Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

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

Appropriate "NOT" link for people trying to communicate with the article subject?

[edit]

I often come across talk page edits like this one where an unregistered user is attempting to communicate with the subject of the article. I tend to think that the best response is simply to revert, with a short reason in the edit summary. Is there a good shortcut link that explains the problem appropriately? Is it WP:NOTFORUM or WP:NOTSOCIAL or something else? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... just wth?? and you /often/ come across talk page edits like that? There's really that many people who seem to believe that the "talk" page, of a Wikipedia article, is like, that subject's /inbox/? That is wild.. Excuse me, I need to go "talk" to Benjamin_Franklin on his personal Wikipedia page.
Okay, I guess I get it; kids growing up with social media, who don't know/understand what Wikipedia is, just Googling around on their phones trying to contact staff at the mall where they lost their "airports" Poor kid is probably wondering why that mall never responds to it's customers' messages here, and I feel like maybe instead of just immediately reverting, perhaps we should take that as an opportunity to briefly educate them about Wikipedia, and let them know how they can contribute; because surely once you've explained it to them, they will become very helpful editors, and not make tons of silly mistakes... Okay I can see why a simple revert might be best..
After looking at both, My very uneducated opinion is that WP:NOTSOCIAL fits best, but maybe a short section should be added to that, perhaps after "1. Personal web pages." , a heading of "1.5 Business Website/Directory" I am certain this issue is covered somewhere else, and maybe that "somewhere else" is what you should use in this case, but I feel it might be helpful to also mention it in WP:NOTSOCIAL, for a few reasons. With the prevalence of social media these days, most businesses certainly have social media accounts, so that aspect should be covered in WP:NOTSOCIAL, both to let folks know that the Wikipedia article on "business X" is not an official representative platform page authorized by that company, and also to let employees of "business X" know that no matter what their boss told them to do, Wikipedia is not "another social platform" for them to advertise their business on.
So I guess that's my proposal; we should add a bit into WP:NOTSOCIAL covering this issue. Also, the section of "Personal web pages" there seems to focus exclusively on Individual User pages, whereas I figure it might be helpful to also mention biographical articles in that part, just so Myles_Standish doesn't get the idea that he can use his page here to attract "Hot Pilfs" in his area. I mean yeah, I know thats already covered in autobiographies or something, but I figure it bears repeating here. OwlParty (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Often? Yeah, here's three from the last week or so: [1][2][3] (talk page cleanup is a minor gnoming hobby). I thought I remembered seeing something about this here or on Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.
I'm certain we are dealing with people on the boundaries of digital inclusion, for whom the difference between web browsing and messaging is fuzzy, and who may have WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issues, so I've got approximately zero confidence that any message will reach them. It's as much about documenting the reason for the revert. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Geez wow okay, I had no idea the problem was this widespread. I still stand by my notion that "not a Business Website/Directory" should be a part of this article, even though I'm sure such folks as you describe will likely never see that, might be useless, but probably won't hurt. This whole issue has me wondering about just the state of education for global humanity, and how Wikipedia might help to address that issue OwlParty (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or... maybe there could just be a line of text at the top of every single talk page, stating that "this is not a page where you can talk to the subject of the article". There shouldn't have to be, and after typing that out, I feel a bit insane for even suggesting it, but here we are. OwlParty (talk) 11:10, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Illuminati for frequent attempts to communicate with the dead. Or at least, to communicate with an organisation that ceased to function in the late 1780s or thereabouts. I'm not sure that a policy shortcut is going to help much in situations where it happens repeatedly, given that those responsible clearly aren't reading the article, never mind the talk page. It has been suggested (off-Wikipedia) that a warning message, similar to that shown if you attempt to edit Talk:MrBeast, might be the best solution in such circumstances. Such messages will clearly need to be customised to suit article specifics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My experience on Talk:Google Scholar is that no matter how big and obvious you make the warning message, many readers will not pay attention. I think just "revert and move on" is simplest. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those (e.g. [4]) make me think people think “Talk” is a way to chat to an AI. I don’t blame them, with seemingly every app, website and product integrating AI features. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps add NOTPARASOCIAL to WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site along the lines of "An external communication method. Article Talk pages (and others) are to aid Wikipedia editors in developing its articles. They are not an open line to contact people associated with an article's topic, such as biographical subjects, company/organisational representatives, band/team members, or political representatives. Use externally published official methods of contact instead." ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 05:01, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rule against such posts is at WP:TPG, and specifically at WP:TPNO. I have reverted the comment at the VivoCity talk page. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:08, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is venting out count as

