Do we need to reword the opening point of WP:NOT[edit]

Hi. I had not read this for a while and was just refreshing myself. The opening line says The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere. So based upon the above, as there is data recorded elsewhere, do we not need to bother about creating an encyclopedia at all? I know it's a flippant comment, but that is how it reads. Should we actually not reword this to say something like "The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, however Wikipedia, as per encyclopedias in general, does not aim to contain every known piece of information on a subject." Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may be being dense but I don't get there's a significant distinction. Wikipedia does aim to replicate everything from everywhere. Bon courage (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"but Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data" is the bit that doesn't make sense. So digital encyclopedias can't hold every bit of data? We just need to make it clearer. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No encyclopedia aims to contain all information, but only a summary of information. It's a first step to look at if one wants more info on a topic but should never be the final one. — Masem (t) 16:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, so the wording should say that. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
simply by saying we're an encyclopedia should implicitly cover that. Encyclopedias don't try to cover everything in general. Masem (t) 16:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree with Masem in principle, but there are people who do not know this, including people who edit Wikipedia. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read it as: "Being "data" does not automatically mean it should be in Wikipedia". But further refining the first sentences (or this policy) might be a good thing. BTW by the most useful definitions, "information" does not mean data. By those definitions, thinning out data usually increases the information content. North8000 (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed the word information instead of data, as the Cambridge English Dictionary gives the description: Data - information, especially facts or numbers, collected to be examined and considered and used to help decision-making, or information in an electronic form that can be stored and used by a computer. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support rewording that sentence to your proposed one. data or expression is vague. Some1 (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "therefore" seems unsupported - it presumably means, as Masem says, "No encyclopedia aims to contain all information, but only a summary of information", but that is not glaringly obvious. Some rewording is probably a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the fundamental differences between an enclyclopedia and the internet are:

Some of these are covered by other policies. I think that this policy is focused on dealing with cases where there is legit data (which might be information in some contexts) that still doesn't belong in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of those categories, I think the only ones relevant to this policy are summarisation and likeliness of being useful to readers:


I view information as an answer to a question, and so is context sensitive. If I ask two credible people to tell me a good barber in Chicago and one gives me one phone number and the other Googles "barbers in Chicago" and gives me a list of 1,000, in that context the person who gave me the one phone number gave me more information. So for Wikipedia, the question is whether it answers questions which people would come to an enclyclopedia for. North8000 (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They gave you not just information but knowledge (assuming their recommendation is grounded & good). But the problem here is that this text can open up the whole debate about the ontology of data/information/knowledge/wisdom. Isn't the point being made a lot more simple: just because we're digital doesn't mean we need to be over-expansive. I suppose it's a counter to the argument one sometimes comes across "there's plenty of room on the servers, so no reason why my additions can't stand". I wonder now if we even need to be saying this? Bon courage (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that while we theoretically could include everything (legal and verifiable) in practice we don't because there is consensus we shouldn't. The policy sets out the general types of content we don't include and why we don't include it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. I think that this "foundation" conversation (including the reasons for the consensus that you refer to) is useful towards potential further tweaks on this policy. North8000 (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starting with: we're not "the internet" we're an enclyclopedia. North8000 (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This (differences between an enclyclopedia and the internet) is a good comment. I just wanted to draw attention to it. It describes the consensus well, I think. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on some of the conversation, how about this: Although the amount of information Wikipedia can hold is practically unlimited, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and like all encyclopedias, it does not aim to contain all the information, data or expression known on every subject. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is getting pretty long. You could drop the first part and no information would be lost. Even shorter, you could say Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a reference work that does not aim to contain all the information, data or expression known on every subject. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to that. Its far better than what we have. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that leaving that first part off would be good. A second reason is that it a bit works against the main sentence. I encourage the effort on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On second read, it is a little weird to describe what an encyclopedia is not without a little more about what an encyclopedia is. For brevity, I might suggest:
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a summary style reference work that does not aim to contain all the information, data or expression known on every subject.
I think it helps editors to note the style of writing for an encyclopedia is, so they don't go down the rabbit hole with databases, archived news posts, and so on. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bon courage@DeCausa@Johnbod@Masem@NadVolum@North8000@Shooterwalker@Some1 Do you think Shooterwalker idea is best way forward. Do you think we need an RFC or just name the change? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something along those lines is good with me — Masem (t) 13:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should change and Shooterwalker's idea looks great. Let's make sure we have the details worked out (e.g. exactly what is being replaced?) and have a consensus here and just do it. It's not a policy change, just a wording tune-up. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a clear improvement. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like Shooterwalker's proposal. - Enos733 (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shooterwalker's proposal looks good to me. To answer North8000's question, I'm assuming this is a change to the first bullet point of the "This page in a nutshell:" box. Some1 (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"[A] reference work in summary style" would be better; if the compound modifier is kept it would have to be "a summary-style reference work", per MOS:HYPHEN. "[A]ll the ... expression known on every subject" reads rather awkwardly. Assuming it's the first two sentences that would be replaced, I would suggest "Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia – a reference work in summary style that does not aim to contain all known information or data, or everything that has been expressed on a subject." I would quite happily change "all known information or data" to "all knowledge", which is already in the opening lines. Ham II (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ham II I think the online encyclopedia idea has been agreed by the others that it is not really relevant anymore. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of 'The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited'. It may have meant something inthe past when encyclopaedias were books but it dosn't really say anything much today hen people use smartphones and discs hold hundred or thousands of gigabytes. It should be removed as a bit of dated chest thumping. NadVolum (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm inclined to agree. I think this hearkens from an age where this new-fangled digital stuff was unfamiliar, and we needed to point out that people shouldn't go mad given the huge storage space on tap! Bon courage (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It not only has no useful meaning, it confuses the issue and does harm to the point being made. North8000 (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of "Wikipedia is not a forum" on talk pages.[edit]

