← Back to home← Data Mining

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is Not

The following is a document detailing what Wikipedia is not. It serves as a crucial guide for editors and readers alike, delineating the boundaries of acceptable content and conduct within the vast expanse of the online encyclopedia. Understanding these limitations is paramount to preserving the integrity and purpose of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia policy about what is not acceptable in the online encyclopedia

The pages referred to by "WP:NOT" and "WP:!" serve as definitive guides. For alternative interpretations of "WP:NOT," consult Wikipedia:Not (disambiguation). Should you encounter the exclamation mark in Wikipedia jargon, refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For information regarding the Department of Fun, one might look to WP:¡.

This document outlines an English Wikipedia policy. It establishes a widely recognized standard that all editors are expected to normally adhere to. Any modifications to this policy should be the result of consensus.

Shortcut

Wikipedia in a nutshell:

Content policies

Wikipedia is a freely accessible online encyclopedia. While the sheer volume of information it can host is virtually limitless, its objective is not to encompass all existing knowledge. The community of Wikipedians, a collective of dedicated volunteers, governs what is excluded, striving to maintain a high standard of quality. These exclusions are encapsulated within the principles of "what Wikipedia is not."

Style and format

The Print Wikipedia project

The following policies govern the content of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia

While Wikipedia is not bound by the limitations of a physical paper encyclopedia, functioning instead as a digital project, this freedom from physical constraints does not imply an obligation to cover every topic imaginable. Server costs aside, the number of topics Wikipedia can address is theoretically infinite. However, a crucial distinction exists between what can be done and what should be done, a matter addressed under the heading of § Encyclopedic content. Consequently, this policy is not an open invitation for all-inclusive content. Articles must strictly adhere to established policies, particularly those outlined within the five pillars.

Editors are encouraged to maintain individual articles at a manageable size to ensure accessibility, as detailed in Wikipedia:Article size. The splitting of lengthy articles often signifies the natural maturation and expansion of a topic, a concept further elaborated in Wikipedia:Summary style. Unlike print encyclopedias, which are restricted to brief, static articles, Wikipedia has the capacity to incorporate more extensive information, provide numerous external links, and facilitate rapid updates.

Encyclopedic content

Information should not be included merely because it is factually correct or potentially useful. An article's purpose is to serve as a summary of established knowledge concerning its subject, not an exhaustive compendium of every conceivable detail. Verifiable and sourced statements are to be presented with appropriate weight. While debates may arise regarding the encyclopedic value of certain categories of entries, a consensus holds that the following examples represent content that Wikipedia is explicitly not. The examples provided under each section are not exhaustive.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary

No, it is not part of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a guide to usage or jargon. For a wiki dedicated to definitions, our sister project Wiktionary is available. Any missing dictionary definitions should be contributed there. Wikipedia articles are not:

  • Definitions: While articles should commence with a clear definition or description, articles consisting solely of a definition must be expanded with additional encyclopedic content. If such expansion is not feasible, Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue. However, in certain instances, the definition of a word can itself constitute an encyclopedic subject, as seen with the definition of planet.
  • Dictionary entries: Encyclopedia articles focus on specific entities such as a person, group, concept, place, or event. In some cases, a word or phrase may serve as an encyclopedic subject in its own right, for example, Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness. Articles typically concentrate on a single definition or usage corresponding to the title. Articles examining the cultural or mathematical significance of individual numbers are also considered acceptable.
  • Usage, slang, or idiom guides: Descriptive articles about languages, dialects, or types of slang (such as Klingon, Cockney, or Leet) are valued. Prescriptive guides intended to instruct prospective speakers of such languages are not. Refer to § Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal for further clarification. For a wiki dedicated to textbooks, consult our sister project Wikibooks. Content of this nature may be considered for import there.
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

While editors may engage in discussions on talk and Wikipedia pages to address relevant questions, their purpose is not to provide solutions for personal problems, such as fixing a broken toaster.

Wikipedia is not intended as a platform for publishing one's own thoughts, analyses, or novel information. In accordance with the policy on original research, the following are strictly prohibited:

  • Primary (original) research: This includes proposing theories and solutions, communicating original ideas, offering novel definitions of terms, or coining new words. If you have conducted primary research on a topic, the findings should be disseminated through other channels, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed formats, open research, or reputable online publications. Wikipedia can report on your work only after it has been published and integrated into the body of accepted knowledge. Crucially, citations to reliable sources are mandatory to establish the verifiability of such material, ensuring it is not merely an editor's personal opinion.

