User:Karmafist/wikiphilosophies

Wikipedia's policies have many nuances that can be interpreted in different ways. Here are my interpretations on those nuances. Please keep in mind that these views may change over time and my ultimate view is that the only thing that is absolute is that nothing is absolute.

Wikipedians

Wikipedians are generally good people, but usually so focused and concentrated on what their interests, concerns and perceptions are, they usually don't give much of a shit about you unless you really stick out.

Wikipedia IRC Channel

Don't expect that to be the end all be all. Sometimes you can get assistance there, but that's very rare, and you often will have to repeat yourself several times. The key reason for going there is Cabalism. Arguments over trivial matters are common. Almost all wiki related channels other than #wikipedia, especially technically related ones, are worthless since they are filled with silence, which apparently is more favorable than assisting you, someone more ignorant of something than them.

Unfortunately, the most likely result at #wikipedia is one of a groupthink philosophy, with a large conformity bias towards the status quo, and the majority opinion crushing or banning those who argue with the powers that be.

Common Misconceptions

See also: My FAQs

Consensus and Encyclopedic Nature

There's a fine line between respect and acceptance, which ultimately has been the downfall of true consensus so far at Wikipedia. Let me give you an example.

Let's just say there was a consensus(currently there's no clear mechanism on how to achieve this other than endless arguing)saying that "2+2=5". I would never accept this fact, and neither would many others. However, if this conclusion occured through a civil and sociocratic process, there's no reason not to respect it, just also include your disagreements in a civil and constructive way along side this consensus ruling and let outside users choose for themselves what truly is encyclopedic. What is and what isn't encyclopedic, in my opinion, can never absolutely be defined. So, we must attach the our own personal perspectives of what is encyclopedic onto these facts rather than try to present them as the absolute end all be all truth, since, in my opinion, the only real unassailable truth is the only absolute is that there are no absolutes.

Policy

See also: Ochlocracy,Aristocracy

How Wikipedia Actually Creates Policy

• Step 1. Have an idea. Make a page about it.
• Step 2. Tell everyone you know a billion times. Tell everyone you don't know a billion times.
• Step 3. Get a few people to agree with you. Call it a consensus. Slap a {{policy}} tag on there.

Alternate Method #1

• Step 1. Work for the Wikimedia Foundation or suckup to people that do.
• Step 2. Slap the {{policy}} tag on there.
• Step 3. What I call "The Cabal Ratio" comes into play -- the higher your status on Wikipedia, the higher your leeway you have with policies made and the higher acceptance you'll have with your new policy, culminating with Jimbo Wales(not that he probably would, but if he made a decree saying "All articles that have the letter Q and not the letter U are unencyclopedic", his reasoning could be that its Tuesday and people would generally accept it.

Alternate Method #2

• Step 1. Find a policy that's faulty
• Step 2. Blantantly ignore it, advertise your civil disobedience if wished. Be nice while doing so.
• Step 3. Until people give you a compromise or real world reason to stop, just don't. The winner is the person who edits the most without breaking WP:3RR or WP:CIVIL

Guidelines

Saying that something is a guideline is a nice way to say that it isn't popular enough to be a policy. If you and maybe a few others like it enough, just ignore that guideline thing and put a policy tag on there. Otherwise, just ignore it unless you feel it's pertinent. Guidelines are kind of like "Nice to haves" rather than necessities.

Policies

The rules of Wikipedia. However, they can be changed with obstinence and clicks of the edit button, repeating as needed when others who disagree with you do the same. And, even though it's supposed to be a last resort, just claim WP:IAR when things get in your way and the previous method doesn't work.

What is WP:POINT?

The key to me for something being a mere belief and something violating WP:POINT is if it's disruptive and if it can seem like it can change over time. I am not a big fan of Dogma, and believe any philosophy that can't change over time with the presence of proof that counters it and cannot be contradicted should not be on Wikipedia.

Policies/Guidelines That Contradict Each Other Or Have Loopholes

One thing to keep in mind with policies is that anybody can edit them. So trust the intent or perception of what these things could say rather than what they actually say. They can change at any minute for any reason.

• WP:IAR with everything
• WP:BB with everything
• WP:AGF with the spirit of WP:V (Assume or Verify?)
• WP:TP#Etiquette is in conflict with WP:BAN#Enforcement
• WP:AGF with WP:U (Can someone named "I'm going to kill you" actually be a nice, valuable contributor? We'll never know.)
• WP:BITE depending on how "new" a person thinks you are.
• Even if you don't break WP:3RR, you can still be blocked for WP:EW or WP:POINT if you go far enough into WP:DICK territory.
• WP:VAIN if you're notable. Same with WP:AUTO, considering that Jimbo Wales breaks it.
• WP:RFC or any other consensus gathering device if the consensus is "unencyclopedic".