We should clarify that, although "not a forum" is an absolute in the articles, it applies on talk-pages for off topic content, but not for discussions about improving the article. I shall cite an example:

I read the article bats. I noticed that about disease-transmission to humans, it did not note that most disease-transmission to humans is because idiots harass bats. I was not certain how to fix it, so I asked for help on the talk-page.

On the talk-page, the topic was deleted citing "not a forum". This misapplication of "not a forum" holds back improving the article. Certainly, if I would have wrote in the article "idiots getting diseases from bats deserve it because they harass bats" that would be wrong, but is was a request on the talk-page about how to clarify that most disease-transmission is from bat-harassers.

Since I gave an example of when "not a forum" is not appropriate on talk-pages, I should give an example of when it is:

"Bats are cute and cuddly. Please reply in this thread about how much you love bats."

Since the above is clearly offtopic and cannot plausibly improve the article, it should be deleted. Its deletion would be appropriate use of "not a forum" on talk-pages.

TL;DR:

If a thread is on topic and aims to improve an article, it is allowable on talk-pages because it is constructive. If a thread is merely blabbering in a off topic nonconstructive way on the talk-page, it should be deleted under "not a forum". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.189.192.219 (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it's a judgement call, and I've seen completely forum-ish contributions defended with brave claims of "oh, obviously this was intended to promote discussion that would lead to article improvement". If an editor is deleting valid talk page contribtions on spurious grounds that is a behavioural problem to be raised with them, in the first instance. Bon courage (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, ask the person who deleted the topic to actually explain why they did not consider it a proper talk page topic, without resorting to a shortcut. The best place to do this is on the talk page of the article, where other interested parties can give their opinions. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SUPERHAT is relevant in such situations, I aver. jp×g🗯️ 10:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the post in question that was removed citing "not a forum". Zefr (talk · contribs) removed it. While your post is a suggestion to change the article, it is mostly opinion. We would not add any of this per WP:OP, You could just post again, but start off with "The article needs a section on mistreatment of bats." Ultimately you will need to present reliable sources for anything added to the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of directory in this context (WP:NOTDIRECTORY)[edit]