  • Personal inventions: Whether it's a new drinking game, a dance move, or even a coined word like frindle, such creations are not considered notable enough for an article unless multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources have documented them. Wikipedia is certainly not the place for concepts fabricated on a whim.

  • Shortcuts: WP:NOTESSAYWP:NOTESSAY

  • Personal essays: These are pieces that articulate personal feelings about a topic rather than presenting the documented opinions of experts. Although Wikipedia aims to compile human knowledge, it is not a conduit for personal opinions to become part of that knowledge base. In the rare instances where an individual's opinions are significant enough to warrant discussion, this discussion should be undertaken by other authors. Personal essays pertaining to Wikipedia-related topics are welcome within your user namespace or on the Meta-Wiki.

Wikipedia is not a forum

  • Shortcuts: WP:NOTFORUMWP:NOTFORUM, WP:FORUMWP:FORUM

  • Discussion forums: The primary focus must remain on the task of creating an encyclopedia. While communication with others regarding Wikipedia-related topics is permitted on user talk pages, and problems with articles can be discussed on relevant talk pages, discussions should not extend into the articles themselves. Furthermore, it's essential to remember that article talk pages are exclusively for discussing improvements to the articles, not for general conversation or expressing opinions about the article's subject matter or any other topic. They are also not intended as help desks for receiving instructions or technical assistance. Material deemed unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal in accordance with talk page guidelines. If you have a question unrelated to Wikipedia, the Reference desk is available, subject to its specific guidelines.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion

Advertise on these billboards, but not on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a platform for propaganda, advertising, or self-showcasing. This principle applies universally across usernames, articles, drafts, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. Promotional articles concerning notable individuals, organizations, or other subjects should ideally be addressed through direct editing of the content, rather than through deletion processes, as per Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup.

Content hosted on Wikipedia is not intended for:

  • Shortcuts: WP:NOTADVOCACYWP:NOTADVOCACY
  • Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment: This prohibition extends to all forms, whether commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article may objectively report on such matters, provided that an effort is made to present the topic from a neutral point of view. If your goal is to persuade others of the merits of your opinions, consider establishing a blog or participating in an Internet forum.
  • Shortcuts: WP:NOTOPINIONWP:NOTOPINION
  • Opinion pieces: While certain topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may evoke strong emotions and tempt individuals to engage in "soapboxing," Wikipedia is not the appropriate medium for such expression. Articles must maintain balance and present entries, especially those related to current events, from a reasonable perspective, adhering to a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should endeavor to create articles that are likely to remain relevant over time. Wikipedia's sister project, Wikinews, does offer "opinion" pages for commentary on articles, and Wikipedia editors are permitted to express their views on Wikipedia policy within essays.
  • Shortcuts: WP:NOTSCANDALWP:NOTSCANDAL
  • Scandalmongering: This includes the dissemination of information obtained "through the grapevine" or engaging in gossip. Articles and content pertaining to living persons are held to an exceptionally high standard, as they carry the potential for libel or infringement of the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be constructed with the primary intent of attacking the reputation of another person.
  • Self-promotion: The temptation to write about oneself or projects with which one has a strong personal connection can be significant. However, it is imperative to remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply equally to such pages. This includes the non-negotiable requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be exceptionally challenging when writing about oneself or closely related projects. The excessive inclusion of links and references to autobiographical sources, such as one's résumé or curriculum vitae, is unacceptable. Refer to Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for further guidance.
  • Shortcuts: WP:NOTADVERTWP:NOTADVERT, WP:NOTPROMOWP:NOTPROMO
  • Advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations: Information concerning companies and products must be presented in an objective and unbiased style, devoid of puffery. All article subjects must be verifiable through independent, third-party sources. Consequently, articles about obscure entities, such as very small garage bands or local companies, are typically not considered acceptable. Wikipedia articles about individuals, companies, or organizations do not serve as extensions of their websites, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts. External links to commercial entities are permissible if they identify notable organizations that are the subject of the article. Wikipedia does not endorse organizations, nor does it operate affiliate programs. Consult Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for detailed guidelines on corporate notability. Individuals or groups promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should utilize forums other than Wikipedia for such purposes. Contributors are obligated to disclose any payments they receive for editing Wikipedia. Refer also to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § Paid editing.

Non-disruptive expressions of opinion regarding internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines are permissible on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace, as they directly relate to the ongoing and future operations of the project. However, article talk pages are not to be used by editors as platforms for their personal viewpoints on a subject (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines).

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site

Wikipedia is not a social networking service comparable to platforms like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, or Instagram, nor is it a social-network game. It is not a venue for hosting personal websites, blogs, wikis, résumés, or cloud storage. Wikipedia pages, including those within user space, are not:

  • Shortcuts: WP:NOTCVWP:NOTCV, WP:NOTRESUMEWP:NOTRESUME
  • Personal web pages: While Wikipedians have individual user pages, these should primarily serve to present information relevant to contributing to the encyclopedia. Limited autobiographical information is permissible, but user pages are not intended to function as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for extensive material unrelated to Wikipedia collaboration. For personal webpages or résumés, utilize the numerous free providers available online or hosting services included with your Internet service provider. The primary purpose of user pages should be to facilitate effective collaboration, not social networking or amusement. Humorous pages that reference Wikipedia in some capacity may be created within the appropriate namespace. Wikipedia articles are written in formal English and do not adopt an Internet posting style.
  • Shortcuts: WP:NOTFILESTORAGEWP:NOTFILESTORAGE
  • File storage areas: Please upload only files that are currently in use (or have the potential for use) in encyclopedia articles or project pages. Any other files, such as personal photographs, will be subject to deletion. Ideally, freely licensed files should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia.
  • Shortcuts: WP:NOTDATINGWP:NOTDATING
  • Dating services: Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for pursuing relationships or romantic encounters. User pages that extend beyond general expressions of sexual orientation are considered unacceptable.
  • Shortcuts: WP:NOTMEMORIALWP:NOTMEMORIAL
  • Memorials: Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet these criteria. (WP:RIP is an exception to this rule.)
  • Content for projects unrelated to Wikipedia: Do not store material unrelated to Wikipedia, including within userspace. Please consult WP:UPNOT for examples of content that is not permitted.

Should you wish to utilize wiki technology for collaborative endeavors on other subjects, even for a single page, numerous free and commercial services offer wiki/web hosting (e.g., Fandom, Google Sites, and other services). Alternatively, you can install wiki software on your own server; installation guides are available at MediaWiki.org.

You do not possess ownership of your userpage. It is an integral part of Wikipedia, designed to enhance collaboration among Wikipedians, not for personal promotion.

Wikipedia is not a directory

Nuh-uh

Wikipedia incorporates numerous lists of links to articles within Wikipedia, serving purposes of internal organization or describing notable subjects. In this capacity, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Wikipedia is not intended as a directory of every entity or phenomenon in existence. For alternative resources, please consult Wikipedia:Alternative_outlets. Wikipedia articles are not:

  • Simple lists: This includes lists lacking contextual information that demonstrates encyclopedic merit, such as a list of phone numbers. Refer to WP:LISTCRITERIA for more detailed criteria.
  • Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics: This encompasses, but is not limited to, quotations, aphorisms, or individuals (whether real or fictional). For lists of quotations, please contribute them to our sister project, Wikiquote. Conversely, lists are perfectly acceptable when their entries are intrinsically linked to and significantly contribute to the overall topic of the list. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular data for quick access. Merged collections of smaller articles centered around a core topic are permissible. (Refer to Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Appropriate topics for lists for clarification.)
  • Shortcuts: WP:CROSSCATWP:CROSSCAT
  • Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations: Examples include "people from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y." Such cross-categories are generally not considered sufficient justification for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories represents a phenomenon of significant cultural importance. For related issues concerning categories, see Wikipedia:Overcategorization.
  • Shortcuts: WP:NOTGENEALOGYWP:NOTGENEALOGY
  • Genealogical entries: Family histories should only be presented when they serve to enhance the reader's understanding of a notable topic.
  • Shortcuts: WP:NOTTVGUIDEWP:NOTTVGUIDE
  • Electronic program guides: An article about a broadcaster should not include listings of upcoming events, current promotions, or schedules, nor format clocks. However, mention of significant events, promotions, or historically important program lists and schedules may be acceptable.
  • Shortcuts: WP:NOTPRICEWP:NOTPRICE
  • A resource for conducting business: Neither articles nor their associated talk pages are intended for conducting business related to the article's subject matter. Listings to be avoided include, but are not limited to: business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (excluding top-level executives like CEOs and supervisory directors), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, contact information, patent filings, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions, and tourist attractions. An article should not contain information on product pricing or availability, as these details can fluctuate significantly over time and location, unless independently sourced and possessing encyclopedic significance, potentially indicated by mainstream media or books offering commentary rather than mere mention. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service for comparing prices and availability of competing products or a single product from multiple vendors. Lists of creative works are permissible; for instance, Wikipedia should not list all books published by HarperCollins, but may include a bibliography of works by HarperCollins author Veronica Roth.
Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal

It's a cookbook! (But Wikipedia is not.)

Wikipedia functions as an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not resemble:

  • Instruction manuals and cookbooks: While Wikipedia articles describe people, places, and things, they should not read like "how-to" guides, owner's manuals, cookbooks, advice columns (whether legal, medical, or otherwise), or suggestion boxes. This category includes tutorials, instructional guides, game guides, and recipes. Describing how people or things utilize or perform actions is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood on how to perform an action is not. Wording can be adjusted to avoid direct instruction: instead of "Do not give aspirin," use "The WHO advises against the use of aspirin..." Such guides are more appropriately hosted on Wikibooks.
  • Travel guides: An article about Paris should mention landmarks like the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but should not include telephone numbers or street addresses of "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to replicate content better suited for hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and similar resources. While notable locations are eligible for inclusion, the resulting articles need not enumerate every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel, or venue. Although travel guides for a city often feature distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should list only those located within its boundaries. For contributions to travel guides, our sister project, Wikivoyage, would be a more suitable venue.
  • Strategy guides: An article concerning a video game should offer a concise summary of its narrative and the primary actions undertaken by the player. Avoid compiling lists of gameplay concepts and items unless these elements possess their own notability, as evidenced by secondary sources within the gaming context (e.g., the BFG from the Doom series). A brief summary of essential gameplay details (specific point values, achievements, time limits, levels, enemy types, etc.) is appropriate if crucial for understanding the game or its industry significance, but walkthroughs and exhaustive coverage are not. Refer to WP:WAF and WP:VGSCOPE for additional information. As of a 2021 decision, such guides may now be suitable for Wikibooks.
  • Internet guides: Wikipedia articles should not solely describe the nature, appearance, or services offered by a website. Instead, they must present the site in an encyclopedic manner, detailing its achievements, impact, or historical significance. This content can be kept remarkably current due to the ability of editors to incorporate new developments and facts as they emerge. Refer to the Current events portal for illustrative examples.
  • FAQs: Wikipedia articles should not feature frequently asked questions (FAQs). Information of this nature should be presented as neutral prose within the relevant articles.
  • Textbooks and annotated texts: Wikipedia's objective is to summarize established knowledge, not to teach subject matter. Articles should not adopt the format of textbooks, complete with leading questions and systematic problem-solving examples. Such content belongs on our sister projects, including Wikibooks, Wikisource, and Wikiversity. However, examples intended to inform rather than instruct may be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia articles.
  • Scientific journals: A Wikipedia article should not assume the reader possesses advanced knowledge of the topic's field. Article titles should, whenever feasible, reflect common usage rather than academic terminology. The introductory language in the lead section (and sometimes the initial sections) of an article should be written in clear terms, understandable to any literate reader of Wikipedia without prior specialized knowledge. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts, articles should be written with the understanding that readers may not follow these links, and should attempt to convey meaning through the text itself. Consult Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking for guidance. Publishing such scientific articles might be more suitably accommodated by WikiJournal within Wikiversity.
  • Case studies: Many topics are structured around the relationship between factor X and factor Y, leading to the creation of one or more dedicated articles. This might involve, for instance, situation X occurring in location Y, or version X of item Y. Such articles are entirely acceptable when the combined variables represent a phenomenon of significant cultural importance or otherwise warrant notable attention. In many cases, separate articles are necessary for a subject across different countries due to substantial international variations; articles such as "Slate industry in Wales" serve as fitting examples. However, articles focusing on "Oak trees in North Carolina" or "Blue trucks" would likely constitute a POV fork or original research and would not result in an encyclopedic article.
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

...but Wikipedia does not predict the future.

