Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Difference between revisions

<noinclude>{{short description|Wikipedia policy about what is not acceptable in the online encyclopedia}}{{pp-semi-indef}}</noinclude>

{{nutshell|

# Wikipedia is not a place to promote things or publish your thoughts, and is not a website for personal communication, a freely licensed media repository, or a censored publication.

}}

{{Content policy list}}

 

 

==Style and format ==

[[File:Print Wikipedia - from Aachen to Zylinderdruckpresse by Michael Mandiberg IMG 0149.jpg|thumb|upright|alt=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]]]]

 

 

 

 

==Encyclopedic content==

{{anchor|NOTEVERYTHING|Content|ENCYCCONTENT|EVERYTHING}}

 

 

===Wikipedia is not a dictionary===

[[File:Woerterbuchstapel Langenscheidt.jpg|thumb|No, it isn't part of Wikipedia.]]

 

 

 

===Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought===

{{anchor|COOL|FANSITE|OR|ORIGINAL|OTHOUGHT|PUBLISHER|HELPDESK|NEW THOUGHT|FREEPUBLISHING|ORIGINALTHOUGHT|PROPOSAL|FANBOY|SECRET}}

{{Redirect|WP:FORUM|text=You may be looking for {{Section link|Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources}}, [[Wikipedia:Forum shopping]] or [[Wikipedia:Village pump]]}}

 

 

# '''Primary (original) research''', such as proposing theories and solutions, communicating original ideas, offering novel definitions of terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as [[Scholarly peer review|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, [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|citations]] of [[WP:reliable sources|reliable sources]] are needed to demonstrate that such material is [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]], and not merely the editor's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|opinion]].

# {{anchor|MYINVENTION}}'''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 [[Wikipedia:Notability|notable enough]] to be given an article until multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources report on it. And [[WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day|Wikipedia is {{em|certainly}} not for things made up one day]].

 

===Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion===

{{anchor|LINK|LINKS|MIRROR|REPOSITORY|NOTYAHOO}}

 

 

# '''Internal links''', except for [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation|disambiguation]] pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for [[Wikipedia:Lists|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]].

# '''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 [[Wikimedia Commons]]. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to [[Wikipedia:Images with missing articles]] or [[Wikipedia:Public domain image resources]].

 

Wikipedia [[WP:Encyclopedia|is an encyclopedic reference]], not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like:

# '''Instruction manuals and cookbooks''': while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an [[WP:WIAA|article]] should not read like a "how-to" style [[owner's manual]], [[cookbook]], [[advice column]] ([[Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer|legal]], [[Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer|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.<ref>The how-to restriction does not apply to the [[Wikipedia:Project namespace|project namespace]], where [[:Category:Wikipedia how-to|"how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself]] are appropriate, such as [[Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia]].</ref> Wording can easily be modified to avoid advising the reader: {{!xt|Do not give aspirin ...}} ⇒ {{xt|The WHO advises against the use of aspirin ...}}. Such guides may be welcome at [[Wikibooks]] instead.

# '''[[Game guide]]s''': an article about a game should briefly summarize the story and the main actions the player performs in the game. Avoid lists of gameplay concepts and items unless these are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context (such as the [[BFG (weapon)|BFG]] from the [[Doom (franchise)|''Doom'' series]]). A concise summary of gameplay details (specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, etc.) is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry, but walk-throughs and detailed coverage are not. See also [[WP:WAF]] and [[WP:VGSCOPE]]. As of [[b:Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals/2022/February#Start allowing game strategies|a 2021 decision to start allowing them]], such guides may be welcome at [[Wikibooks]] instead.

# '''Textbooks and annotated texts''': the purpose of Wikipedia is to [[WP:Summary style|summarize]] accepted knowledge, not to teach subject matter. Articles should not read like [[textbook]]s, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects, such as [[Wikibooks]], [[Wikisource]], and [[Wikiversity]]. {{anchor|INFORM, NOT INSTRUCT}}However, examples intended to <em>inform</em> rather than to <em>instruct</em>, may be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia articles.

# '''[[Scientific journal]]s''': a Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. Article titles should reflect [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)|common usage]], not academic terminology, whenever possible. Introductory language in the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section|lead]] (and sometimes the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While [[Help:Wikilinks|wikilinks]] should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text. See [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking]]. Publishing such scientific articles may be more appropriate for [[WikiJournal]] in Wikiversity.

{{Redirect|WP:DEMOCRACY|Wikipedia's democratic structures|WP:WikiProject Democracy}}

{{See also|Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|Wikipedia:Elections}}

Wikipedia is {{plainlink|http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-January/018735.html not an experiment in democracy}} or any other [[political system]]. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is [[Wikipedia:Editing policy|editing]] and [[Help:Talk pages|discussion]] leading to [[wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]—{{em|not}} [[m:don't vote on everything|voting]]. ([[WP:Elections|Voting is used for certain matters]] such as electing the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]].) [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|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.

 

Research about Wikipedia's content, processes, and the people involved<ref>See [[Wikipedia:Academic studies of Wikipedia|list of academic studies of Wikipedia]], [[Meta:Research|Research resources at Wikimedia Meta]], the [[Meta:Research:Newsletter|Meta research newsletter]], and the [https://blog.wikimedia.org/c/foundation/research/wikimedia-research-newsletter/ Wikimedia Foundation research blog].</ref> can provide valuable insights and understanding that benefit public knowledge, scholarship, and the Wikipedia community, but Wikipedia is not a public laboratory. Research that analyzes articles, talk pages, or other content on Wikipedia is not typically controversial, since all of Wikipedia is [[WP:5P3|open and freely usable]]. However, research projects that are [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive]] to the community or which negatively affect articles&mdash;even temporarily&mdash;are not allowed and can result in loss of editing privileges. Before starting a potentially controversial project,<ref>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.</ref> researchers should open discussion at the [[WP:VPR|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.<ref>See also [[Wikipedia:Researching Wikipedia|Researching Wikipedia]], [[Wikipedia:Ethically researching Wikipedia|Ethically researching Wikipedia]], as well as the [[WP:COI|conflict of interest guideline]] and [[WP:PAID|paid-contribution disclosure policy]] (if researchers editing Wikipedia are being paid under grants to do so, this is paid editing that must be disclosed).</ref>

 

 

===Wikipedia is not a battleground===

{{anchor|NOTSTUPID|STUPID}}

 

 

==When you wonder what to do==