Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Edit links
Page semi-protected
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
"WP:NOT" and "WP:!" redirect here. For other uses of "WP:NOT", see Wikipedia:Not (disambiguation). For other uses of ! in Wikipedia jargon, see Wikipedia:Glossary. For the Department of Fun, see WP:¡.
Content policies

Wikipedians
who are committed to building a high-quality encyclopedia. These exclusions are summarized as the things that Wikipedia is not.

Style and format

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia

WP:NOTPAPER

Several print volumes of Wikipedia. Volume information on the spine shows they are numbers 203 through 207, and range from ARS to ARY.
Print Wikipedia

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but a digital encyclopedia project. Server costs aside, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, or the total amount of content.

However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered under § Encyclopedic content. Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars.

Editors should limit individual articles to a reasonable size to keep them accessible (see Wikipedia:Article size). Splitting long articles signals a natural growth of a topic (see Wikipedia:Summary style). Print encyclopedias can cover most topics only in short, static articles, but Wikipedia can include more information, provide more external links, and update more quickly.

Encyclopedic content

WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC

Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.[1] Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight. Although there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. The examples under each section are not exhaustive.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary

WP:DICTIONARY

Main page: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary
No, it isn't part of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide. For a wiki that is a dictionary, visit our sister project Wiktionary. Missing dictionary definitions should be contributed there. Wikipedia articles are not:

  1. Definitions. Articles should begin with a good definition or description, but articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content. If they cannot be expanded, Wikipedia is not the place for them. In some cases, however, the definition of a word may be an encyclopedic subject, such as the definition of planet.
  2. Dictionary entries. Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness. Articles almost always focus on a single definition or usage of the title. Articles about the cultural or mathematical significance of individual numbers are also acceptable.
  3. Usage, slang, or idiom guides. Descriptive articles about languages, dialects, or types of slang (such as Klingon, Cockney, or Leet) are desirable. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of such languages are not. See § Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal below. For a wiki that is a collection of textbooks, visit our sister project Wikibooks. Consider importing such content there.

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

WP:FORUM

"WP:FORUM" redirects here. You may be looking for
Wikipedia:Forum shopping or Wikipedia:Village pump
.
Editors will try to answer relevant questions on talk and Wikipedia pages, but they are not here to fix your broken toaster.

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or new information. Per the policy on original research, do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:

  1. Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, communicating original ideas, offering novel definitions of terms, or coining new words. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that such material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion.
  2. Personal inventions. If you or a friend invented a drinking game, a new type of dance move, or even the word frindle, it is not notable enough to be given an article until multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources report on it. And Wikipedia is certainly not for things made up one day.
  3. WP:NOTESSAY
Personal essays that state your feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts). Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of an individual are important enough to discuss, let other people write about them. (Personal essays on Wikipedia-related topics are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-Wiki
.)
  • WP:NOTFORUM
    • Discussion forums. Stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion or voicing opinions about the article topic or anything else. Nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. If you wish to ask a question on a topic other than Wikipedia there is a Reference desk with Reference Desk guidelines
    .

    Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion

    WP:PROMO

    "WP:PROMOTION" redirects here. For other pages about advertising and promotion, see Wikipedia:Advertising.
    "WP:SOAP" redirects here. For the Soap Operas WikiProject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas.
    See also: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
    Further information: Wikipedia:Advocacy
    Advertise on these billboards, but not on Wikipedia.

    Wikipedia is not a

    usernames
    , articles, drafts, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted on Wikipedia is not for:

    1. WP:NOTADVOCACY
      2. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.[2]
    2. WP:NOTOPINION
      3. Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes", Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews, however, has "opinion" pages allowing commentary on articles.
    3. WP:NOTSCANDAL
      4. Scandalmongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.
    4. Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources, such as your résumé or curriculum vitae, is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
    5. WP:NOTPROMO
      6. Advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small garage bands or local companies are typically unacceptable. Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. Contributors must disclose any payments they receive for editing Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § Paid editing.

    Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project. However, article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines).

    Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files

    WP:NOTGALLERY

    Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files.[3] Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of:

    1. External links or
      Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding relevant, useful links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See Wikipedia:External links
      for some guidelines.
    2. Internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists for browsing or to assist with article organization and navigation; for these, please follow relevant guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists.
    3. Public domain resources such as the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica may be used to add content to an article (see Plagiarism guideline: Public-domain sources for guidelines on doing so). See also Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources and Wikisource's inclusion policy
      .
    4. Photographs or media files with no accompanying text. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to
      MOS:IMAGEREL
      .

    Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site

    WP:NOTFB

    "WP:MEMORIAL" and "WP:HOST" redirect here. For a list of deceased Wikipedians, see Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. For ownership of content, see Wikipedia:Ownership of content.
    "WP:NOTFANDOM" and "WP:NOTWIKIA" redirect here. For the essay explaining that Wikipedia is not Fandom, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Fandom.

    Wikipedia is not a

    cloud. Wikipedia pages, including those in user space
    , are not:

    1. U5. Wikipedia articles use formal English and are not written in Internet posting style
      .
    2. files that are used (or could be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else (e.g., personal photos) will be deleted. Ideally, freely licensed files should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons
      , where they can be linked from Wikipedia.
    3. Dating services
      . Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to pursue relationships or sexual encounters. User pages that move beyond broad expressions of sexual orientation are unacceptable.
    4. WP:RIP
      is excluded from this rule.)
    5. Content for projects unrelated to Wikipedia. Do not store material unrelated to Wikipedia, including in userspace. Please see
      WP:UPNOT
      for examples of what may not be included.

    If you are interested in using the wiki technology for a collaborative effort on something else, even just a single page, many free and commercial sites provide wiki/web hosting (e.g. Fandom, Google Sites and other services). You can also install wiki software on your own server. See the installation guide at MediaWiki.org for information on doing this.

    You do not own your userpage. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion.

    Wikipedia is not a directory

    WP:NOTCATALOG

    "WP:DIRECTORY" and "WP:NOTSALE" redirect here. For a listing of Wikipedia's directories and indexes, see
    WP:ANOT § SALE
    .
    See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists
    Nuh-uh

    Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. Please see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for alternatives. Wikipedia articles are not:

    1. Simple lists (such as
      WP:LISTCRITERIA
      for more information.
    2. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are permitted. (See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Appropriate topics for lists for clarification.)
    3. WP:CROSSCAT
      4. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories.
    4. WP:NOTGENEALOGY
      5. Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic.
    5. WP:NOTTVGUIDE
      6. Electronic program guides. An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable.
    6. WP:NOTPRICE
      7. A resource for conducting business. Neither articles nor their associated talk pages are for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Listings to be avoided include, but are not limited to: business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, contact information, patent filings, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) providing commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare prices and availability of competing products or a single product from different vendors. Lists of creative works are permitted. Thus, for example, Wikipedia should not include a list of all books published by HarperCollins, but may include a bibliography of books written by HarperCollins author Veronica Roth.

    Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal

    WP:NOTTEXTBOOK

    Antique book cover: Tested Crisco Recipes
    It's a cookbook! (But Wikipedia is not.)

    Wikipedia

    is an encyclopedic reference
    , not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like:

    1. Instruction manuals and cookbooks: while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, an
      owner's manual, cookbook, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise), or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not.[4] Wording can easily be modified to avoid advising the reader: Do not give aspirin ... ⇒ The WHO advises against the use of aspirin .... Such guides may be welcome at Wikibooks
      instead.
    2. "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel, venue, etc. While travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should list only those that are actually in the city. If you do wish to help write a travel guide, your contributions would be more than welcome at our sister project, Wikivoyage
      .
    3. WP:VGSCOPE. As of a 2021 decision to start allowing them, such guides may be welcome at Wikibooks
      instead.
    4. Internet guides: Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance, or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact, or historical significance, which can be kept significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources, since editors can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See the Current events portal
      for examples.
    5. FAQs: Wikipedia articles should not list
      frequently asked questions
      (FAQs). Instead, format the information as neutral prose within the appropriate articles.
    6. Textbooks and annotated texts: the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize accepted knowledge, not to teach subject matter. Articles should not read like textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, and Wikiversity. However, examples intended to inform rather than instruct may be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia articles.
    7. WikiJournal
      in Wikiversity.
    8. Case studies: many topics are based on the relationship of factor X to factor Y, resulting in one or more full articles. For example, this could refer to situation X in location Y, or version X of item Y. This is perfectly acceptable when the two variables put together represent some culturally significant phenomenon or some otherwise notable interest. Often, separate articles are needed for a subject within a range of different countries, due to substantial differences across international borders; articles such as "
      POV fork or original research
      , and would certainly not result in an encyclopedic article.

    Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

    WP:FUTURE

    "WP:FUTURE" redirects here. For the WikiProject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Futures studies.
    Antique carnival poster: "Alexander Crystal-Seer: Knows, Sees, Tells All"
    ... but Wikipedia does not.

    Wikipedia is not a collection of

    WP:NFF
    ). In particular:

    1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2044 U.S. presidential election and 2048 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. For example, the ultimate fate of the universe is an acceptable topic.
    2. Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item.
      septenquinquagintillion"[a]) are not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use. Certain scientific extrapolations are considered to be encyclopedic, such as chemical elements documented before isolation in the laboratory
      , provided that scientists have made significant non-trivial predictions of their properties.
    3. Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. Although scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on weapons in Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not.
    4. Although currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections.
    5. Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist of only product announcement information and rumors are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creators, a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable.

    Wikipedia is not a newspaper

    WP:NOTNEWS

    "WP:GOSSIP" redirects here. For the section of the biographies of living persons policy, see
    WP:BLPGOSSIP
    .
    See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Too much detail
    Extra! Extra! Wikipedia is not a newspaper!

    In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Even when citing recent news articles as sources, ensure the Wikipedia articles themselves are not:

    1. Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports. Wikipedia does not constitute a
      verified
      information.
    2. News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring
      WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events). Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews
      .
    3. in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
      for more details.)
    4. WP:NOTDIARY
      5. Celebrity gossip and diaries. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest.

    Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

    WP:NOTDB

    "WP:PLOT" redirects here. For information regarding plot summary manuals of style, see
    MOS:PLOT
    .
    "WP:INDISCRIMINATE" redirects here. For indiscriminate sources, see
    WP:Indiscriminate sources
    .
    See also: Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections
    An indiscriminate collection of information in the universe

    To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be:

    1. WP:NOTPLOT
      2. Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. For more information regarding summaries, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction § Contextual presentation.
    2. WP:NOTLYRICS
      3. Lyrics databases. An article about a song should provide information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, and so on. Quotations from a song should be kept to a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article, and used to facilitate discussion, or to illustrate the style; the full text can be put on Wikisource and linked from the article. Most song lyrics published after 1930 are protected by copyright; any quotation of them must be kept to a minimum, and used for direct commentary or to illustrate some aspect of style. Never link to the lyrics of copyrighted songs unless the linked-to site clearly has the right to distribute the work. See Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources for full discussion.
    3. prose with a {{main}} hatnote to Ethnic origins of people in Canada that tables the data alongside an explanation of collection method). Wikipedia:Notability § Stand-alone lists offers more guidance on what kind of lists are acceptable, and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Selection criteria
      offers guidance on what entries should be included.
    4. self-published or official
      ) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied regarding the level of detail to include. A list of every version/beta/patch is inappropriate. Consider a summary of development instead.

    Wikipedia is not censored

    WP:UNCENSORED

    "WP:REDACTION" redirects here. For the criteria for redaction, see
    WP:CRD
    .
    Main page: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer
    See also: Censorship of Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Offensive material

    Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.

    Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view) or the law of the United States. However, because most edits are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may be visible to readers for a time before being detected and removed.

    Options to hide an image

    Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is

    link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The Wikipedia:Offensive material
    guideline can help assess appropriate actions to take in the case of content that may be considered offensive.

    Some organizations' rules or traditions call for secrecy with regard to certain information about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations; thus, Wikipedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic.

    Community

    The above policies are about Wikipedia's content. The following relate to Wikipedia's governance and processes.

    Wikipedia is not an anarchy or a forum for free speech

    WP:NOTFREESPEECH

    "WP:ANARCHY" redirects here. For WikiProject Anarchism, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Anarchism.
    See also:
    WP:Enforcement
    Main page: Wikipedia:Administration
    Wikipedia is En­cy­clo­pe­dists' Corner, not Speakers' Corner.

    Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not an unregulated forum for free speech. The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of

    anarchist communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism
    .

    Wikipedia is not a democracy

    WP:NOTDEMOCRACY

    "WP:DEMOCRACY" redirects here. For Wikipedia's democratic structures, see WP:WikiProject Democracy.
    See also: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and Wikipedia:Elections
    A ballot box. Note that most Wikipedia decisions are not a result of a vote.

    Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting. (Voting is used for certain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee.) Straw polls are sometimes used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys can impede, rather than foster, discussion and should be used with caution.

    Off-site petitions and votes have no weight in the formation of consensus on Wikipedia.

    Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

    WP:BURO

    "WP:BURO" and "WP:BUREAU" redirect here. For the "bureaucrat" user access level, see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats.
    See also: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules
    Non-article pages outnumber articles by nearly 10:1.

    While Wikipedia

    some rules may be enforced
    , the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected.

    While Wikipedia's written

    evolving consensus
    .

    A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request.

    A procedural, coding, or grammatical error in a new contribution

    is not grounds for reverting it
    , unless the error cannot easily be fixed.

    Wikipedia is not a laboratory

    WP:NOTALAB

    Research about Wikipedia's content, processes, and the people involved

    Village pump to ensure it will not interfere with Wikipedia's mission. Regardless of the type of project, researchers are advised to be as transparent as possible on their user pages, disclosing information such as institutional connections and intentions.[9]

    Some editors explicitly request not to be subjects in research and experiments. Please respect the wish of editors to opt out of research.

    Wikipedia is not a battleground

    WP:BATTLE

    See also:
    Wikipedia:Behave

    Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges or import personal conflicts, nor is it the place to carry on ideological battles or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions is in direct conflict of Wikipedia's policies and goals, as well as Wikipedia's

    founding principles. In addition to avoiding battles in discussions, you should also avoid advancing your position in disagreements by making unilateral changes to policies. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
    .

    Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comments might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. If a conflict continues to bother you, take advantage of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. There are always users willing to mediate and arbitrate disputes between others.

    In large disputes, resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions. Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Work with whomever you like, but do not organize a faction that disrupts (or aims to disrupt) Wikipedia's fundamental decision-making process, which is based on building a consensus. Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints.

    Do not use Wikipedia to make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, its editors, or the Wikimedia Foundation—other means already exist to communicate legal problems.[10] Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban.

    Wikipedia is not compulsory

    WP:CHOICE

    "WP:NOTREQUIRED" redirects here. For "References are not optional" essay, see
    WP:OPTIONAL
    .
    See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service

    Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians. Editors are free to take a break or leave Wikipedia at any time.

    And finally ...

    WP:NOTSTUPID

    Wikipedia is not a lot of other things as well. We cannot anticipate every "bad" idea that someone might have. Almost everything on this page is here because somebody came up with a "bad" idea that had not been anticipated. In general, "that is a terrible idea" is always sufficient grounds to avoid doing something when there is a good reason that the idea is terrible.

    When you wonder what to do

    WP:WHATISTOBEDONE

    When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia.

    When you wonder whether the rules given above are being violated, consider:

    1. Modifying the content of an article (normal editing).
    2. Turning the page into a redirect, preserving the page history.
    3. Nominating the page for deletion if it meets grounds for such action under the Deletion policy. To develop an understanding of what kinds of contributions are in danger of being deleted, you have to regularly follow discussions there.
    4. Changing the rules on this page after a consensus has been reached following appropriate discussion with other Wikipedians via the talk page. When adding new options, please be as clear as possible and provide counter-examples of similar, but permitted, subjects.

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes is not an official policy, but can be referred to as a record of what has and has not been considered encyclopedic in the past.

    See also

    Notes

    1. ^ See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 § Final decision, which suggested a similar principle in November 2004.
    2. related to the improvement of Wikipedia and are not disruptive
      .
    3. ^ The English Wikipedia incorporates many images and some text which are considered "fair use" into its free content articles. Other language Wikipedias often do not. See also Wikipedia:Copyrights.
    4. ^ The how-to restriction does not apply to the project namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia.
    5. ^ "Former UC President Clark Kerr, a national leader in higher education, dies at 92" (Press release). UC Berkeley. December 2, 2003. Retrieved August 5, 2021.
    6. ISBN 9780262014472
      .
    7. list of academic studies of Wikipedia, Research resources at Wikimedia Meta, the Meta research newsletter, and the Wikimedia Foundation research blog
      .
    8. ^ Projects that are "potentially controversial" include, but are not limited to, any project that involves directly changing article content (contributors are expected to have as their primary motivation the betterment of the encyclopedia, without a competing motivation such as research objectives), any project that involves contacting a very large number of editors, and any project that involves asking sensitive questions about their real-life identities.
    9. paid-contribution disclosure policy
      (if researchers editing Wikipedia are being paid under grants to do so, this is paid editing that must be disclosed).
    10. Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright
      .
    1. ^ This is a large number, and would be written as a 1 followed by 174 zeros
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&oldid=1301326564"