Wikipedia:Words of wisdom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page. |
This is a collection of pages that were meant to be policy, but were too narrow, unpopular, or redundant to actually succeed.
Contents |
[edit] The universe does not revolve around you
Wikipedia is not a forum or a soapbox. Editors should remember that their egos are not on the line while they are here at Wikipedia. Please remember that the majority of the editors are human and are prone to mistakes, errors, flared-up emotions and stress. Editors should remember that the goal is encyclopedic information and should attempt to set aside their egos while they are here at Wikipedia.
While editors' points of view are certainly welcomed, please remember that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy with regards to writing articles. To that effect, editors should work with other editors despite their conflicting egos and points of view. Through collaboration and presentation of either a neutral point of view or all points of view article, Wikipedia helps to illustrate good information.
By remembering that the universe does not revolve around you, editors avoid disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
See also
[edit] On Wikipedia and the Cabal
A common complaint in online communities is that there are groups of users, usually longtime members of the community, who have all the power, make all the decisions, police the behavior of everyone else, and disclaim any responsibility for such actions — a cabal.
(There Is No Cabal has further discussion of this concept on the Internet in general.)
[edit] There is only a cabal if you want there to be one
- "When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you." —khaosworks
Especially among your fellow editors and peers, there really is no cabal. A cabal works in secret and avoids claiming responsibility. Wikipedia's editors, as unlikeable and unfair as the ideas and actions of some may seem, cannot be accused of those failings. You can call those groups that are a little too cohesive and prominent for your taste a faction or an oligarchy if you're into politics, or you could consider the possibility that they're only human, and have a tendency to stick together when confronted with hostility towards all of them. But if there is a cabal, only a conspiracy theory could confirm its existence.
- Extreme Unction's first law: If enough people act independently towards the same goal, the end result is indistinguishable from a conspiracy.
It's much more productive to refute the arguments of the majority than implying they are wrong because it is the majority, or implying you are being repressed because it doesn't agree with you. If you attack people who oppose you as if they were a collective with an agenda against you, then whether they were or not, they will certainly become one. There is no cabal conspiring against you surrounding this or that article — unless you created it.
[edit] There is a cabal
- Further information: Iron law of oligarchy
As Wikipedia grows, its governance mechanisms become more complex, and hierarchies of power (admin, bureaucrat, etc.) are established. Closed decision-making structures, like invite-only IRC channels and mailing lists, are used, arguably creating either the appearance or the reality of one or more cabals controlling Wikipedia processes (see also iron law of oligarchy). Official but limited-access entities on Wikipedia include the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee. The Mediation Cabal comments somewhat ironically on the mediation/arbitration situation.
