" should go in 1 also, but we're less far from reality to ideal there). I prefer the notion that pillars are ideals ("is/are") and state where we want to be. But I'm fine with pillars as asperations ("should"/"will"/"must") so long as they're similar.
I just don't like having civility be the poor step-son/daughter/cousin as the only pillar that it's okay to acknowledge how far we have to go to make it real.


My signature will say something like "noon"
  • <volano-msg>but it's really 2:45am Volcano time (it is awesome to see the light--tell your friends you know someone in Hawaii and come see it sometime--truely breath taking)</volano-msg>
so I'm going to turn in now and check in again in 6-9 hours -- let's not make minute-to-minute differences prevent us from finding the perfect best phrasing we can use to present Wikipedia in a truthful and positive light for the next ten years. I'd write "ahola" but save you the time that it means "bye", "hello" and (what we intend it to mean) "peace". -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My very short opinion: The pillars (1-5) should represent Wikipedia as it is ("is) or as it aspires to be ("should"). It shouldn't be a mix of aspiration and reality. I vote for aspiration; but happy to choose reality; but not happy with the current mix of the two. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to think what the 'Real Pillars of Wikipedia' would be like where every pillar strived for factuality with a neutral point of view. It might actually appeal to some editors.
  • Wikipedia was set up to be a free reliable encyclopaedia. You'll get begging ads. and on reliability mileage may vary
  • Wikipedia editors in general strive not to be partisan, and you can complain about the ones that are.
  • Wikipedia strives to be free of copyright content though some bits may remain
  • Wikipedia editors are mostly civil with each other and there's processes to try and remove those who aren't
  • Wikipedia has a 'no firm rules' rule but woe betide you if you try using it for anything silly

How does that sound? 😀 NadVolum (talk) 13:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove the word should - I agree with the most recent edit that Mscuthbert attempted to insert - the word should should be removed from the fourth pillar. As noted, it doesn't really make sense to have the others be phrased as ideals, in which it's stated what Wikipedians do when they're following the pillars, rather than as an order or rule. I wouldn't support any further changes than that, however, the pillars work well as they are and have stood the test of time. In particular I oppose adding must to any of them - that's even worse than should .  — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (As an aside, Mscuthbert I feel I must honour you a minor wet fish for your edit summary "This is my 2nd Revert -- I think that Randy has used his 3rd revert -- I'll stop now and leave to the community -- it's not an edit war at this point -- it's a consensus difference that I've spent 15 days trying to reach." In general, if you're busy counting how many reverts have been done by yourself and another editor then that's a sign that you're edit warring whether or not the 3RR limit is breached. WP:3RR explicitly says "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times" so maybe both yourself and Randy can desist from edit warring and focus on discussion earlier next time?!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]
    Pillars 1, 3, and 5 are true statements. Factual. Not including 'should be' in 2 makes it unfactual, just as removing 'should' from 4 would do. If an RfC is held adding 'should be' to 2 "should" be an option. If the pillars strive for accuracy their titles should describe the situations as they exist and not as an ideal (1, 3, and 5 do not describe ideals). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't see it as such a clear distinction myself. #3, "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute" is an ideal too... in many parts of the world people are restricted from doing that even despite our licensing the content that way. And of course, Wikipedia is also full of fair-use images which really aren't free to be used, edited and distributed. It's an ideal, not an absolute fact. Even #1 and #5 there might be those who disagree that Wikipedia in its current form is necessarily an encyclopedia (there are aspects of it which aren't) and some of the rules such as office actions are firm rules. It's probably not something's ever really noticed before, but the should in #4 really does stick out like a sore thumb amid other statements that are presented as faits accomplis. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point about the unfree images. Their existence moves the ideal to the practical. No reason to move further away from accuracy by removing the 'should', editors just do not always treat each other ideally and saying that they do would place a further error into the pillars. As for pillar two, neutrality, some editors strive for it but many defend their preferred text-territory (for example, as I'm doing here by not being able or willing to "see" in what way removing 'should' improves the accuracy of the pillars). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, in view of recent edits and discussions, IMO at this point any proposed change would need a clearly worded RFC. I'd be opposed to such a change. The wording of the 1,2 & 5 points is a self-definition (more than just a statement of an ideal or goal) by Wikipedia of itself. (even if it is not always followed, the self-definition stands). This wording exists outside of the question of whether this is always achieved. #4 "should" has wording is designed to guide participants in an area where there are many issues, imperfections and gray areas. And it's not a self-definitional statement as #1,2 & 5 are. For example if you want to give guidance to speeders, saying "you should not drive over the speed limit" is more realistic / effective than claiming that drivers don't drive over the speed limit. Finally, on a totally different note, IMO saying that something should be changed in order to have consistency (in particular ways) with other items IMO is generally not a good argument. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Five_pillars&oldid=1273103838"