[edit]

This includes venting out for stuff like your family,life, trauma,among others. 47.212.93.176 (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTBLOG Masem (t) 12:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing whitespace created by {{clear}}, images, and shortcut boxes

[edit]

Hi, I noticed there's a lot of whitespace on this page that could be easily fixed by moving the shortcut boxes related to headings to the left of the images, rather than above the images. This is an example of what I mean:

The first part of almost all of these section is also filled with hatnotes, so in most cases this wouldn't even change the width of the actual text below the hats. FaviFake (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of unnecessary whitespace: https://i.imgur.com/IHNbKUN.png FaviFake (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The image appears quite large in your screen shot, do you have a custom image size set in your preferences?
Current as I see it https://imgur.com/a/pB9uPQw -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:31, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using the desktop version on a desktop computer, you're using the desktop version on a mobile phone.
I'm trying to improve the desktop version, as the mobile version on mobile phones doesn't have this issue. The desktop version doesn't have the issue on a mobile device, but it's not supposed to be used on mobile. FaviFake (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true but didn't answer my question. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:36, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do, but the issue persists even if I log out: https://i.imgur.com/RPzKsB3.png FaviFake (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does, though to a lesser extent. Maybe the issue is the use of images such short sections. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:15, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. So do you support the initial proposal, if the images aren't removed? FaviFake (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No because stacking images with header templates as you've done can causes formating issues for other editors. I don't think MOS really applies to policy documents, but it advises against this (see MOS:SECTIONLOC). Maybe the shortcut box could be moved down, but I don't think that would make any difference. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:25, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
causes formating issues for other editors
Could you be more specific? All i'm proposing is moving the images so they're above the shortcut boxes.
Maybe the shortcut box could be moved down
Yes, but this would narrow the space that's left for the actual paragraphs. If the images are instead placed above the hatnotes, in most cases the shortcut box won't affect the width of the paragraphs. (See my first example in OP.) FaviFake (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else wants to chime in? FaviFake (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having images in a policy is actually helpful (e.g., for memory recall/recognition). But perhaps a different image/size/aspect ratio could be chosen. Maybe one these less-tall options would appeal to you:
WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I didn't wish to remove them. I was just asking if the shortcuts could be moved to the left of the images (instead of the current situation: above the images) as to not waste more space due to the {{-}} template. I agree that both the images and the shortcut boxes should be kept. FaviFake (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem anyone objects specifically to this so I'll perform the edit in a few days. FaviFake (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I still object to sandwiching of text, nothing has changed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... But most of the text that would be sandwitched is just in hatnotes! For example, here there's just a lot of vertical wasted space, and here's my proposed change. Note that the actual text of the policy isn't sandwitched at all in both cases. Rather, the additional wasted space on the right of the hatnotes is now also efficiently used! So we're eliminating two different whitespaces in most paragraphs with no meaningful text sandwitching :D FaviFake (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sandwiching is still sandwiching, and you still haven't answered whether you're using a larger than normal preference for image size. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have. FaviFake (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry missed that, but now I can't see your image as it's on Imgur. Either way sandwiching is generally against how to format pages. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues viewing the image. Maybe try incognito mode?
Of course sandwitching is generally bad, but so are paragraphs' worth of whitespace. I just think sandwitching the hatnotes is better than keeping all the whitespace. FaviFake (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Imgur is block in my location, incognito mode isn't going to help. The issue is you think sandwiching is better than whitespace, and I think the opposite. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess we disagree then. Should we ask for a WP:THIRD? FaviFake (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:DONOT" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Wikipedia:DONOT has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 28 § Wikipedia:DONOT until a consensus is reached. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 14:17, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very concerning article

[edit]

