This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This page was nominated for deletion on 17 August 2009. The result of the discussion was keep. |
FT2 ( Talk | email) 15:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
A simplistic title, but building an encyclopedia can be analogous to making an ant nest - worker ants (and especially soldier ants) perform some tasks that superficially do not appear to be directly targeted toward building the colony; but it would be a mistake to consider them "not there to build a colony".
Since online encyclopedia's (um... the one I am familiar with, anyhoo) are very much more complex than ant colonies, and there are many roles and activities that do not appear to be directly concerned with article content creation, there needs to be an understanding that there needs to be very fine judgement over what may help toward the building of an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia's are not and have never been fact factories, where the majority is employed in churning out paragraphs of information with a little direction provided by functionaries and publishers, until... well, here and now in fact. However, Wikipedia is two potentially opposed concepts; a project in which content is provided by a potentially huge editorship, dwarfing the resources available to manage it in a traditional manner, and an expanding entity where the contribution demographic may perhaps be evolving into different constituent parts. Lastly, and this is where it gets tricky, the maintenance (and even concept) of an online open editing encyclopedia is itself simply an experimental model being run in real time; the rules are being created, criticised, discarded/confirmed, and endlessly debated even as the encyclopedia is being written, reviewed and read. "Building the encyclopedia" is not just a value judgement, but one which changes, incrementally, each day. Any discussion regarding what, or who, is not here to build an encyclopedia should recognise that the questioning or even opposition in respect of those who are recognised as being here to build an encyclopedia, or activities that are not considered as directly encyclopedia building, are not automatically detrimental to the purpose of building an encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 01:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm troubled by the "Not being here to build an encyclopedia" section. While this was intended as a selection of examples of the detrimental behavior this concept is aimed at, I worry that should this become policy, these will be used a specific points to ban given people -- or remove content contributed in good faith. Yes, there are people who edit Wikipedia in specific areas to push their agenda; but there are also people who join Wikipedia to make a few edits, contribute a specific chunk of material, participate in a single discussion -- then either leave or fall silent once their work is done. We can intuit that their intent to participate was to improve Wikipedia, but the inevitable wikilawyering allows one party to remove the material because the person who contributed "Was not here to build an encyclopedia". Maybe the solution is to make this an essay, rather than policy (just because someone presents a persuasive argument does not mean it needs to be formally added to policy for people to follow it); or to state that this is not a reason by itself to remove content. (If that isn't clear, that's because it's late in my time zone & I should have been in bed a couple of hours ago.) -- llywrch ( talk) 07:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Consensus appears to be leaning toward nixing this proposal as rejected. I agree with the sentiments above that it takes a lot of worker ants to keep the colony going, and each individual one may have no appearance of being constructive. Listing what Wikipedia is not is just a tad open ended. Apteva ( talk) 01:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I've renamed this essay in an attempt to make it less bitey, and given it the shortcut WP:HERE which is positive rather than negative. I'm not keen on the WP:NOTHERE bit, but it is worth discussing. John Vandenberg ( chat) 13:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
SlimVirgin has removed some examples that were in here, and it is probably better that they are kept out of the essay. However this essay seeks to enshrine "[Not] here to build an encyclopedia" as an acceptable phrase, and I think it is vital that we understand the prior use of this phrase if this essay is to remain in the main project namespace.
