Wikipedia Writing Principles
I have long wanted to gather all my thoughts about the principles of Wikipedia work ... I collect. Immediately I warn you, this is my interpretation of the rules. The rules of Wikipedia are objective (adjusted for those accepted in ru-wikis, in the adjacent sections may differ slightly), my interpretation of them is subjective.
So, first the axioms on which Wikipedia is built:
1) It is necessary to collect all the knowledge valuable to humanity in a convenient form for reading.
2) But at the same time it is necessary to make a collection of this data (encyclopedia) free. That is, not related to the 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 non-professionals.
4) The presentation of the material should be neutral, that is, to cover all the essential points of view for humanity on the issue.
')
The following, very important theses are derived from these axioms:
Wikipedia editors are not qualified to authoritatively present the material. They cannot determine significance by their will. This thesis is easy to understand - there may be both a schoolchild and an academic among editors. We cannot trust the editors' opinion on quantum physics, genetics, and the list of Pokemon.
In order to resolve the contradiction that arises, the following construction is allowed: instead of writing articles according to the “editors' opinion,” articles are written based on independent sources. In other words, the editor does not write a quantum physics “as he understands it,” but says that in the institute course on the issue (topic of the article) they write this and that, and in nature for such a number - this is how it is. Thus, we solve the contradiction between the incompetent authors of Wikipedia and the need to present factual material.
The article indicates SOURCES by which the reader can verify what is written. And Wikipedia washes its 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 by a thread,” since it does not correspond to what has been 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 will be a bad decision. And again we resort to authoritative sources. However, this time we are still adding independence requirements. Those. it is clear that the author of any invention is ready to talk about it for hours. The question is whether the others are ready to talk about this invention at least in minutes ...
In this case, it is important that independent sources be authoritative (AI). If the source is a site on narod.ru or a post on the forum of a regional provider, then it is somewhat erroneous to consider this a serious source.
More important is the requirement of significant attention. If a source briefly mentioned a phenomenon, this does not make the phenomenon significant. But if this source has devoted an article to the phenomenon, and even better, several sources have devoted a lot of material to the phenomenon, then it is probably significant.
So, we write (retelling the facts) according to the sources, we demand independent AIs to prove the significance of the phenomenon. [At the same time, we do not forget about copyright compliance, which is a special and not interesting headache].
Further. Sources can be very biased (that is, unconditionally adhere to any one point of view), and may contradict each other. One source says about sovereign Abkhazia, the second says that there is no sovereign Abkhazia. Who to believe?
The answer is no one. It is necessary to write that the source "A" believes that it is independent, and the source of "B" - that is dependent.
Presentation of points of view should occur according to their significance and prevalence (yes, this is a field for extensive discussions).
Thus, we have the basic rules by which articles are written and exist.
What to do if there is a conflict “should there be an article or not?”.
The answer is to submit for discussion . This discussion takes into account not the opinions of the participants, but the arguments . With pruflinks (AI), of course. Arguments without AI are rarely taken into account, and only in very obvious situations.
Thus, a proper discussion boils down to finding sources, to the analysis “are there such sources or not?”. This argument summarizes. Which, of course, can be challenged with new sources / information.
Administrators summarize the discussion. And despite the apparent freedom, the result of the discussion is the analysis of the arguments presented. In Wikipedia, the mechanisms for challenging the results are sufficiently developed, 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 the complete destruction of information. As soon as unaccounted arguments appear (sometimes the administrator is mistaken, sometimes the arguments are found much later than the end of the discussion), the old text can always be restored.
This position - “arguments, not opinions” is the basis of the principle “Wikipedia is not a democracy”. Even if a thousand people say “leave a”, and one gives the argument “a is a vowel, and she has nothing to do in the list of willing”, this argument will be significantly more weighty than a bundle of “votes” (usually when summing up all the “votes” just cold ignored).
... A little more about NTZ (neutral point of view). This is a much more interesting and subtle concept than just "the presentation of all points of view."
It is also a search for information with which all AIs agree. For example, someone might consider Nomerek a murderer and a hypocrite, and someone a hero and a patriot. But both of them agree that the name of Nimryok 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 he became general of Nizhmat he became in such and such a year.
The purpose of constructing a NTZ is to create a maximum amount of text without contradictions between the AI. After that, the contradictions are already indicated in the AI ​​and the contents of these AI are retold (the part that is connected with the conflict of points of view).
The result of creating an article in compliance with the NTRP is a text that is equally easy to read by representatives of any social group.
For example, the beginning of an article about such an odious person as Comrade. Lenin:
Look carefully: the text is carefully verified - no one (neither a supporter nor an adversary) can argue, saying “there was no such thing”.
Yes, someone will say that the revolution is "Great Socialist", and someone that this is the "October coup".
However, the "October Revolution" does not have any eulogistic or abusive evaluations. And therefore, “reluctantly”, each of the parties agrees with the statement.
This is the essence of the NTRP.