In the section “Encyclopedic content,” this article says “information should not be included solely because it is true or useful.” How can Wikipedia aspire to NOT be a source of truth? How in the world can somebody willingly support the promotion of known falsehoods? This is a ridiculous claim and I don’t get how anybody in their right mind can find this acceptable. Clearly this article needs some serious changes and reevaluation. NotAGrApe73 (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The point of that statement is not that Wikipedia should include known falsehoods, but rather that solely being true does not guarantee inclusion - the rest of the page outlines the type of content that is generally not included. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if I claim that "X is true", why would anyone believe me? We need WP:RS precisely because it's very difficult to ascertain what is objectively true. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So basically, it is true if and only if a reliable source says it’s true? That’s still illogical. There’s nothing about a source being arbitrarily labeled “reliable” that suddenly gives them access to absolute truth. If I had to take a guess as to why someone should believe you, I would probably say that they would believe you because you have solid reasoning to support your conclusion. That can always be argued about, though, so it’s not very useful. One thing that cannot be disputed, though, is that you have said something, and this is what is verifiable about a source, not whether their claims themselves are true. This is one of the few fundamental problems with Wikipedia. It equivocates verifiable claims with verifiable truth, which is not accurate at all. NotAGrApe73 (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we actually don't know absolute truths as that would require us to use original research to know what is the absolute truth, instead, we use reliable sources to understand what can be verified and generally accepted as truths by those reliable sources. In that manner, we are summarizing what we know we can verify that a broad consensus of reliable sources say should be true, with the expectation that the absolute truth is mirrored by that, but as per WP:V our goal is verifiability, not truth. Masem (t) 12:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you verify, without using original research, nor circular reasoning, that those sources are actually reliable? The only thing verifiable is that they said what they said, but articles don’t say “this is what they said,” they say “this is what is true.” NotAGrApe73 (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They are deemed reliable because a consensus of Wikipedia editors has deemed them so. That is how the entire site works, on the shoders of and the decisions of editors. Not bureaucrats, not administrators, not founders and co-founders of long ago. If this method isn't to your liking, then perhaps there are other sites out there that would be a better fit. Zaathras (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not about me. It’s about whether you are misleading (or permitting the misleading of) people for simple, easily fixed issues. If I were to abandon Wikipedia and all the perfectly decent articles for some other obscure encyclopedia just because of the few articles that try to support nonsense, I’m going to have way less information, it’s probably still going to be inaccurate, and the rest of the world will still use Wikipedia, so it helps nobody.
    Also, I’ll take your silence in response to my question about whether you can prove their validity as a no. Editors don’t determine the reliability of sources. A person could be a flat earther, and then he could deem a flat earth forum a reliable source. I think you and I would both agree that this is not accurate. Now I’m not saying that any source could be deemed reliable by anyone—there are rules, after all—but what I am saying is that people don’t have authority over reliability and validity, those are temporary objective characteristics that have their own values regardless of what editors say they are. And what if someone is totally normal at first and would at that point be deemed reliable, but then goes completely nuts? By your rules he would still be reliable.
    As I said previously, it is totally fine to say “John Doe said this,” but it’s not fine to say “this is objectively true (John Doe said so),” simply because we can’t know objectively, at least not on Wikipedia NotAGrApe73 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why we have consensus-based discussions if the reliability of a source comes up, instead of one person making that determination. We look at what the source says its editorial policy is, who is on their staff and if those people are known experts in the field they represent (as determined from other reliable sources), what other sources have said, and broadly look at their published products to see if they are straight junk or actually appear legit. We can also compare what they publish to what other known reliable sources have published, and if they are basically saying the same things, we can reasonably presume that they are a reliable source too. And even then, its a continuous process as some sources can go unreliable, or move from unreliable to reliable, due to changes in ownership or editorial process. Masem (t) 12:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But the problem is a source that is reliable is not always accurate. Even if their science is reliable, even if they care, even if the people who are choosing their sources are actually doing their job without bias, even if they are being completely impartial in disputes, and even if their ownership and editorial processes are good, there is still room for inaccuracy. As an encyclopedia, we shouldn’t seek to include any information that could be considered false beyond a reasonable doubt (reasonable doubt would be mostly doubts based on the fact that the brain hasn’t been proven accurate). So far I haven’t seen anyone actually provide any objections to the idea of requiring editors to directly mention that a datapoint is cited, and I obviously find nothing wrong with it, why is that idea being combatted? NotAGrApe73 (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your concerns are without merit. The encyclopedia functions, and functions well, for the vast majority of readers out there. 