I've found another one. [1] John Vandenberg ( chat) 13:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I liked "Not here to build an encyclopedia" as the title, but failing that, I would prefer "Building an encyclopedia" as the alternative title. What it's just been moved to splits the difference in a way that I don't find too compelling. Jclemens ( talk) 15:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be pertinent, in the spirit of not biting, in the "What Not here to build an encyclopaedia is not" section to mention newcomers, who may initially not understand what building wikipedia requires. They need time to understand that it's not a battleground of ideas, that adding links to their organisations is spam rather than being helpful and so on. Perhaps a point saying "being NHTBAE takes time and effort; flailing newbies may not have made their minds up yet." VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 16:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems to me like the infopage description is appropriate. Should there have been discussion before it was changed back in March? -- Ronz ( talk) 22:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Should we consider trolling a reason for "not here to build an encyclopedia"? I am placing my idea here as bold edits to policy seem to be frowned upon. pcfan500 ( talk) 08:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I want to build a dictionary or atlas or almanac or something. Help? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.240.157 ( talk) 06:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
How is this not already labeled one of the founding principles of this project? It's *the* core concept, and people were banned for violating it like ten years ago. DreamGuy ( talk) 00:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
In the essay, in what "Not being here to build is Not" includes:
I think that this is too wishy-washy. Can someone who personally attacks repeatedly and gets banned really be considered to be here to build an encyclopedia, if WP:CIVIL is a pillar of Wikipedia? To me, no. Can someone who is here to build occasionally slip up? Yes. So I'm certainly not advocating changing it to "anyone who has ever been warned or blocked is not here to build" and yes, different people have different degrees of difficulty in trying to fight off urges to be uncivil. But uncivil behavior even for a moment does not help build the encyclopedia, and someone who repeatedly is uncivil is thus not here to build. I recommend tightening this point substantially to:
The essay needs to balance the rights of editors who have trouble not attacking people with the rights of people who are being attacked for what they are doing for the encyclopedia, and at the moment, this point (but not the essay in general) seemed to me to get that balance wrong. Thanks, and of course, I welcome comments. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Could we add, "Trying to score brownie points"? E.g. some Muslims apparently believe they score brownie points with their deity by posting in Talk:Muhammed even though it has no effect on the article. Some people might edit to try to score brownie points with somebody without caring about their effect on the article. Another example of this is the article for Beautiful where some "Romeo" will put that beautiful is So-and-so. -- Doctorx0079 ( talk) 04:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I have made a small update that might help everyone involved in our project. Check, reply and edit. Thank you. 61.3.43.116 ( talk) 10:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Kept the fix, 3 - 4 common types are enough...It would be nice if someone can provide examples from real incidents without pinpointing anyone. 59.92.31.61 ( talk) 21:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
First, it's not a "small update". Overall, I think the article is better without it. I've removed some of the worst of it. I suggest removing the rest, then restoring bits piecemeal if others think they are improvements. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
It's hard to know where to begin with this nonsense. I removed part of the statement, "it is possible for someone to hold extreme, even criminal views". Extreme? Of course. Criminal? No. Not possible. Not at all. Jclemens reverted, claiming, "yes, pro-pedophile viewpoints are outlawed". Not so, not that I can tell. The existence of vile groups like NAMBLA certainly seem to insist otherwise. I do not see how it is at all possible for a person to hold "criminal views". Holocaust-denial is illegal in many European countries. There's no crime in refusing to believe the Holocaust happened. It's ignorant. It borders on bat shit insanity, but if someone chooses to believe that, there's no law against it. Publicly denying the Holocaust is a crime, akin to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. With pedophilia, I'm not seeing how it even rises to that level. We even have an article about organizations that openly promote pedophilia. If it isn't a crime to publicly espouse pedophila, how in world could it possibly be a crime to privately hold these views, disgusting as they may be? Anyone openly pro-pedophilia is forbidden to edit here, and quite rightfully so. Perhaps this is what Jclemens meant with his erroneous statement about pro-pedophile viewpoints being outlawed. THE EDIT I MADE DID NOT IN ANY WAY SUGGEST THAT PEDOPHILES ARE WELCOME HERE. (In 7 years here, that is, I believe, only the second time I have "yelled"; my apologies for breach of etiquette, but I felt it egregiously exigent to emphasize.) I made a simple edit to change a statement that was clearly and plainly non-factual. Regarding these so-called criminal views, this essay said, "a person can hold criminal views and still be here to build an encyclopedia (my emphasis)". Assuming such criminal views actually exist, Jclemens' leap to pedophila, and bullshit invocation of WP:CHILDPROTECT is even more absurd if this essay claims such people may "still be here to build an encyclopedia". WP:CHILDPROTECT explicitly says that pedophiles and their sycophants are strictly forbidden from editing here. Again, amen to that rule! I'm sorry this has become TLDR, but it needed to be said. I have been blocked for a month for refusing to redact my stated opinion about a certain pedophile. I have experienced personal family tragedy because of pederasty (an important distinction, but one for another day). I have witnessed the unspeakable horror inflicted upon a child at the hands of one of these vile predators. I made a benign edit to this page. His revert was inaccurate, his edit-summary was untrue, and his invocation of WP:CHILDPROTECT was sanctimonious and self-serving. Jclemens arrived at my talk page, still on his high horse, and proceeded to accuse me of "promoting pedophila on Wikipedia". His effrontery simply beggars belief. I have a two-word response for him, and it applies equally to the horse in on which he rode. Joefromrandb ( talk) 04:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Page currently [2] reads in part The disagreeing editor should take care to not violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as WP:DRNC, WP:IDHT, and WP:CIVIL in the course of challenging unpopular opinions. (my emphasis)
