This is a humorous essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors and is made to be humorous. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. This essay isn't meant to be taken seriously.

wp:respect

This page in a nutshell: It's not just any BS that makes the world go 'round – it's the BS we respect that makes the world turn. Respect for Wikipedia from the outside is growing each day, day in and day out!

slowly spinning Earth — Earth made to go 'round by *respected* BS

R-e-s-p-e-c-t – it's not just any BS that makes the world go 'round – it's only BS we respect that makes the world go 'round. It takes a lot of time and work to earn respect, and just one foolish act can cause the loss of respect. As editors, we generally respect this encyclopedia; however, what about outside Wikipedia?

Four-letter "F" word[edit]

Shortcuts

Would you hold a paper clip with your bare fingers and insert it into an electrical wall outlet? If you do, the odds are much better than fifty-fifty that you will receive a very nasty electric shock. It is likely that you are aware of this fact – you know what would probably happen. So you don't insert a paper clip into a wall outlet not because you "fear" electricity, but because you respect it. Yeah, I know, not what you expected. Well, fuck it. There, okay?

S-e-l-f r-e-s-p-e-c-t[edit]

I don't get no respect – no respect at all. I told my doctor I wanna stop aging. He gave me a gun.
— Rodney Dangerfield^[1]

If Wikipedia could speak, it is just witty enough to upstage the late, illustrious Dangerfield and might in fact say...

There is little respect for me in the academic world. I am edited and improved by a vast community that comprises anyone and everyone who wants to do so, regardless of background, who they are, or where in the world they may be. Little respect for me in academia? Big surprise!

Now, we all know that respect is not easy to come by. It can be earned only through long periods of trusted behavior and can be extinguished overnight by one untrustworthy act. No matter how we might measure respect, the one thread that weaves itself in and out of the fabric of philosophical time and study is that there can be no respect from others unless and until there is self-respect.

So, the question arises... is the product of a reference-work project such as Wikipedia capable of such a thing as self-respect?

I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me.
— Dave Barry^[2]

One contributor to Wikipedia asks...

There is a category of Parodies of Wikipedia, which so far does not contain Wikipedia.

By an unconscious self-parody I mean a poem or a passage in which the author is both characteristically and unintentionally absurd. I regret it has not been possible to include any Carlyle because, when I came to look through that fulgurating prose again after a happy lapse of thirty years since I had to read it in Freshman English at Yale, I discovered it was all self-parody.
— Dwight Macdonald, Parodies, p. 474

Dwight Macdonald dichotomizes self-parodies as either conscious or unconscious. Is Wikipedia unconsciously or consciously a self-parody? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)^[3]Reply[reply]

While Macdonald's trenchant style seems to rival Carlyle's, KW makes a good point. Often I read on some talk page from another editor how Wikipedia just isn't respected out there in "polite society". A whine is a whine, and perhaps the problem is that we don't have any cheese to go with that whine? ...that we don't just focus on improvement of Wikipedia and stop whining about how it (we) "don't get no respect"?

On the more exciting side of BS

Another aspect of self-respect on Wikipedia is how Wikipedians communicate with each other. Article readers can easily see this by clicking on the Talk page link. Too many discussions on subjects large and small are frought with incivility, the ignoring of a fundamental principle on Wikipedia and even mild to strong personal disrespect. When readers see this on an article's talk page, what must they think? What would YOU think in their shoes? The key to the construction of a powerful, lasting and respected reference work is civil communication among editors, particularly since there are so many of us all over the world.

Future academia[edit]

Recently, while I helped a new contributor, RQ, who wanted to do the best job they possibly could on an article, they all of a sudden reared up and blurted, "What if I'm just wasting my time? What if we're all just wasting our time?" The following ensued...

