Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, also an online community. Therefore, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not.¹

What the encyclopedia is not

Wikipedia is a paper encyclopedia

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Thus, Wikipedia has no size restrictions, can include links, can be more timely, etc. It also means that the style and length of writing appropriate for paper is not necessarily a limitation here.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide. If you're interested in working on a wiki dictionary, check out our sister project Wiktionary.

Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. Sometimes an article can and should begin with a good definition; If you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.
2. Lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields.
3. A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., are used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a leet cracker or a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used in order to distinguish among similar, easily-confused ideas, as at Nation or Freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a chatroom, discussion forum, or vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.
2. Discussion forums, or Everything2 nodes. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles.
3. Critical reviews. Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedia articles. Of course, critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations. See also Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction.
4. Personal essays that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See Wikipedia:No original research. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at Meta. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.
5. Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. See Wikipedia:No original research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal peer-reviewed journals, or elsewhere on the web. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge. Of course, you don't have to get all of your information on entries from peer-reviewed journals; but strive to make that information no less reliable and verifiable.
6. Self-promotion. While you are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. A very few somewhat famous Wikipedians have significantly contributed to encyclopedia articles about themselves and their accomplishments, and this has mostly been accepted after some debate. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is not acceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography.
7. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style and their subject is relevant enough to merit an article. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs.

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files

Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files.

All content added to Wikipedia may have to be edited mercilessly to be included in the encyclopedia. By submitting any content, you agree to release it for free use under the GNU FDL. ²

Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Mere collections of external links. Of course, there's nothing wrong with adding both lists of content-relevant links and on-line references you used in writing an article.
2. Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for topical lists to assist with the organisation of articles.
3. Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording. Complete copies of primary sources should go into Wikisource. There's nothing wrong with using public domain resources such as 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica to add content to an article. See also Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources.
4. Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. 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 is not a free host or webspace provider

You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia. If you are interested in using the wiki technology for a collaborative effort on something else, even if it is just a single page, there are many sites (such as Wikicities, SeedWiki or Riters.com) that provide wiki hosting (free or for money). You can also install wiki software on your server. Wikipedia pages are not:

1. Personal homepages. Wikipedians have their own personal pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage unrelated to encyclopedia work (e.g. posting your resume), please make use of one of the many free homepage providers on the Internet.
2. File storage areas. Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles; anything else will be deleted. If you have extra relevant images, consider uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base

Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base, that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s). You may want to consider contributing FAQ lists to Wikibooks.
2. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons. If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.
3. Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Elysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder.
4. Memorials. It's always sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives.
5. News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.
6. Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of notoriety or achievement. One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Minor characters may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in Persecution of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered). See m:Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project.
7. Directories, directory entries, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally shouldn't list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, etc (although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable). Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

With few exceptions, future events are prima facie unencyclopedic, because they are unverifiable until they have actually occurred. In particular:

1. Individual scheduled or expected future events, such as the 2028 Summer Olympics, are not suitable topics for articles, unless they are as predictable as an astronomical event, or unless planning or preparation for the event is already in progress and the preparation itself merits encyclopedic inclusion. Or where speculation is well documented such as with the 2008 U.S. presidential election. The schedule as a whole may also be appropriate but should be presented in tabular or list form within a single article.
2. Similarly, individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, preassigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical storm Alex, 2010" is not, even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise. Similarly, articles about words formed on a predictable numeric system (such as "septenquinquagintillion") are not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use.
3. Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Star Wars and Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War IV" is not.

Wikipedia is not censored

Wikipedia may contain objectionable content. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that you or your child will see or read nothing objectionable. While obviously inappropriate content (such as inappropriate links to shock sites) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links, provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the state of Florida in the United States, where the servers are hosted.

What the community is not

Wikipedia is not a battleground

Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter in an intelligent manner, and engage in polite discussion. Do not create or modify articles just to prove a point. Do not make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or the Wikimedia Foundation ³. Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy

Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchistic communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism. If you want to do so, you may use the Wikipedia fork Anarchopedia. See also meta:Power structure

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. That is, majority opinion does not necessarily rule in Wikipedia. Various votes are regularly conducted, but their numerical results are usually only one of several means of making a decision. The discussions that accompany the voting processes are crucial means of reaching consensus. For example, a very important Wikipedia process is reaching consensus on what articles are sub-standard and should be deleted from Wikipedia entirely. The discussion by which that consensus is reached occurs in the context of a "vote" on the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion page. That page is slightly misnamed since the discussion is more important than the actual voting.

Wikipedia is not an experiment in bureaucracy

Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post.

When you wonder what to do

• When you wonder what should or should not be in an article named "whatever", ask yourself what a reader would expect under "whatever" in an encyclopedia. For examples of what kinds of articles people consider to be encyclopedic, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents and Wikipedia:What's in, what's out.
• When you wonder whether the rules given above are being violated, consider:
  • Changing the content of an article (normal editing)
  • Changing the page into a redirect, preserving the page history
  • Nominating the page for deletion on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion if it meets grounds for such action under the Wikipedia:Deletion policy page. To develop an understanding of what kinds of contributions are in danger of being deleted you have to regularly follow discussions there.
  • Changing the rules on this page after a consensus has been reached following appropriate discussion with other Wikipedians via the Talk page. When adding new options, please be as clear as possible and provide counter-examples of similar, but permitted, subjects.

Notes

Note 1: While this page is intended to record policies that are firmly established, it continues to evolve. If you wish to quote it in an argument, please be sure to check the latest version.

Note 2: Note that Wikipedia incorporates many images and some text which are considered "fair use" into its GFDLed articles. See also Wikipedia:Copyrights.

Note 3: If you believe that your legal rights are being violated, you may discuss this with other users involved, take the matter to the appropriate mailing list, contact the Wikimedia Foundation, or in cases of copyright violations notify us here.

See also

• Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines
• Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents
• Wikipedia:Google test
• Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
• Wikipedia:What the GFDL is not
• Wikipedia:Importance