100% of the people cannot be satisfied 100% of the time, so if you fall in the extreme minority that is unsatisfied, so be it. Zaathras (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There we go again, the most reliable source (the majority of users, that is) dictates reality, even when it’s a fallacy to claim they are. And everyone who objects to you is merely fringe. Thus, you apparently have no ties to accuracy, and can say whatever you want. Problem is, I’m not you, so that nonsense isn’t convincing to me. Even Wikipedia itself acknowledges that there are numerous objections. The vast majority of Wikipedia users don’t even know that Wikipedia can change in the first place, so it would be ridiculous to assume that they somehow know everything about Wikipedia and despite this still approve of the politics of Wikipedia NotAGrApe73 (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because Wikipedia works based on summarizing reliable sources, and not trying to assert any objective truth, we've had to establish over many many years what our baseline is for reliability. We have opted to use sourced that present clear evidence, that have editorial controls, that include peer reviews and recognized by peer sources as reliable, and numerous other safeguards to make sure that what we can include to meet verifiability is also as likely close to the truth as we can possibly get without engaging in our own original research to decide what is truth. When views are presented without this type of support behind it, it is very hard to consider it verifyable and thus we can't include it.
    Now, I know we do have a problem that sometimes minority views that can be documented in reliable sources sometimes get treated as fringe views by certain editors, but that I don't think is what this discussion is focusing on. Masem (t) 13:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If your baseline is so-called “reliable sources,” you are undeniably going to display inaccurate information. The assumption that the policy of a source immediately makes everything they say accurate is ridiculous. You say you aren’t trying to assert objective truth, but rather that you try to get as close to the truth as possible through sources. If you can’t figure out objective truth, what makes you think they can? Perhaps you can attempt to reject the idea that certain people will be able to get close to the truth depending on how they act, and rather just acknowledge that they are trying to get close to the truth, not directly to objective truth (just like you). You can do that by just quoting them rather than asserting their claims as facts, since it is completely verifiable that the quotation is true (via citations) and there is no case in which untruths would be desired, the best decision would be to just do that. NotAGrApe73 (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no hope of less snark from EEng, but he does have a point. The OPs outrage is due to a misunderstanding of what the policy is trying to explain. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a vast amount of information that is true and useful but shouldn't be included, bus and train time tables for instance, such information is simply not encyclopedic. As to truth v verification, as with the scientific method Wikipedia is built in the latter not the former. It's what is known. Current knowledge may very likely be wrong, but at the moment it's the vest that's agreed upon. The OPs issue doesn't appear to actually be about either of these issues though, but rather that Wikipedia states as fact the mainstream view. This is the nature of Wikipedia by design, if you want something else I can only suggest a different website. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. It is true that there is a fire hydrant on the opposite side of the street from my house and this can be verified in city records, but it is not encyclopedic. older ≠ wiser 13:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would not be truthful then – it would be more a factoid 182.185.42.137 (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree is it merely a factoid at best, I don't see how it is not truthful. older ≠ wiser 14:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I don't understand. If factoids are not truthful are they then false? That would seem to be an odd thing to say. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, I don’t know about that timetables example. Second of all, you are indeed correct that my problem with Wikipedia is that it treats sources as authorities on truth. They objectively aren’t (unless we are talking about some system they are literally the authority on, which we rarely are). There are some things that can only be practically supported without sources, like fundamental laws of logic and math. And some things can be supported with sources, but their popularity should not be falsely equivocated with accuracy like it is in all Wikipedia articles. At the very least this fact should be clarified in a policy somewhere.
    And the reason I care is because I don’t believe you should give up on whatever stops working for you. Think of how many things would still be wrong if people didn’t try to help people who are blind to their own problems? Also, there are some other practical reasons that I mentioned in another reply. You might be able to find them NotAGrApe73 (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't treat sources as truth, but we do repeat what is the mainstream view as fact. That's the purpose of Wikipedia. I went don't rely on sources then what would be expressed is the TRUTH as understood by the editor who wrote the article, and editors are not reliable sources. This is also the basis for WP:FALSEBALANCE, editors can't be relied upon to judge what is neutral so Wikipedia relies on sources to say what is neutral. What you or I believe is neutral or true is going to be based on on own biases, by using reliable sources (as judged by criteria and the view of other reliable sources) Wikipedia minimises the impact of our personal views (or at least tries to). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fails to. Because what happens when you have selection bias against another valid opinion? Then you have bias, and that bias comes directly from the sources. Also, you know how ridiculous that sounds? “We don’t treat sources as true, we treat them as fact.” That’s clearly a contradiction. You can rightly acknowledge that they are not fact while still using sources, all you have to say is “the source says this.” That’s 20 characters, and it can be verified as a fact by just clicking on the source and reading it. It doesn’t matter if the mainstream views it as fact, they can’t prove it as fact as long as it can be disproven through discovery of new evidence, and unless we are talking about hard truth, like math, it always can. NotAGrApe73 (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It will always 'fail to'by some measure, it is totally impossible to exclude your own personal bias. That's why Wikipedia's policies and practices try to minimise that personal bias by looking at external sources. Will that include some personal bias yes, but it is totally impossible to exclude your own personal bias. That's why Wikipedia's policies and practices try to minimise that personal bias by looking at external sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You don’t eliminate bias by using someone else’s bias (and compounding on your own by controlling whose bias can be expressed). You eliminate it by simply using all biases collectively. If you envision biases as negative and positive magnitudes in a number line that reflects standing on certain issues, there are only two ways to reach 0 (or neutral standing), including nothing at all or including both positive and negative biases on that subject. Since the former is out of the question, only the latter is left remaining. Thus, Wikipedia is capable of eliminating bias systematically, but it instead chooses to accentuate it.
    Note that even if you use this approach, you are still supporting all biases in their corresponding magnitude, so fringe theories are automatically clarified as such because their bias has less of an effect on the number line. And at the same time, if a theory has less support but still has merit, users can see this for themselves, rather than Wikipedia having control over how people are permitted to view issues. So I’m not endorsing misrepresentation of issues, I’m supporting accurate representation of issues, which should result in accurate conclusions assuming the readers are logical thinkers. NotAGrApe73 (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your link to images of timetables isn't what I was discussing, having images of timetables in an article about the nature of timetables is valid. Having a table containing the timetable of a specific bus route in an article about that bus route wouldn't be. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you trying to say that if I had an article about a specific bus route, not bus routes in general, and then included the time table for that specific bus route, it would be irrelevant? I don’t quite follow. NotAGrApe73 (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that is objectively wrong. There are no pages on specific bus routes, as far as I know, but if one existed I believe it would be very relevant to talk about the time table for that specific bus route. If I were you, I probably would’ve said that if there was a time table for another bus route on that article, or a time table for bus routes on articles that don’t have anything to do with public transportation, or an exhaustive log on every single time table in the time table article, that perhaps that would be irrelevant. But not the time table for a bus route whose time table is pretty much its defining characteristic. NotAGrApe73 (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can highly recommend watching Hank Green's recent video Why it's never aliens, for those lost in the sauce of 'truth' and 'proof'. And after watching that, there's this great video "This "Official" Autism Stat Made No Sense...so I actually read the papers", which is equally educational —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I got from that is that people are prone to bias, and it is for this reason that we need to clarify to any readers that what they are reading is simply quoted from sources whose validity cannot be objectively confirmed. There is no way of proving that what they claim is not bad science, which is not inherently a problem, but when people choose to skip over that disclaimer, then you have articles where people claim something as a fact which is actually less cut-and-dry than it is portrayed as NotAGrApe73 (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at your talk page I find it difficult to see how discussions with you are going to be fruitful @Hob Gadling, @Tgeorgescu, you have some experience with this editor, who seems to only edit talk pages, not articles. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, they're basically sad that Wikipedia adopted policies like WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL. And perhaps has an axe to grind against citing mainstream WP:RS as sources of facts. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, they seem to have a problem with WP:OR. They disagree with how Wikipedia works in general. I don't see any constructive future here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean you can try to change my mind. Give me one reason why that is constructive for Wikipedia. NotAGrApe73 (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:NOTFORUM, Wikipedia isn't here to change your mind. The purpose of editing Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia based on independent secondary sources. You've been given large leeway on this matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot, enough is enough. Doug Weller talk 17:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:5P does not mention anything about Wikipedia being an encyclopedia solely based on secondary sources. It’s just an encyclopedia. Sure, it may be based on secondary sources, but you have started worshipping them like WP:The Truth. Also, you are not Wikipedia, so that statement (Wikipedia isn't here to change your mind) doesn’t apply to you, and I was asking a simple question about the foundation of your claims that I am… I guess insane or something? Surely you must have a reasonable support for that, otherwise you would be making pointless, unsupported accusations, and if you are willing to do whatever you want to try to discredit me, I don’t see how you would be a reliable speaker.
