This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Five pillars page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
Frequently asked questions
|
Essays Top‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from Wikipedia:Five pillars was copied or moved into Wikipedia:Wikipedia is free content with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Spoken Wikipedia | ||||
|
IMO this has a greater status than an essay, and the only issue is that we have no category for such things. An editor marked it as an essay and I reverted, saying that we should discuss such a change. My revert was reverted. Should we mark this as an essay? North8000 ( talk) 21:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Just so it's said - I don't mind the removal of the info template. My goal was to find a middle ground to (hopefully) stop the reverting. I thought the info template works ok for this page. Though I suppose the last line of it could seem to make this page appear to be less than it is. - jc37 23:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
We need to create a name/group of highly vetted "core documents" (which are not a policy or a guideline). I've been noodling on that for a long time and plan to propose it someday. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 01:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I view the US constitution and laws as an example if you don't try to carry the imperfect analogy too far. The constitution is authoritative and sets the general direct direction but is not detailed enough / too open to many interpretations to (allow to) get invoked/applied directly on a day to day basis. Laws do that. Policies and guidelines are like laws with respect to specificity. North8000 ( talk) 13:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
"it's the founding principles that all policies and guidelines are based on"- It absolutely is not. It was not written that early in the history of Wikipedia, a number of PAGs pre-date it by years (WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:OR etc.). Parts (e.g., the random reference to gazetteers) were added in after I joined Wikipedia, and I am far from the longest tenured editor.
"a non-binding description of some of the fundamental principles, begun by User:Neutrality in 2005". I think especially people who came up in the US tradition expect things to have a constitution similar to the US one - Wikipedia doesn't have such a document. FOARP ( talk) 21:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I brought up the US constitution analogy (only) in two narrower senses:
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 21:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Greetings Wikifolx, As someone studying decolonization in North America, the more of my time spent listening to and learning from Indigenous knowledge keepers, the more white supremacist and Eurocentric Wikipedia becomes in my reading of it. Just in case you think white supremacy only looks like nazis, neonazis and kkk members, please check out Tema Okun's paper on White Supremacy Culture before replying about how Wikipedia isn't.
The standpoint that wikipedia tends to be written from is not one that centres or even really gives space to Indigenous knowledge (epistemologies) and ways of being in the world/worldview (ontologies), and specifically privileges the western or Euro-North American perspective. This included the concept of a "neutral tone."
There are many articles that come across as nearly "blatantly" racist because of this, especially when an author introduced an Indigenous concept or knowledge, and then either refutes it with "science," or with a perspective that erases the violence done to Indigenous peoples by our (Euro-descended folx) claim to objectivity and neutrality.
Is there a "Decolonize Wikipedia" subgroup or chat area where decolonizing Wikipedia is beginning, or starting to get discussed? The "noble" aim of Wikipedia, to make knowledge accessible and free, is difficult to support when it is only a specific knowledge, and then a racist knowledge that is (this might be hard to read for the first time, sorry about that) literally designed to support whiteness as an ideal category (of being, knowing, and value).
Self-location: My lineage is mostly Germanic and Celtic, and living on Coast Salish territory (even as an invited guest in one Nation's territories) means I am actively dis-placeing Indigenous peoples by being here. HISWKE for the space to have this discussion. Kikila mai Tawhiti ( talk) 22:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I reverted online because being online was not the point of the pillar and because of [1]. NadVolum ( talk) 14:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an online encyclopediaobfuscates the point of the message. That point is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not the other things. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Five pillars page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
Frequently asked questions
|
Essays Top‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from Wikipedia:Five pillars was copied or moved into Wikipedia:Wikipedia is free content with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Spoken Wikipedia | ||||
|
IMO this has a greater status than an essay, and the only issue is that we have no category for such things. An editor marked it as an essay and I reverted, saying that we should discuss such a change. My revert was reverted. Should we mark this as an essay? North8000 ( talk) 21:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Just so it's said - I don't mind the removal of the info template. My goal was to find a middle ground to (hopefully) stop the reverting. I thought the info template works ok for this page. Though I suppose the last line of it could seem to make this page appear to be less than it is. - jc37 23:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
We need to create a name/group of highly vetted "core documents" (which are not a policy or a guideline). I've been noodling on that for a long time and plan to propose it someday. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 01:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I view the US constitution and laws as an example if you don't try to carry the imperfect analogy too far. The constitution is authoritative and sets the general direct direction but is not detailed enough / too open to many interpretations to (allow to) get invoked/applied directly on a day to day basis. Laws do that. Policies and guidelines are like laws with respect to specificity. North8000 ( talk) 13:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
"it's the founding principles that all policies and guidelines are based on"- It absolutely is not. It was not written that early in the history of Wikipedia, a number of PAGs pre-date it by years (WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:OR etc.). Parts (e.g., the random reference to gazetteers) were added in after I joined Wikipedia, and I am far from the longest tenured editor.
"a non-binding description of some of the fundamental principles, begun by User:Neutrality in 2005". I think especially people who came up in the US tradition expect things to have a constitution similar to the US one - Wikipedia doesn't have such a document. FOARP ( talk) 21:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I brought up the US constitution analogy (only) in two narrower senses:
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 21:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Greetings Wikifolx, As someone studying decolonization in North America, the more of my time spent listening to and learning from Indigenous knowledge keepers, the more white supremacist and Eurocentric Wikipedia becomes in my reading of it. Just in case you think white supremacy only looks like nazis, neonazis and kkk members, please check out Tema Okun's paper on White Supremacy Culture before replying about how Wikipedia isn't.
The standpoint that wikipedia tends to be written from is not one that centres or even really gives space to Indigenous knowledge (epistemologies) and ways of being in the world/worldview (ontologies), and specifically privileges the western or Euro-North American perspective. This included the concept of a "neutral tone."
There are many articles that come across as nearly "blatantly" racist because of this, especially when an author introduced an Indigenous concept or knowledge, and then either refutes it with "science," or with a perspective that erases the violence done to Indigenous peoples by our (Euro-descended folx) claim to objectivity and neutrality.
Is there a "Decolonize Wikipedia" subgroup or chat area where decolonizing Wikipedia is beginning, or starting to get discussed? The "noble" aim of Wikipedia, to make knowledge accessible and free, is difficult to support when it is only a specific knowledge, and then a racist knowledge that is (this might be hard to read for the first time, sorry about that) literally designed to support whiteness as an ideal category (of being, knowing, and value).
Self-location: My lineage is mostly Germanic and Celtic, and living on Coast Salish territory (even as an invited guest in one Nation's territories) means I am actively dis-placeing Indigenous peoples by being here. HISWKE for the space to have this discussion. Kikila mai Tawhiti ( talk) 22:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I reverted online because being online was not the point of the pillar and because of [1]. NadVolum ( talk) 14:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an online encyclopediaobfuscates the point of the message. That point is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not the other things. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)