It seems to me that is the opposite of what it is meant to say. The editors we are concerned with here are taking the unpopular view, which could be seen as either challenging popular opinions or championing unpopular opinions. But the double negative doesn't work. Andrewa ( talk) 04:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Your feedback would be welcome at WP:VPP#Homework, and no intention to publish concerning homework assignments involving students posting at Wikipedia. Mathglot ( talk) 04:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
The recent edits are good, thanks. For the record, several items were rearranged in the "not here" section and the following were omitted:
Johnuniq ( talk) 04:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Original version
|
---|
Indications that a user clearly may not be here to build an encyclopedia include:
|
Revised version
|
---|
Indications that a user is not here to build an encyclopedia include:
|
In response to the questions raised, here are the original version & the revised version side by side so they can be judged on their merits. I have added the word "boss" to the revised version. SashiRolls t · c 23:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I have made an edit request for MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown involving this topic, so I request input. ミラ P 18:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The first point under WP:NOTHERE is, Narrow self-interest or promotion of themselves or their business. I propose that be changed to include the interest of a client or employer. If a new user comes along and the only thing they do is write about themselves, we block them as NOTHERE. But, if they hire somebody, who creates a WP:SPA, discloses that they're being paid, and then proceeds to write exactly the same spam, that's not technically a violation of NOTHERE, as currently written. It should be. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
write about themselvesbut does so without violating WP:NPOV seriously, without the degree of promotion which would make a page deletable under WP:CSD#G11, and cites (or learns to cite after being instructed) proper sources, then I think we should not block as "Not here to build an encyclopedia". We aren't mind readers. If the edits are helping the project by helping create a valid article, the editor's motives should not matter. Similarly, an allegedly paid editor should not be blocked as not here (and how can one tell the difference with reasonable assurance anyway, unless the user states the pague is an autobiography, or admits to being paid?) In short a practice (not justified by the blocking policy, IMO) of blocking as NOTHERTE an SPA focused on a single person or narrow topic, but not otherwise violating policy, should be changed, whether the SPA is believed to be the subject, or a paid editor. Often of course, such SPAs cross the line into promotionalism, and may be blocked for disruptive editing. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 21:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
We aren't mind readers. If the edits are helping the project by helping create a valid article, the editor's motives should not matter.The whole point of WP:NOTHERE is that the editor's motives do matter. We don't, in practice, block for that alone - generally speaking a WP:NOTHERE block does require that the editor be a problem in some way, such as an excessively promotional tone - but interpreting an editor's motivations are vital to evaluating whether they're likely to improve and, therefore, whether they should be given the normal amount of slack we give new / inexperienced editors or ones who make occasional mistakes. If an editor is clearly here solely to push a particular point of view (whether it's narrow self-interest or something else), that leeway evaporates. Writing that occasionally slips into a promotional tone is not a problem and wouldn't get anyone blocked, but when it becomes apparent that someone's motivations will always lead them to writing in a promotional tone, and that they have no interest in writing in any other way (because they're here to promote something and WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia), they should be blocked, even early on, when someone who seem like they might improve would be given more slack. I think RoySmith's proposal is a good one. Obviously evaluating motivations can be tricky, but I feel we've been doing it until now just fine, and (inevitably) spotting such accounts is always going to be a core part of maintaining an encyclopedia. -- Aquillion ( talk) 11:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I think this should be a guideline, not a Wikipedia essay. "Not being here to build an encyclopedia" is a common reason for blocking users, and this page is often interpreted as a guideline or policy. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 11:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Why is only editing in user and draft space considered not here to build an encyclopedia? I'm just curious. EternalNub ( talk) 17:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This page was nominated for deletion on 17 August 2009. The result of the discussion was keep. |
FT2 ( Talk | email) 15:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
A simplistic title, but building an encyclopedia can be analogous to making an ant nest - worker ants (and especially soldier ants) perform some tasks that superficially do not appear to be directly targeted toward building the colony; but it would be a mistake to consider them "not there to build a colony".