Also, according to the page on policies (WP:PG), they are intended to describe best practice, and should be applied with reason and common sense, not arbitrarily, so given that this conversation is on a talk page for a policy that is literally about meta-topics, I doubt a page talking about normal, non-meta-articles (which are distinct from projects) should be applied quite as indiscriminately. NotAGrApe73 (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Burn me at the stake then. Sorry for requesting approval rather than changing things without permission. The only things that I’ve felt actually needed changing are on locked pages, due to being “controversial” (as of course truth is subject to controversy, it’s not objectively true or anything) and I’ve only just joined a few weeks ago. Also, how do you expect me to actually attain the reputation to not be considered shunworthy if all my suggestions are attacked and not given meaningful consideration due to bias? Your pre-decided judgement of my validity relies on circular reasoning. NotAGrApe73 (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to accommodate every POV or every demand or every syllogism.
E.g., "The Merriam-Webster Dictionary is wrong, because it is circular." See how silly that sounds? tgeorgescu (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary is not wrong. It’s based on English. What does sound silly is “The Merriam-Webster Dictionary is wrong, because it doesn’t have any citations.” As a community project, you have to accommodate the opinions of the community, not just the ones that you agree with NotAGrApe73 (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have only just joined WP, the first step is not to be trying to demand changes to key policies, but instead trying to learn how these policies and guidelines work. Masem (t) 01:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suspect this is not their first time at the rodeo. older ≠ wiser 11:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I’ve made some edits here and there anonymously, but it had become annoying to be incapable of correcting errors because of cell tower IPs being blocked, so I figured I should create an account. I hadn’t had much activity on talk pages prior to now, however. NotAGrApe73 (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve been learning. There are some pretty commonly used policies. I also know that the policies are guidelines and best practice, rather than hard-and-fast-rules. Also, I’m not “demanding” anything. I’m making cases for the policies’ emendation, which have mostly been soundly rejected without fair consideration. NotAGrApe73 (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some policies are hard and fast, eg our policy on copyright and requiring text to be sourcesble. Doug Weller talk 14:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:5P5 says they are not. They are consistently enforced, but copyright is enforced because of the law, and I have seen sections of Wikipedia articles that are not sourced (not to mention, sometimes sources are not relevant, like in the context of math and logic, where they are simply objectively true, not based on what a source says about them). That is besides the point, however. NotAGrApe73 (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a lot is not sourced, but that is irrelevant. It should be, except for sky is blue material. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Finally someone who gets it. Many have tried for years to get the article about the Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house moved to mainspace, with no luck. Unfortunately, it languishes as a userspace draft, even though it is completely accurate! There is even a photo!! These troglodytes have no idea about what the truth really is. Sad. Mathglot (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you did there. Bearian (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll leave the main-spacing to the professionals. I only want accuracy. Also, I wouldn’t want to take credit where credit is due. They actually invented the term “cavemen” to describe themselves. NotAGrApe73 (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simple really. The opposite of 'truth' is 'not truth.' A perhaps interesting discussion but not a philosophy discussion for this page or for Wikipedia talk pages, we exist to describe the documented philosophies of truth, not to decide among them. Whatever your philosophy of truth may be, and your philosophy how it may be found, Wikipedia does not exist to answer those questions for you. Or perhaps you have no philosophy of truth, merely hoping it is revealed to you. Wikipedia will not insist you accept a revealed truth. You can read about them though, you may begin with Truth and look at its related philosophy pages, and Religion and its related philosophy pages. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is not trying to figure out what “truth” is. That’s obvious, even though some people are apparently confused by it. This is a talk page, and it’s for talking about improving the article, so that’s what I’m attempting. NotAGrApe73 (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not isn't an article. It is an internal Wikipedia page, explaining core policy, arrived at by community consensus over decades. If you don't like it, tough. We aren't going to change it to suit your endless vacuous pseudo-philosophising waffle. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bish page blocked for bludgeoning. Doug Weller talk 19:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, Wikipedia policy doesn't concern itself with abstract (and possibly unanswerable) questions regarding 'truth' as an abstract. Instead, it attempts to reflect consensus amongst the types of sources that the community, over many years, has decided are most appropriate for a tertiary summarising encyclopaedia. Readers are of course free to hold their own opinions on the merits of this, but it would seem apparent that only a minority see it as a general issue, given how often they come back for more. We are unlikely to change our stance on this due to the often politically-motivated whinging of those relatively few who would prefer that Wikipedia was something else entirely. NotAGrApe73, Go start your own online 'WeKnowTheRealTruthipedia' if you think readers would prefer it. Good luck... AndyTheGrump (talk)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not&oldid=1319772274"