Wikipedia is not a repository for unverifiable speculation, rumors, or assumptions. It does not engage in predicting the future. All articles concerning anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must possess sufficient widespread interest to warrant an article even if the event had already transpired. It is appropriate to report on discussions and arguments regarding the potential success of future proposals and projects, or the likelihood of certain developments, provided these are properly referenced. It is inappropriate for editors to inject their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts, and theories presented by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities within a field may be included, though editors must exercise caution to avoid introducing undue bias toward any specific viewpoint. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, particular care must be taken to avoid advertising and unsubstantiated claims (for films, see WP:NFF). Specifically:

  • Individual scheduled or anticipated future events should only be included if the event is notable and virtually certain to occur. Dates are not definitive until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise notable events can be canceled or postponed at the last moment due to unforeseen circumstances. If preparations for the event are not already underway, speculation about it must be thoroughly documented. Appropriate topics include the 2028 U.S. presidential election and the 2032 Summer Olympics. In contrast, the 2044 U.S. presidential election and the 2048 Summer Olympics are not suitable article topics if nothing verifiable and non-original can be stated about them. Avoid speculative team lineups in sports, as these are inherently unverifiable. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. As an exception, articles on highly speculative events that may or may not occur far in the future might be acceptable if coverage in reliable sources is substantial. For example, the ultimate fate of the universe is a valid topic.
  • Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic naming pattern, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics if only generic information is known about them. Lists of tropical cyclone names are encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Ana (2027)" is not, even if such a storm is almost certain to occur. Similarly, articles about words formed on a predictable numeric system (such as "septenquinquagintillion") are not encyclopedic unless they are defined by authoritative sources or are genuinely in use. Certain scientific extrapolations are considered encyclopedic, such as chemical elements documented before isolation in the laboratory, provided that scientists have made significant, non-trivial predictions about their properties.
  • Articles presenting original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms evolve continuously, Wikipedia must await this evolution rather than attempt to predict it. Naturally, articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions are appropriate. An article on weapons in Star Trek is acceptable; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not.
  • While currently accepted scientific paradigms may eventually be superseded, and hypotheses once considered controversial or incorrect may later gain acceptance within the scientific community, it is not Wikipedia's role to project such outcomes.
  • Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors: Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date information on newly revealed products, concise articles consisting solely of product announcement details and rumors are not appropriate. Until more encyclopedic information about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged into a larger topic (such as an article about the creators, a product series, or a preceding product), if applicable.
Wikipedia is not a newspaper

Extra! Extra! Wikipedia is not a newspaper!

In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain current 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, it is essential to ensure that the Wikipedia articles themselves are not:

  • Original reporting: Wikipedia should not provide first-hand news reports. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews fulfill this function and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does feature numerous encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news and can be updated with recently verified information.
  • News reports: Wikipedia prioritizes the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can serve as valuable source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion, and Wikipedia is not written in a news style. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not, in itself, sufficient grounds for including the subject of that coverage (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this concerning routine events). Furthermore, while including information on recent developments can be appropriate at times, breaking news should not be emphasized or treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects unsuitable for Wikipedia may be more appropriate for our sister project, Wikinews.
  • Shortcuts: WP:NOTWHOSWHOWP:NOTWHOSWHO
  • Who's who: Even when an event is notable, the individuals involved may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual extends beyond the context of a single event, coverage of that individual should be confined to the article about the event itself, presented in proportion to their significance to the overall topic. (Refer to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more detailed information.)
  • Shortcuts: WP:NOTGOSSIPWP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:NOTDIARYWP:NOTDIARY
  • Celebrity gossip and diaries: Even if an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in warrant inclusion. For instance, news reporting on celebrities and sports figures can be frequent and cover a multitude of trivial details. However, incorporating all such information would result in overly detailed articles resembling a diary. Not every aspect of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored merits inclusion in their biography; only those elements for which they possess notability or for which readers are reasonably likely to have an interest are suitable.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

An indiscriminate collection of information in the universe

To provide encyclopedic value, data must be contextualized with explanations referenced to independent sources. As outlined in § Encyclopedic content above, the mere fact that information is true or even verifiable does not automatically render it suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be:

  • Shortcuts: WP:NOTPLOTWP:NOTPLOT
  • Summary-only descriptions of works: Wikipedia approaches creative works (including, but not limited to, works of art, fiction, video games, documentaries, research papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner. This involves discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of these works, in addition to providing concise summaries. For further details on summaries, consult Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction § Contextual presentation.
  • Shortcuts: WP:NOTLYRICSWP:NOTLYRICS
  • Lyrics databases: An article about a song should offer information regarding authorship, publication date, social impact, and related aspects. Quotations from a song should be kept to a reasonable length relative to the article's overall content and used to facilitate discussion or illustrate style. The full text can be published on Wikisource and linked from the article. The lyrics of most songs published after 1930 are protected by copyright; any quotation must be brief and used for direct commentary or to exemplify stylistic elements. Never link to the lyrics of copyrighted songs unless the linked site clearly possesses the right to distribute the work. Refer to Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources for a comprehensive discussion.
  • Shortcuts: WP:NOTSTATSWP:NOTSTATS
  • Excessive listings of unexplained statistics: Statistics lacking context or explanation can diminish readability and lead to confusion. Therefore, statistics should be presented in tables to enhance clarity, and articles containing statistics must include explanatory text providing context. If statistics are so extensive that they impede the readability of an article, they can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. For example, the article Canada#Ethnicity summarizes data in prose with a {{main}} hatnote directing to Ethnic origins of people in Canada, which presents the data in tables alongside an explanation of the collection methodology. Wikipedia:Notability § Stand-alone lists provides further guidance on acceptable list types, and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Selection criteria offers criteria for inclusion.
  • Shortcuts: WP:NOTCHANGELOGWP:NOTCHANGELOG
  • Exhaustive logs of software updates: When writing articles about software updates, utilize reliable third-party sources (not self-published or official ones) to describe the versions discussed. Common sense should guide the level of detail included; a list of every version, beta release, or patch is inappropriate. Consider providing a summary of the software's development instead.
Wikipedia is not censored

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers find objectionable or offensive, sometimes exceedingly so. The endeavor to ensure that all articles and images are acceptable to every reader, or adhere to general social or religious norms, is fundamentally incompatible with the objectives of an encyclopedia.

Content will be removed if it is deemed to violate Wikipedia's policies (particularly those concerning biographies of living persons and the maintenance of a neutral point of view) or the law of the United States, where Wikipedia is hosted. However, given that most edits are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may be visible to readers for a period before detection and removal.

Options to hide an image

Certain articles may include images, text, or links that are relevant to the topic but might be considered objectionable by some. Discussions concerning potentially objectionable content should generally focus on its appropriateness within the encyclopedic context, rather than its potential to offend. Beyond this, "being objectionable" is typically not sufficient grounds for content removal. The Wikipedia:Offensive material guideline can assist in determining the appropriate course of action for content that may be deemed offensive.

Some organizations enforce rules or traditions that mandate secrecy regarding specific information about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, as it is not affiliated with those organizations; therefore, Wikipedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic.

The University is not engaged in making ideas safe for students. It is engaged in making students safe for ideas. Thus it permits the freest expression of views before students, trusting to their good sense in passing judgment on these views.

— Clark Kerr, President of the University of California (1961) [5]

Community

The following policies pertain to Wikipedia's governance and operational processes.

Wikipedia is not an anarchy or a forum for free speech

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedists' Corner, not Speakers' Corner.

While Wikipedia is free and open, it imposes restrictions where freedom and openness impede the creation of an encyclopedia. Consequently, Wikipedia is not an unregulated forum for free speech. The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not imply that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchist communities. Our objective is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the boundaries of anarchism.

Wikipedia is not a democracy

A ballot box. Note that most Wikipedia decisions are not made by vote.

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

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

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

Although Wikipedia incorporates numerous elements of a bureaucracy, [6] it is not governed by statute. It is not a quasi-judicial body, and rules are not the community's primary purpose. While some rules are enforced, the written rules themselves do not dictate accepted practice. Rather, they serve to document existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected.

While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines must be taken seriously, they can be misused. Avoid adhering to a rigid interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their underlying principles. If the rules genuinely impede your ability to improve the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not through strict adherence to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves are subject to change to reflect evolving consensus.

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

A procedural, coding, or grammatical error in a new contribution is not a reason for reverting it, unless the error cannot be easily rectified.

Wikipedia is not a laboratory

Research concerning Wikipedia's content, processes, and participants [7] can yield valuable insights benefiting public knowledge, scholarship, and the Wikipedia community. However, Wikipedia is not a public laboratory. Research that analyzes articles, talk pages, or other Wikipedia content is generally not controversial, as all of Wikipedia is open and freely usable. Nevertheless, research projects that are disruptive to the community or negatively impact articles—even temporarily—are prohibited and may result in the revocation of editing privileges. Before embarking on a potentially controversial project, [8] researchers should initiate a discussion at the Village pump to ensure it will not interfere with Wikipedia's mission. Regardless of the project's nature, researchers are strongly advised to maintain transparency on their user pages, disclosing information such as institutional affiliations and intentions. [9]

Some editors explicitly request not to be subjects of research or experiments. Their wishes must be respected.

Wikipedia is not a battleground

Wikipedia is not a venue for holding grudges, importing personal conflicts, engaging in ideological battles, or nurturing prejudice, hatred, or fear. Transforming Wikipedia discussions into personal battles directly contravenes Wikipedia's policies, goals, and founding principles. In addition to avoiding battles in discussions, editors must refrain from advancing their positions in disagreements through unilateral changes to policies. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and cooperatively. Avoid insulting, disparaging, harassing, or attempting to intimidate those with whom you disagree. Instead, approach the matter rationally and engage in polite discussion. If another user exhibits uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting behavior, or attempts to harass or intimidate you, this does not provide justification for responding disrespectfully. Address only the factual points presented, disregard inappropriate comments, or ignore the user entirely. If necessary, gently point out that the comments might be perceived as uncivil, and clearly state your intention to move forward and focus on the content issue. If a conflict persists, utilize Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Mediators and arbitrators are available to assist in resolving disputes.

In the context of significant disputes, resist the urge to transform Wikipedia into a battleground between factions. Assume good faith in all editors and groups, believing they are present to improve Wikipedia, even if their viewpoints differ from yours. Collaborate with whomever you choose, but do not organize a faction that disrupts, or intends to disrupt, Wikipedia's fundamental decision-making process, which is based on building consensus. Editors involved in major disputes should work in good faith to identify broad principles of agreement between differing viewpoints.

Do not use Wikipedia to issue legal or other threats against Wikipedia, its editors, or the Wikimedia Foundation; alternative channels exist for communicating legal concerns. [10] Threats are not tolerated and may lead to a ban.

Wikipedia is not compulsory

Wikipedia is a volunteer community, and it does not require editors to commit more time or effort than they willingly choose. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding additional contributions from other Wikipedians. Editors are free to take breaks or leave Wikipedia at any time.

And finally...

Wikipedia is also not many other things. It is impossible to anticipate every potentially "bad" idea that might arise. Most items on this page exist because someone proposed an idea that had not been previously considered. As a general rule, if an idea is demonstrably a "terrible idea" for valid reasons, it should be avoided.

When you wonder what to do

When contemplating what should or should not be included in an article, consider what a reader would expect to find under a similar heading in a traditional encyclopedia.

When questioning whether the rules outlined above are being violated, consider the following actions:

  • Modifying the content of an article (standard editing).
  • Converting the page into a redirect, thereby preserving its history.
  • Nominating the page for deletion if it meets the criteria outlined in the Deletion policy. To understand the types of contributions that are at risk of deletion, it is advisable to regularly follow discussions at that venue.
  • Amending the rules on this page after reaching a consensus through appropriate discussion with other Wikipedians on the talk page. When introducing new provisions, strive for clarity and provide counter-examples of similar, yet permissible, subjects.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes is not an official policy but can serve as a reference for past determinations of what has and has not been considered encyclopedic.

See also

Notes