Since online encyclopedia's (um... the one I am familiar with, anyhoo) are very much more complex than ant colonies, and there are many roles and activities that do not appear to be directly concerned with article content creation, there needs to be an understanding that there needs to be very fine judgement over what may help toward the building of an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia's are not and have never been fact factories, where the majority is employed in churning out paragraphs of information with a little direction provided by functionaries and publishers, until... well, here and now in fact. However, Wikipedia is two potentially opposed concepts; a project in which content is provided by a potentially huge editorship, dwarfing the resources available to manage it in a traditional manner, and an expanding entity where the contribution demographic may perhaps be evolving into different constituent parts. Lastly, and this is where it gets tricky, the maintenance (and even concept) of an online open editing encyclopedia is itself simply an experimental model being run in real time; the rules are being created, criticised, discarded/confirmed, and endlessly debated even as the encyclopedia is being written, reviewed and read. "Building the encyclopedia" is not just a value judgement, but one which changes, incrementally, each day. Any discussion regarding what, or who, is not here to build an encyclopedia should recognise that the questioning or even opposition in respect of those who are recognised as being here to build an encyclopedia, or activities that are not considered as directly encyclopedia building, are not automatically detrimental to the purpose of building an encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 01:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm troubled by the "Not being here to build an encyclopedia" section. While this was intended as a selection of examples of the detrimental behavior this concept is aimed at, I worry that should this become policy, these will be used a specific points to ban given people -- or remove content contributed in good faith. Yes, there are people who edit Wikipedia in specific areas to push their agenda; but there are also people who join Wikipedia to make a few edits, contribute a specific chunk of material, participate in a single discussion -- then either leave or fall silent once their work is done. We can intuit that their intent to participate was to improve Wikipedia, but the inevitable wikilawyering allows one party to remove the material because the person who contributed "Was not here to build an encyclopedia". Maybe the solution is to make this an essay, rather than policy (just because someone presents a persuasive argument does not mean it needs to be formally added to policy for people to follow it); or to state that this is not a reason by itself to remove content. (If that isn't clear, that's because it's late in my time zone & I should have been in bed a couple of hours ago.) -- llywrch ( talk) 07:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Consensus appears to be leaning toward nixing this proposal as rejected. I agree with the sentiments above that it takes a lot of worker ants to keep the colony going, and each individual one may have no appearance of being constructive. Listing what Wikipedia is not is just a tad open ended. Apteva ( talk) 01:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I've renamed this essay in an attempt to make it less bitey, and given it the shortcut WP:HERE which is positive rather than negative. I'm not keen on the WP:NOTHERE bit, but it is worth discussing. John Vandenberg ( chat) 13:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
SlimVirgin has removed some examples that were in here, and it is probably better that they are kept out of the essay. However this essay seeks to enshrine "[Not] here to build an encyclopedia" as an acceptable phrase, and I think it is vital that we understand the prior use of this phrase if this essay is to remain in the main project namespace.