Directory is an ambiguous word, and the meaning varies with context. There are several Wikipedians, some with considerable edit counts, who do not appear to know the meaning of the word in this context, and it is not defined on the page. As an aid to encouraging people to develop a more complete understanding of the various meanings, I linked to the disambiguation page, but it would appear that Pabsoluterince does not consider this a suitable link, and reverted it as overlinking. I suggest that it is indeed a useful link, though not necessarily sufficient, and request any better ideas that will help people to refrain from misusing WP:NOTDIRECTORY as an argument for deletion where it is not relevant. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the intended meaning? Why is it not explained where we use it? Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not unusual for the meaning of a pivotal term to not be explained. It is common to assume that because the meaning is obvious to oneself in the context of the original discussion, it will be obvious to others in the summary provided for general use. Interpretations of our guidance can be quite varied, and often lead to dispute. On the one hand it can be tedious to spell out the meaning unambiguously, and we get tl:dr as a result. There is also a danger to tying some things down too rigidly, as there can be other unforeseen consequences, and it can also be difficult to be sure of exactly where the borders of consensus lie, and if the closer specifies it in a way that too many participants disagree with, it will collapse. That said, I do think the intended meaning should be clear where we use it, and wherever it is found to be ambiguous enough to cause problems, meaning should be clarified. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Six examples are given, but they do not cover all the possibilities. They also only list some of the types of list article that are not wanted. There are types of list that we accept – Indexes, glossaries, bibliographies, discographies and outlines, for example, which are not directories by some definitions, but might be by others. In some ways a navigational aid such as a navbox could be considered a rather minimalist directory, and in some ways categories could be considered directories. I am reasonably confident that NOTDIRECTORY is not intended to be used as a pretext for eliminating those classes of content. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that linking to a directory of meanings of the word 'directory' resolves the ambiguity of its use in this sentence? Linking to a disambiguation page doesn't clarify the meaning of the word, it includes things like Directory (political) and Directory (OpenVMS command) which I think you'll agree is also not the meaning that we were going for in this sentence. I think within the context of the page, it is adequately elucidative, and that common sense and competence will prevail. Pabsoluterince (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read my opening statement, you will see that I consider it an improvement on the current situation, not a complete fix. It would make it clear that there are more than one type of directory, though it would be more useful to define what kinds the guidance is referring to and what types it is not referring to. Common sense and competence are apparently not prevailing sufficiently, as editors are using NOTDIRECTORY as an argument to delete list articles which common sense and competence, as well as precedence and long term usage, suggest are not directories of the types we do not want. You are welcome to suggest better alternatives, perhaps you can come up with an actual solution. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is then, what kinds of articles are being removed through misunderstandings of WP:NOTDIRECTORY? And then does there need to be a specific caveat made for those articles. I still don't feel that linking directory is helpful to prevent misinterpretations. For example, we don't insert the dictionary definition of ambiguous words midway through the sentence, we expect the context to be sufficient. Pabsoluterince (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A recent example was a claim that a Wikipedia:Index was a case of NOTDIRECTORY. The RfD AfD was unsuccessful, but it was a timesink and was proposed by an editor who should know better and supported by an editor who should know better, in spite of them being informed of the inappropriate use of the criteria. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remember such an RfD, but looking at your contributions it seems it was actually an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of underwater divers. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite correct Thryduulf, sorry for the error. Slip of the brain. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, most of the WP:NOT entries were intended to curb stuff like people making articles for every street in every city in the world, or phonebook listings, or the like. jp×g🗯️ 07:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That meaning is clear from the guidance already given. The problem arises when people choose to make a broader interpretation which may exceed the intended meaning. Competence is desirable, but not always apparent, and our personal competences vary between topics. It should not be necessary to waste time defending articles which should be obviously acceptable, because some people do not find it obvious, and may need to have it explicitly defined in simple, unambiguous language, to overcome their preconceptions. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Aeroflot destinations[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Aeroflot destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"2028 U.S. presidential election" example in crystal ball section[edit]

I noticed the article 2028 U.S. presidential election is given as an example of an article that should exist, but it currently doesn't and requires an admin to create it. Perhaps it's a poor example and should be removed?

I would do it myself, but the last time that was attempted it was reverted. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 02:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information Hazards[edit]

This page doesnt include any discussion of how Wikipedia is to treat Innformation Hazards, or Information that directly effects either the reader, another person(s) or something else in the world: An example on current procedure is with rare plants such as "Hyperion", the tallest living tree, whose exact coordinates being available (or more easily accessible) would encourage vandalism/damage through tourism as has already been the case: Information here is directly a hazard, if only due to people acting on it. Wikipedia does not typically censor itself in fear of actions of its readers (How much of chemistry, medicine and physics would need to be censored?), however it is also niave to believe that posting information is purely innocent, and that it has no consequence on the world. Regarding Wikipedias refusal to be a "battleground" of politics, this too is niave if taken absolutely: Wikipedia *cannot* avoid politics of some sort, and indeed is choosing a specific political position in regards to censorship.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: however, there is no encyclopedia on earth free from the political context surrounding its creation, and other encyclopedias, especially historically, would have been expected to do their "due diligence" in regards to their expected political obligations. An encyclopedia that published accurate how-tos of bomb and poison creation for example would be quite taboo in most of the world, even if "purely informative".

A more comprehensive position is needed by wikipedia on these issues. 90.247.229.178 (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have an extremely comprehensive position, which is outlined at WP:NOTCENSORED -- which is that we do not do this. Your example -- that detailed instructions on how to make bombs would clearly be forbidden -- is specifically not true, as the article pipe bomb can demonstrate. Posting information is not a purely innocent act, but neither is obstructing it, and the latter has directly led to unspeakable evil on a number of occasions. jp×g🗯️ 08:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of AfD that cites this policy[edit]

The following AfD is discussing the applicability of WP:NOT to the question of whether 153 lists of airline destinations should be deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFILESTORAGE and WP:Freedom of panorama[edit]

Hello. It is understood that freely-licensed files should ideally be stored on Wikimedia Commons as per WP:NOTFILESTORAGE (a subsection of this policy page). Nevertheless, courtesy of a 2012 consensus, full-resolution images of copyrighted architecture from no-FoP countries can be hosted here, on the basis that English Wikipedia servers are in the U.S. and that only U.S. law should be respected here (not laws of all other countries).