Other Stuff To Know

• WP:RFC is basically meaningless except for others to use in arguments. It has slightly more meaning when having to do with users rather than articles
• WP:RFAR is slightly less meaningless than WP:RFC, but ultimately only some of the time, and even then it takes forever.
• WP:CDVF and WP:RC/special:recentchanges are incredibly useful.
• WP:ESP is a good place to go if you need people to help you relax or feel like you'll burn out, and if you're active, you will probably burn out or come close at some point.
• Go to Mediation before WP:RFAR, or they'll just ignore you.
• WP:PUMP is specifically made for bitching about things, although many other users do it elsewhere as well.

Meta Wiki-Philosophies

• Metapedianism
• Exopedianism

The "Cabal"

It does exist, although it would probably be more appropriately refered to as "The clique" since it isn't inherently insidious, just made up of people who mean well, but unfortunately get caught up into groupthink. They're not "evil" as many people think, they just have their own opinions, and often many of them dismiss the opinions of others because they do not jibe with their own.

However, despite this, there are many kind and generous people who could be seen as Cabalists, and probably are since there's no real official barrier between who is "in" and "out" of the cabal for the most part. I feel as though these people are victims of confirmation bias, knowing what is right and what is wrong, but too afraid to say it for fear of alienating themselves from this group of trollish and narrowminded people.

The Cabal, or clique revolves around friendship and ideas to differing degrees. The more of both you have, the more you will be seen as "In The Cabal". And anybody who says so risks your wrath. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Oh yeah, go on #wikipedia on IRC, that's where the "cabalism" really happens.

To a lesser extent, Cabalism happens at Wikiprojects, but that's only for specific subjects, and even then it usually isn't very focused.

Adminship

Resolution Disputes In Regards To Articles

Do not edit the article, protect it and then open things up to chatting on the talk page, going into a rfc if needed. WP:CIVIL is the often broken, so give them a chance to try and cool down at first, but lay down the law if that doesn't work.

Closing AFDs

There are two levels that need to be taken into account when closing, the article and the content inside. A decision can take into account both levels non-exclusively. I try to make this clear if there's any doubt before I close one. AFDs should only be closed by admins.
Options With The Article

• Keep
• Delete
• Redirect(article goes directly to another article instead of being deleted)

Options With The Content

• Merge(content is sent to another article)
• Split(content is sent into two new articles)
• Userfy (content is sent to user page)
• Transwiki (content is sent into another Wiki Project)
• Copyvio (content violates copyright, and will be deleted, but article is not necessarily deleted)
• Cleanup (content must be brought up to higher standard)

Options That Are At Both Levels

• No Consensus(usually a minimum of 66% of users within the AFD espousing an opinion at either level)
• BJAODN(article doesn't have to be deleted, but usually is. This is used when an article is considered humorous.)

Explanation

The decision process is fairly confusing and can vary between different sysops, so I explain my reasoning of what I saw on each closure on the talk page of the AFD article in question.

Blocking/Protection/Etc.

When in doubt on an article Edit War, protect it. When one side is clearly causing the problems, block that side. The first time a person is blocked, it shouldn't be for any more than 24 hours usually. If it wasn't malicious, but still something bad, block for only a few hours unless otherwise specified by tradition or belief. However, repeated offenses within a year or so deserve longer than that.

Consensus

To me, the bare minimum for consensus is 66% if votes are clear, if voters have layered votes(saying 2 or 3 things depending on scenarios), that might not be enough depending on the situation, but the situation is the key. Anything under 66% should always be considered a lack of consensus. It's bigger at WP:RFB. It really doesn't exist anywhere other than WP:RFA, WP:RFB or WP:AFD, since it can be easily manipulated to the point where you can claim it anywhere else.

Deletionism/Inclusionism/Mergism

I believe that anyone should have the right to believe in having Wikipedia be free of sub-grade articles or have Wikipedia include every single thought in the universe or have it eventually merged into one big article or whatever. However, those out there who exclusively believe in one way of looking at things are cheating themselves of being able to learn from the vast experiences and viewpoints of Wikipedia.

Notability

This is an attempt to show my views on what tests make or break notability in Wikipedia. This is not official Wikipedia policy, but right now i'm just too lazy to put a box in here. This will evolve over time.

1. If a random reader says "Who cares about this?", then it probably isn't notable.
2. If it is newer than 10 years old, but has not been in a general medium widely available to a country or region of a country greater than 35,000,000 people, it isn't notable.
3. If it is unique in several ways(more than 3) or considered unique by more than approximately 1,000,000 people, it is probably notable.
4. If more than 2/3rds of the proper nouns connecting to the article are red lines, it's probably not notable.
5. If an article has had less than 5 editors but more than 20-30 edits, it's usually a POV effort.
6. Established precedents are just guidelines, not the end all be all towards notability.
7. If it's the biggest something in something, that gives it at least a 50/50 shot of surival at least merged in another "List" article.

Transcending Non-Notability

Notability is ultimately a very loose standard here on Wikipedia, otherwise there would be no need for WP:AFD. Here are some ways i've seen to raise somethings' notability in peoples' eyes.