I've found another one. [1] John Vandenberg ( chat) 13:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I liked "Not here to build an encyclopedia" as the title, but failing that, I would prefer "Building an encyclopedia" as the alternative title. What it's just been moved to splits the difference in a way that I don't find too compelling. Jclemens ( talk) 15:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be pertinent, in the spirit of not biting, in the "What Not here to build an encyclopaedia is not" section to mention newcomers, who may initially not understand what building wikipedia requires. They need time to understand that it's not a battleground of ideas, that adding links to their organisations is spam rather than being helpful and so on. Perhaps a point saying "being NHTBAE takes time and effort; flailing newbies may not have made their minds up yet." VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 16:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems to me like the infopage description is appropriate. Should there have been discussion before it was changed back in March? -- Ronz ( talk) 22:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Should we consider trolling a reason for "not here to build an encyclopedia"? I am placing my idea here as bold edits to policy seem to be frowned upon. pcfan500 ( talk) 08:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I want to build a dictionary or atlas or almanac or something. Help? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.240.157 ( talk) 06:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
How is this not already labeled one of the founding principles of this project? It's *the* core concept, and people were banned for violating it like ten years ago. DreamGuy ( talk) 00:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
In the essay, in what "Not being here to build is Not" includes:
I think that this is too wishy-washy. Can someone who personally attacks repeatedly and gets banned really be considered to be here to build an encyclopedia, if WP:CIVIL is a pillar of Wikipedia? To me, no. Can someone who is here to build occasionally slip up? Yes. So I'm certainly not advocating changing it to "anyone who has ever been warned or blocked is not here to build" and yes, different people have different degrees of difficulty in trying to fight off urges to be uncivil. But uncivil behavior even for a moment does not help build the encyclopedia, and someone who repeatedly is uncivil is thus not here to build. I recommend tightening this point substantially to:
The essay needs to balance the rights of editors who have trouble not attacking people with the rights of people who are being attacked for what they are doing for the encyclopedia, and at the moment, this point (but not the essay in general) seemed to me to get that balance wrong. Thanks, and of course, I welcome comments. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Could we add, "Trying to score brownie points"? E.g. some Muslims apparently believe they score brownie points with their deity by posting in Talk:Muhammed even though it has no effect on the article. Some people might edit to try to score brownie points with somebody without caring about their effect on the article. Another example of this is the article for Beautiful where some "Romeo" will put that beautiful is So-and-so. -- Doctorx0079 ( talk) 04:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I have made a small update that might help everyone involved in our project. Check, reply and edit. Thank you. 61.3.43.116 ( talk) 10:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Kept the fix, 3 - 4 common types are enough...It would be nice if someone can provide examples from real incidents without pinpointing anyone. 59.92.31.61 ( talk) 21:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
First, it's not a "small update". Overall, I think the article is better without it. I've removed some of the worst of it. I suggest removing the rest, then restoring bits piecemeal if others think they are improvements. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
It's hard to know where to begin with this nonsense. I removed part of the statement, "it is possible for someone to hold extreme, even criminal views". Extreme? Of course. Criminal? No. Not possible. Not at all. Jclemens reverted, claiming, "yes, pro-pedophile viewpoints are outlawed". Not so, not that I can tell. The existence of vile groups like NAMBLA certainly seem to insist otherwise. I do not see how it is at all possible for a person to hold "criminal views". Holocaust-denial is illegal in many European countries. There's no crime in refusing to believe the Holocaust happened. It's ignorant. It borders on bat shit insanity, but if someone chooses to believe that, there's no law against it. Publicly denying the Holocaust is a crime, akin to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. With pedophilia, I'm not seeing how it even rises to that level. We even have an article about organizations that openly promote pedophilia. If it isn't a crime to publicly espouse pedophila, how in world could it possibly be a crime to privately hold these views, disgusting as they may be? Anyone openly pro-pedophilia is forbidden to edit here, and quite rightfully so. Perhaps this is what Jclemens meant with his erroneous statement about pro-pedophile viewpoints being outlawed. THE EDIT I MADE DID NOT IN ANY WAY SUGGEST THAT PEDOPHILES ARE WELCOME HERE. (In 7 years here, that is, I believe, only the second time I have "yelled"; my apologies for breach of etiquette, but I felt it egregiously exigent to emphasize.) I made a simple edit to change a statement that was clearly and plainly non-factual. Regarding these so-called criminal views, this essay said, "a person can hold criminal views and still be here to build an encyclopedia (my emphasis)". Assuming such criminal views actually exist, Jclemens' leap to pedophila, and bullshit invocation of WP:CHILDPROTECT is even more absurd if this essay claims such people may "still be here to build an encyclopedia". WP:CHILDPROTECT explicitly says that pedophiles and their sycophants are strictly forbidden from editing here. Again, amen to that rule! I'm sorry this has