So, first the axioms on which Wikipedia is built:
1) It is necessary to collect all the knowledge valuable to humanity in a convenient form for reading.
2) But at the same time it is necessary to make a collection of this data (encyclopedia) free. That is, not related to the 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 non-professionals.
4) The presentation of the material should be neutral, that is, to cover all the essential points of view for humanity on the issue.
')
The following, very important theses are derived from these axioms:
Wikipedia editors are not qualified to authoritatively present the material. They cannot determine significance by their will. This thesis is easy to understand - there may be both a schoolchild and an academic among editors. We cannot trust the editors' opinion on quantum physics, genetics, and the list of Pokemon.
In order to resolve the contradiction that arises, the following construction is allowed: instead of writing articles according to the “editors' opinion,” articles are written based on independent sources. In other words, the editor does not write a quantum physics “as he understands it,” but says that in the institute course on the issue (topic of the article) they write this and that, and in nature for such a number - this is how it is. Thus, we solve the contradiction between the incompetent authors of Wikipedia and the need to present factual material.
The article indicates SOURCES by which the reader can verify what is written. And Wikipedia washes its 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 by a thread,” since it does not correspond to what has been 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 will be a bad decision. And again we resort to authoritative sources. However, this time we are still adding independence requirements. Those. it is clear that the author of any invention is ready to talk about it for hours. The question is whether the others are ready to talk about this invention at least in minutes ...
In this case, it is important that independent sources be authoritative (AI). If the source is a site on narod.ru or a post on the forum of a regional provider, then it is somewhat erroneous to consider this a serious source.
More important is the requirement of significant attention. If a source briefly mentioned a phenomenon, this does not make the phenomenon significant. But if this source has devoted an article to the phenomenon, and even better, several sources have devoted a lot of material to the phenomenon, then it is probably significant.
So, we write (retelling the facts) according to the sources, we demand independent AIs to prove the significance of the phenomenon. [At the same time, we do not forget about copyright compliance, which is a special and not interesting headache].
Further. Sources can be very biased (that is, unconditionally adhere to any one point of view), and may contradict each other. One source says about sovereign Abkhazia, the second says that there is no sovereign Abkhazia. Who to believe?
The answer is no one. It is necessary to write that the source "A" believes that it is independent, and the source of "B" - that is dependent.
Presentation of points of view should occur according to their significance and prevalence (yes, this is a field for extensive discussions).
Thus, we have the basic rules by which articles are written and exist.
What to do if there is a conflict “should there be an article or not?”.
The answer is to submit for discussion . This discussion takes into account not the opinions of the participants, but the arguments . With pruflinks (AI), of course. Arguments without AI are rarely taken into account, and only in very obvious situations.
Thus, a proper discussion boils down to finding sources, to the analysis “are there such sources or not?”. This argument summarizes. Which, of course, can be challenged with new sources / information.
Administrators summarize the discussion. And despite the apparent freedom, the result of the discussion is the analysis of the arguments presented. In Wikipedia, the mechanisms for challenging the results are sufficiently developed, 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 the complete destruction of information. As soon as unaccounted arguments appear (sometimes the administrator is mistaken, sometimes the arguments are found much later than the end of the discussion), the old text can always be restored.
This position - “arguments, not opinions” is the basis of the principle “Wikipedia is not a democracy”. Even if a thousand people say “leave a”, and one gives the argument “a is a vowel, and she has nothing to do in the list of willing”, this argument will be significantly more weighty than a bundle of “votes” (usually when summing up all the “votes” just cold ignored).
... A little more about NTZ (neutral point of view). This is a much more interesting and subtle concept than just "the presentation of all points of view."
It is also a search for information with which all AIs agree. For example, someone might consider Nomerek a murderer and a hypocrite, and someone a hero and a patriot. But both of them agree that the name of Nimryok 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 he became general of Nizhmat he became in such and such a year.
The purpose of constructing a NTZ is to create a maximum amount of text without contradictions between the AI. After that, the contradictions are already indicated in the AI ​​and the contents of these AI are retold (the part that is connected with the conflict of points of view).
The result of creating an article in compliance with the NTRP is a text that is equally easy to read by representatives of any social group.
For example, the beginning of an article about such an odious person as Comrade. Lenin:
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (real surname Ulyanov; 10 (22) April 1870, Simbirsk - January 21, 1924, Gorki estate, Moscow province) - Russian and Soviet political and statesman, revolutionary, founder of the Bolshevik party, one of the organizers and leaders of the October revolution of 1917 , 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 main scientific works are philosophy and economics.
Look carefully: the text is carefully verified - no one (neither a supporter nor an adversary) can argue, saying “there was no such thing”.
Yes, someone will say that the revolution is "Great Socialist", and someone that this is the "October coup".
However, the "October Revolution" does not have any eulogistic or abusive evaluations. And therefore, “reluctantly”, each of the parties agrees with the statement.
This is the essence of the NTRP.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/91667/
All Articles