[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)

[Fred Bauder]

> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Wait a second.  If "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is about inclusion,
>> isn't *it* that notability guideline?
>>
>> What is a reliable source for a word?  Do dictionaries count?  If so,
>> then wouldn't pretty much all words have reliable sources on them?
>>
>> The various "What wikipedia is not..." standards evolved before the
> notability guideline reached it's current form, so the ones dealing with
> inclusion/exclusion should probably be thought of as complementary
> policies.
> Notability is more or less a generic test. "Wikipedia is not..."
> standards
> dealing with exclusion are a non-exhaustive list of specific cases where
> something probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia regardless of it's
> notability
> - they serve both as a shortcut around notability and an addendum to it
> to
> cover the corner cases.
>
> Reading it this way, and keeping in mind that our guidelines are just
> that,
> guidelines, that means that "not a dictionary" is it's own EXCLUSION
> test,
> aside from the INCLUSION test of notability. The same would go for any
> other
> exclusion test. Interpreting it as a guideline rather than a hard and
> fast
> rule, that means that "not a dictionary" stands on it's own. When it
> applies, the article probably doesn't belong here regardless of it's
> notability, but there may be the need to make exceptions.
>
> There are a number of other "confusing" and misapplied parts of "What
> wikipedia is not." I would say one of the most consistently misapplied
> ones
> is to consider "Wikipedia is not censored." to be an inclusion guideline
> on
> it's own. The intent should be clear on that one - it means that
> offensiveness, obscenity, tastelessness, and any other reason to find
> content objectionable are simply not considerations - if the content
> stands
> under whatever other applicable content guidelines apply, then the
> content
> shouldn't be removed on account of someone's objection, BUT "not
> censored"
> isn't by itself reason to keep something - that's for other guidelines to
> decide.

Quoted every time we've had a policy discussion regarding material that
was inappropriate for one reason or another. If you are getting a divorce
and want to describe your wife's sexual behavior in detail Wikipedia is
censored. If you want to include current troop movements Wikipedia is
censored. Or unload an child pornography image. Examples go on and on.

Essentially all it means is that if extremely offensive or inappropriate
material has been widely published we can't keep it out of Wikipedia.

Fred Bauder