become TLDR, but it needed to be said. I have been blocked for a month for refusing to redact my stated opinion about a certain pedophile. I have experienced personal family tragedy because of pederasty (an important distinction, but one for another day). I have witnessed the unspeakable horror inflicted upon a child at the hands of one of these vile predators. I made a benign edit to this page. His revert was inaccurate, his edit-summary was untrue, and his invocation of WP:CHILDPROTECT was sanctimonious and self-serving. Jclemens arrived at my talk page, still on his high horse, and proceeded to accuse me of "promoting pedophila on Wikipedia". His effrontery simply beggars belief. I have a two-word response for him, and it applies equally to the horse in on which he rode. Joefromrandb ( talk) 04:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Page currently [2] reads in part The disagreeing editor should take care to not violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as WP:DRNC, WP:IDHT, and WP:CIVIL in the course of challenging unpopular opinions. (my emphasis)
It seems to me that is the opposite of what it is meant to say. The editors we are concerned with here are taking the unpopular view, which could be seen as either challenging popular opinions or championing unpopular opinions. But the double negative doesn't work. Andrewa ( talk) 04:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Your feedback would be welcome at WP:VPP#Homework, and no intention to publish concerning homework assignments involving students posting at Wikipedia. Mathglot ( talk) 04:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
The recent edits are good, thanks. For the record, several items were rearranged in the "not here" section and the following were omitted:
Johnuniq ( talk) 04:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Original version
|
---|
Indications that a user clearly may not be here to build an encyclopedia include:
|
Revised version
|
---|
Indications that a user is not here to build an encyclopedia include:
|
In response to the questions raised, here are the original version & the revised version side by side so they can be judged on their merits. I have added the word "boss" to the revised version. SashiRolls t · c 23:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I have made an edit request for MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown involving this topic, so I request input. ミラ P 18:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The first point under WP:NOTHERE is, Narrow self-interest or promotion of themselves or their business. I propose that be changed to include the interest of a client or employer. If a new user comes along and the only thing they do is write about themselves, we block them as NOTHERE. But, if they hire somebody, who creates a WP:SPA, discloses that they're being paid, and then proceeds to write exactly the same spam, that's not technically a violation of NOTHERE, as currently written. It should be. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
write about themselvesbut does so without violating WP:NPOV seriously, without the degree of promotion which would make a page deletable under WP:CSD#G11, and cites (or learns to cite after being instructed) proper sources, then I think we should not block as "Not here to build an encyclopedia". We aren't mind readers. If the edits are helping the project by helping create a valid article, the editor's motives should not matter. Similarly, an allegedly paid editor should not be blocked as not here (and how can one tell the difference with reasonable assurance anyway, unless the user states the pague is an autobiography, or admits to being paid?) In short a practice (not justified by the blocking policy, IMO) of blocking as NOTHERTE an SPA focused on a single person or narrow topic, but not otherwise violating policy, should be changed, whether the SPA is believed to be the subject, or a paid editor. Often of course, such SPAs cross the line into promotionalism, and may be blocked for disruptive editing. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 21:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
We aren't mind readers. If the edits are helping the project by helping create a valid article, the editor's motives should not matter.The whole point of WP:NOTHERE is that the editor's motives do matter. We don't, in practice, block for that alone - generally speaking a WP:NOTHERE block does require that the editor be a problem in some way, such as an excessively promotional tone - but interpreting an editor's motivations are vital to evaluating whether they're likely to improve and, therefore, whether they should be given the normal amount of slack we give new / inexperienced editors or ones who make occasional mistakes. If an editor is clearly here solely to push a particular point of view (whether it's narrow self-interest or something else), that leeway evaporates. Writing that occasionally slips into a promotional tone is not a problem and wouldn't get anyone blocked, but when it becomes apparent that someone's motivations will always lead them to writing in a promotional tone, and that they have no interest in writing in any other way (because they're here to promote something and WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia), they should be blocked, even early on, when someone who seem like they might improve would be given more slack. I think RoySmith's proposal is a good one. Obviously evaluating motivations can be tricky, but I feel we've been doing it until now just fine, and (inevitably) spotting such accounts is always going to be a core part of maintaining an encyclopedia. -- Aquillion ( talk) 11:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I think this should be a guideline, not a Wikipedia essay. "Not being here to build an encyclopedia" is a common reason for blocking users, and this page is often interpreted as a guideline or policy. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 11:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Why is only editing in user and draft space considered not here to build an encyclopedia? I'm just curious. EternalNub ( talk) 17:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)