. . . Here's the thing (and this is something that all of us have to get used to)... Wikipedia is a place where anybody at any time can make edits to our work. Hopefully those edits are improvements. And therein lies the real beauty of this encyclopedia. Other contributors build on our work to make a better body of reference. When seen this way, virtually nothing we do is a waste of time. You do your best with what you have. Get in there and don't concern yourself that it might be a waste of your time. Nor should you worry about breaking Wikipedia. If what you do isn't perfect, then expect somebody to come in and try to make it better. This is not a one-man show, RQ, it's a community effort of staggering proportions. That's not always easy to get used to; however, it can be a most rewarding personal experience! Happy trails! Paine Ellsworth

"...a most rewarding personal experience" -- I concur -- thanks for your patience, Paine. Observation: I'm taking 700-level-graduate courses at the local university, thus getting involved in class/group projects with the others in class. And, I'm 3 times their age. So, it's interesting to be deeply immersed in how they work (as opposed to their professors) -- and Wikipedia is almost always their first reference, live, in the midst of a class lecture or discussion. Its quality & directness have gained a level of vital importance for the next generation, despite whatever qualms their teachers, mentors, or ancestors may have. RQ

So it does appear that Wikipedia continues to gain respectability among the young students who will shape the coming world. And if that thought keeps you awake at night, try some Carlyle or Macdonald. Sweet dreams!

Final note[edit]

Some really good BS can be found at Wikipedia:Department of Fun and at Wikipedia:Expect no thanks. So here's a gentle reminder that even though as editors we are not expected to show nor receive gratitude, it's just a lot of f u n to do so!

Notes[edit]

Wikipedia essays (?)

Essays on building, editing, and deleting content

Philosophy	Article content Articles must be written All Five Pillars are equally important Avoid vague introductions Be a reliable source Civil POV pushing Cohesion Competence is required Concede lost arguments Dissent is not disloyalty Don't lie Don't search for objections Editing Wikipedia is like visiting a foreign country Editors will sometimes be wrong Eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia Explanationism External criticism of Wikipedia Here to build an encyclopedia Leave it to the experienced Levels of competence Most ideas are bad Need Neutrality of sources Not editing because of Wikipedia restriction The one question Oversimplification Paradoxes Paraphrasing POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields Process is important Product, process, policy Purpose Reasonability rule Systemic bias There is no seniority Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia Tendentious editing The role of policies in collaborative anarchy The rules are principles Trifecta Wikipedia in brief Wikipedia is an encyclopedia Wikipedia is a community Wikipedia is not RationalWiki
Article construction	100K featured articles Abandoned stubs Acronym overkill Adding images improves the encyclopedia Advanced article editing Advanced text formatting Akin's Laws of Article Writing Alternatives to the "Expand" template Amnesia test A navbox on every page An unfinished house is a real problem Articles have a half-life Autosizing images Avoid mission statements Be neutral in form Beef up that first revision Blind men and an elephant BOLD, revert, discuss cycle Build content to endure Cherrypicking Chesterton's fence Children's lit, adult new readers, & large-print books Citation overkill Citation underkill Common-style fallacy Concept cloud Creating controversial content Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability Deprecated sources Dictionaries as sources Don't demolish the house while it's still being built Don't get hung up on minor details Don't hope the house will build itself Don't panic Don't "teach the controversy" Editing on mobile devices Editors are not mindreaders Encourage the newcomers Endorsements (commercial) Featured articles may have problems Formatting bilateral relations articles Formatting bilateral relations templates Fruit of the poisonous tree Give an article a chance How to write a featured article Identifying and using independent sources History sources Law sources Primary sources Science sources Style guides Tertiary sources Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats Inaccuracy Introduction to structurism Mine a source Merge Test Minors and persons judged incompetent "Murder of" articles Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography Not everything needs a navbox Not everything needs a template Nothing is in stone Obtain peer review comments Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area Permastub Potential, not just current state Presentism Principle of Some Astonishment The problem with elegant variation Pro and con lists Printability Pruning article revisions Publicists Put a little effort into it Restoring part of a reverted edit Robotic editing Sham consensus Source your plot summaries Specialized-style fallacy Stub Makers Run an edit-a-thon Temporary versions of articles Tertiary-source fallacy There are no shortcuts to neutrality There is no deadline There is a deadline The deadline is now Try not to leave it a stub Understanding Wikipedia's content standards Walled garden What an article should not include Wikipedia is a work in progress Wikipedia is not a reliable source Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion The world will not end tomorrow Write the article first Writing better articles
Writing article content	Avoid thread mode Copyediting reception sections Coup Don't throw more litter onto the pile Gender-neutral language Myth vs fiction Proseline Use our own words We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions Write the article first Writing about women Writing better articles
Removing or deleting content	Adjectives in your recommendations AfD is not a war zone Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions Arguments to make in deletion discussions Avoid repeated arguments Before commenting in a deletion discussion But there must be sources! Confusing arguments mean nothing Content removal Counting and sorting are not original research Delete the junk Deletion is not cleanup Does deletion help? Don't attack the nominator Don't confuse stub status with non-notability Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument Follow the leader How to save an article proposed for deletion I just don't like it Identifying blatant advertising Identifying test edits Immunity Keep it concise Liar liar pants on fire Nothing Nothing is clear Overzealous deletion Relisting can be abusive Relist bias The Heymann Standard Unopposed AFD discussion Wikipedia is not Whack-A-Mole Why was the page I created deleted? What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork No Encyclopedic Use

Essays on civility

The basics	Accepting other users Apology Contributing to complicated discussions Divisiveness Edit at your own pace Encouraging the newcomers Enjoy yourself Expect no thanks High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors How to be civil Maintaining a friendly space Negotiation Obsessive–compulsive disorder editors Please say please Relationships with academic editors Thank you Too long; didn't read Truce Unblock perspectives We are all Wikipedians here You have a right to remain silent
Philosophy	A weak personal attack is still wrong Advice for hotheads An uncivil environment is a poor environment Be the glue Beware of the tigers! Civility warnings Deletion as revenge Failure Forgive and forget It's not the end of the world Nobody cares Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals Old-fashioned Wikipedian values Profanity, civility, and discussions Revert notification opt-out Shadowless Fists of Death! Staying cool when the editing gets hot The grey zone The last word There is no Divine Right of Editors Most ideas are bad Nothing is clear Reader The rules of polite discourse There is no common sense Two wrongs don't make a right Wikipedia is not about winning Wikipedia should not be a monopoly Writing for the opponent
Dos	Assume good faith Assume the assumption of good faith Assume no clue Avoid personal remarks Avoid the word "vandal" Be excellent to one another Beyond civility Call a spade a spade Candor Deny recognition Desist Discussing cruft Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Encourage full discussions Get over it How to lose Imagine others complexly Just drop it Keep it down to earth Mind your own business Say "MOBY" Mutual withdrawal Read before commenting Settle the process first
Don'ts	ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI Civil POV pushing Cyberbullying Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack Don't be a fanatic Don't be a jerk Don't be an ostrich Don't be ashamed Don't be a WikiBigot Don't be high-maintenance Don't be inconsiderate Don't be obnoxious Don't be prejudiced Don't be rude Don't be the Fun Police Don't bludgeon the process Don't call a spade a spade Don't call people by their real name Don't call the kettle black Don't call things cruft Don't come down like a ton of bricks Don't cry COI Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid Don't eat the troll's food Don't fight fire with fire Don't give a fuck Don't help too much Don't knit beside the guillotine Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your signature Don't remind others of past misdeeds Don't shout Don't spite your face Don't take the bait Don't template the regulars Don't throw your toys out of the pram Do not insult the vandals Griefing Nationalist editing No angry mastodons just madmen No Nazis No racists No Confederates No, you can't have a pony Passive aggression Please don't bite the newcomers POV railroad Superhatting There are no oracles There's no need to guess someone's preferred pronouns You can't squeeze blood from a turnip UPPERCASE
WikiRelations	WikiBullying WikiCrime WikiHarassment WikiHate WikiLawyering WikiLove WikiPeace

Essays on notability

Humorous essays

About essays

About essays	Essay guide Value of essays Difference between policies, guidelines and essays Don't cite essays as if they were policy Avoid writing redundant essays Finding an essay Quote your own essay
Policies and guidelines	About policies and guidelines Policies Guidelines How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance Policy writing is hard

Written by Paine Ellsworth , who accepts no ~~respectability~~ responsibility for anyone who trips on the sidewalk while immersed in this essay. No BS!