1. Make sure it's Wikified.
2. The longer the better(once #1 is done)
3. No Ranting or POV Essays
4. Get External Links explaining why its notable
5. Find a separate incidence of the subject elsewhere else
6. Don't make it up unless you made it up for reasons other than Wikipedia and it's fairly well known(even then, if you made it, that's usually a no-no)
7. Be nice to people who disagree with you.(Rude people are usually seem as POV pushers, and POV articles are often not notable)
8. Make sure it's not under anything at WP:CSD

Editcountitis

Editcountitis is ok as long as it doesn't get in the way of quality edits and/or mental well being. I'm wondering whether or not I should count all my stub tag additions on my user page, alot of it seems kinda anal retentive, but it's gotten me a good boost on the edit count, and I guess it's my personal style so to speak.

User Space

• User Pages are almost sacred, and should never be touched unless they're yours or you're reverting vandalism. If you do add something that you might think will help the user, make sure you check with them before or afterwards and show that you had no harmful intent.
• Talk Pages can be deleted by a user, but shouldn't unless absolutely necessary. Archive the old ones. Moving around comments are ok.
• User Sub Pages shouldn't be as protected as User Pages, but still shouldn't be touched unless they seem unrelated to Wiki-matters or if it's ok with the user. The only exception to this is threats(legal or physical) in the real world or anything that is intended with the intent to cause legal or physical harm.

Becoming an Admin

The first level of systems operators, also known as Administrators, become such at a place called WP:RFA. It's not hard to become one, if you follow a few guidelines.

• Get around 2,000 edits. If you have fewer than that, you still have an ok shot, with the odds increasing all the time as people get dissatisfied with RFA traditions. However, if you're over 2,000 it's usually automatic, unless...
• You've pissed a lot of people off. Don't do that. You can disagree, but be nice while you are unless they aren't. If you've pissed a lot of people off, you are unlikely to win.
• Have some kind of accomplishment. Joining a few Wikiprojects,Creating a Featured Article, doing other assorted things in an exmplary manner. That helps a lot.
• Have a skill outside of Wikipedia, particularly programming or linguistically related. Being in an area where there are few admins already also helps since different views are held in high regard.
• Be nice to those who don't support you. If you're rude to one opposer, several more will follow because of it. And remember, you'll need somewhere between 66% and 80% in order to pass depending on the number of voters, the magnitude of support and opposition(people can vote strongly or weakly), opposition versus neutral votes, and the bureaucrat closing the vote's own view of the things stated above among other things.

Self Voting and Self Nominations

• If people think that self-voting and self-nominations should be outlawed outright, then they should attempt to make it official policy. Until then, offer to be open minded to those who you think have made a mistake, or in my opinion, you're breaking WP:POINT and WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and to a lesser extend WP:NPOV(Rfa votes should be as non-arbitrary and "provable" as possible) among others.

• There isn't a problem with frowning upon self voting or self nominating, but if someone rescinds their self vote or nomination, that frowning should be rescinded as well, as long as they're civil about it. Everybody makes mistakes, the real test is how you deal with them.

• Ultimately, self voting doesn't matter as much to me as self-noms since, as per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a Democracy. One vote rarely makes or breaks a consensus, although a few well placed words can. Maybe there's some hidden section of Wikipedia where votes are taken in on issues without discussion, but I haven't found it yet. Your vote isn't as important as your viewpoint, and in WP:RFA at least(the place where these two problems seem to be worst), you get alot of room to express that viewpoint.

• Self Nominations are also not the end of the world, but to me they show that the user has to work on their abilities in the social side of Wikipedia. Being anti-social isn't necessarily a bad thing, there are shy or reserved people who are definately assets to Wikipedia. However, usually most self-noms i've seen have come from laziness or misunderstanding. Here's a quick tutorial for those of you who fall into the latter category. If you fall into the former category, just stop being lazy!

Karmafist's Quick Tutorial In Avoiding Having To Nominate Yourself

1. Go build a rapport with an assortment of users, by.... I don't know, Not being a jerk?
2. Go to one of those users' talk pages and ask them "Hey [User X], I've got Y amount of edits and i've done [Whatever], do you think i'm worthy of adminship?"
3. The other user says some form of either "Sure, i'll help you out and nominate you", "No, but keep at it for [x amount of time] and/or [y amount of whatever], and you'll be a shoe in", or "No way in hell should you ever be a administrator, (with objective reasons why or random insults that break WP:WQT)". I always try to avoid the last one because nothing is permanent, and I believe even a vandal can reform if they wish so to the point where they could become an admin given enough time paying back for their bad karma.
4. If option 1 happens, then you're all set. If they forget, remind them of the conversation. If option 2 happens, come back after the things that needed to be done have been done, and ask again. By this time, if the other user renegs on their word, you'll probably have enough experience to find somebody else to nominate you.

And voila!

Other Users Wikiphilosophies

• User:Raul654/Raul's laws
• WP:WPY