I do not question the enwiki's FoP policy itself (even if the boilerplate template on top of WP:Freedom of panorama claims the practice is not a formal policy). What I am concerned is that there is a tendency to turn enwiki into a file storage for such unfree public buildings. At one point, NickW557 expressed some concern to an active Philippine contributor of local images of public buildings of the Philippines (which does not have FoP for anything) that the images may be running in violation of the Philippine law, despite enwiki only needing to respect U.S. law. (some off-topic: enwiki is the most-accessed by Filipinos among all Wikimedia websites, 9 out of 10 Wikimedia visitors or readers here visit enwiki, only a handful visit tlwiki and virtually none on all other Philippine language editions)

Again, I am not questioning the 2012 consensus (it is up to France-based ADAGP or the Philippine authorities and architects to question that), but rather it is more logical to only permit at least 3 or up to 5 local images per building, to avoid the tendency of using enwiki as a file storage site for unfree buildings. A simple search for Burj Khalifa images reveals we only have 3 full-resolution images of the tower, but I think that should be the upper limit. These three images should always be used on at least one article, to not run violating WP:NOTFILESTORAGE. We also have three images of Burj Al Arab, which IMO is still OK (IMO it becomes not OK if we have 6 or 10 images of the same building).

An alternative suggestion: WP:NOTFILESTORAGE should be added clarification to avoid some conflict with WP:Freedom of panorama. It is worth noting that the 2012 consensus (RfC) is still not an official policy as per the boilerplate template of WP:Freedom of panorama.

A similar concern was previously brought here but there was no substantial inputs regarding local unfree buildings: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 59#Clarification on NOTFILESTORAGE. The past discussion was generally concerned on personal images issue. Ping some of the involved editors of the said past topic that may interest this current topic: @Matrix, Iruka13, WhatamIdoing, JPxG, and SMcCandlish: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason to think that file storage poses a significant burden, in terms of hosting costs or server performance or user experience among users of the site?
My understanding is that the answer to this question is "no", which would seem to imply that there is no worthwhile reason to go around torching photo albums (there are certainly instances, e.g. every article Epicgenius writes, in which it is helpful to have more than three illustrations of a building). jp×g🗯️ 08:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tend to agree (and ultimately it is not practical for a project in one jurisdiction to attempt to comply with ever-changing different rules in every jurisdiction on earth). However, the OP has a point that we probably need some kind of limits on this. If someone uploads 100 images of the same building in a non-FoP country, that doesn't really seem to serve an encyclopedic purpose. The idea that the "images should always be used on at least one article" might be workable, as long as it's within some sensible time-frame (i.e., do not create a dumb wikilawyer loophole by which someone can remove an image they don't like, then go have it deleted the same day before anyone else who care about it or the article has time to react; or see an image uploaded then immediately have it deleted before there's a chance to integrate it into an article). I don't really have a solid opinion on what a sensible timeframe would be. A week? A month? A year?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG the question on file storage and its impact on Wikimedia's servers and other technical things can be answered perhaps on Meta wiki.
@SMcCandlish I assume there would be no concrete timeframe. The risk is there in which a typical user dislikes the current image and goes locally uploading his image of the same building that he touts as better. Then some FFD process starts on claim that the now-disused older image is no longer used. Perhaps FFD may resolve whether which image is more suited in an article, but in practice it is needless as a waste of users' time. I may suggest an upper limit of not more than 10 images of a same building, inclusive of the building in its final stage of construction. I already suspect we have more than 5 images of the Philippine Arena itself, many again from Patrickroque01. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG, some relevant clues on Wikimedia servers / file storage may be found at the following pages from Wikitech and from Meta wiki. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question about file storage is already answered at Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. The basic rule of thumb is that unless one of the devs directly says that we need to stop doing something (something very specific, not just "too much disk space") for performance reasons, then we should not worry about it.
Also, to make sure everyone has a clear idea of how much disk space we're talking about: If the devs ever say that we're short on disk space because of a couple hundred photos, I will personally mail a nickel to the office so that they can buy a few more gb disk space. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that the storage used for Wikipedia files and for Commons files comes out of the same budget, so would have the same total capacity, and would be allocated as needed, so using one or the other should not affect performance in any noticeable way. Multiple copies at multiple Wikipedias would be relatively inefficient, but unlikely to be a real problem. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category