Wikipedia Writing Principles

    For a long time I wanted to put together in one heap all the thoughts on the principles of Wikipedia ... Collect. I warn you right away, this is my interpretation of the rules. The rules of Wikipedia are objective (adjusted for accepted in the wiki, in the next sections may vary slightly), my interpretation is subjective.

    So, first the axioms on which Wikipedia is built:

    1) It is necessary to collect all the knowledge that is valuable to humanity in a convenient form for reading.
    2) But at the same time, you need to make the collection of these data (encyclopedia) free. That is, not related to related rights to the text of unauthorized persons. For this, GFDL was previously used, now cc-by-sa.
    3) The encyclopedia is written by everyone who has the desire and ability for this; those. The encyclopedia is written primarily by lay people.
    4) The presentation of the material should be neutral, that is, illuminate all points of view relevant to humanity on the issue.

    From these axioms, the following very important points are drawn:

    Wikipedia editors do not have sufficient qualifications for an authoritative presentation of the material. They cannot determine significance by their own will. This thesis is easy to understand - among the editors there may be both a schoolboy and an academician. We cannot trust the opinion of editors about quantum physics, genetics and the list of Pokemon.

    To resolve the emerging contradiction, the following construction is allowed: instead of writing articles according to the “opinion of the editors”, articles are written based on independent sources. In other words, the editor does not write quantum physics “as he understands it”, but says that in the institute course they write this and that, and in nature for such and such a number - like this. Thus, we solve the contradiction between the non-authoritativeness of Wikipedia authors and the need to present factual material.

    The article indicates the SOURCES by which the reader can check what is written. And Wikipedia washes his hands, saying "they could, they wrote, but check it yourself."

    (of course, this is an ideal scenario, since it is quite possible to write an article without a single source. But such an article "hangs in the balance", as it does not correspond to what is described).

    Next: we need to collect all the significant knowledge of humanity. But how to understand “significant or not”? Again, editorial arbitrariness in this matter would be a bad decision. And again, we resort to authoritative sources. However, this time we are adding independence requirements . Those. it is clear that the author of an invention is ready to talk about it for hours. The question is whether the rest are ready to talk about this invention at least for minutes ...

    It is important that independent sources be authoritative(AI). If the source is a site on or a post on a forum of a regional provider, then it is a little mistaken to consider this a serious source.

    Another important thing is the requirement for significant attention. If some source briefly mentioned a certain phenomenon, then this does not make the phenomenon significant. But if this source devoted an article to the phenomenon, and even better, several sources devoted a lot of material to the phenomenon, then it is certainly significant.

    So, we write (retelling the facts) according to the sources, we demand independent AI to prove the significance of the phenomenon. [At the same time, do not forget about the observance of copyright, which is a special and not interesting headache].

    Further. Sources can be very biased (i.e., unconditionally adhere to any one point of view), and can contradict each other. One source speaks about sovereign Abkhazia, the second says that there is no sovereign Abkhazia. Who to believe?

    The answer is no one. It must be written that source “A” believes that it is independent, and source “B” that it is dependent.

    The presentation of points of view should take place according to their significance and prevalence (yes, this is a field for extensive discussion).

    Thus, we have the basic rules by which articles are written and exist.

    What to do if a conflict arises "should there be an article or not?"

    The answer is to submit for discussion . This discussion does not take into account the views of the participants, but the arguments. With Pruflinki (AI), of course. Arguments without AI are rarely taken into account, and only in very obvious situations.

    Thus, the correct discussion comes down to the search for sources, to the analysis "are there such sources or not?" This argument is summed up. Which, of course, can be challenged in the presence of new sources / information.

    Administrators summarize the discussion. And despite the apparent freedom, the outcome of the discussion is precisely an analysis of the arguments presented. Wikipedia has well-developed mechanisms for challenging results, and for errors in summing up the administrator’s flag is completely removed .

    The Wiki engine is quite effective, so that even errors in the results do not lead to a complete loss of information. As soon as unaccounted arguments appear (sometimes the administrator makes a mistake, sometimes the arguments are much later than the discussion ends), the old text can always be restored.

    This position - “arguments, not opinions” is the basis of the principle “Wikipedia is not democracy”. Even if a thousand people say “leave”, and one gives the argument “a is a vowel, and there is nothing to do in the list of consonants,” this argument will be significantly more significant than a pack of “votes” (usually when summing up all “votes” just coldly ignored).

    ... A little more about NTZ (neutral point of view). This is a much more interesting and subtle concept than just “an exposition of all points of view”.

    It is also a search for information with which all AIs agree. For example, someone may consider Imenirek to be a murderer and a hypocrite, and someone may be a hero and a patriot. But both of them agree that the name of Imenyorek was such and such that he was born in such and such a year, that he was drafted into the army in such and such a year, and became the general of Nizhmat, he became in such and such a year.

    The goal of building a scientific technical paper is to create the maximum amount of text without contradictions between AI. After that, the contradictions in the AI ​​are already indicated and the contents of these AI are retold (the part that is associated with the conflict of points of view).

    The result of creating an article in compliance with NTZ is a text that is equally calmly read by representatives of any social group.

    Here, for example, is the beginning of an article about such an odious personality as Comrade. Lenin:

    Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (real surname Ulyanov; April 10 (22), 1870, Simbirsk - January 21, 1924, Gorki estate, Moscow province) - Russian and Soviet political and statesman, revolutionary, creator of the Bolshevik party, one of the organizers and leaders of the October Revolution of 1917 years, chairman of the Council of People's Commissars (government) of the RSFSR and the USSR. Philosopher, Marxist, publicist, founder of Marxism-Leninism, ideologist and creator of the Third (Communist) International, founder of the Soviet state. The field of basic scientific work is philosophy and economics.

    Look carefully: the text is carefully verified - no one (neither the supporter, nor the opponent) can object, saying "there wasn’t such a thing."

    Yes, someone will say that the revolution is "Great Socialist", and someone that it is the "October Revolution."

    However, the “October Revolution” has neither praise nor abuse. And therefore, “reluctantly,” each side agrees with the statement.

    This is the essence of NTZ.

    Also popular now: