Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOTSTATS

[edit]

Excessive listings of unexplained statistics On that #3 can we just remove the word unexplained, because you can still have excessive explained lists. Right now at AfD is List of goals scored by Cristiano Ronaldo, that is an explained list, it's just excessive in content and wiki is not suppose to be an almanac. It's been a while, but I continue to see the same problem over and over again when we want to delete articles with this policy. I do feel we need to adjust the writing on this. Can we review the NOTSTATS again and adjust this please. Regards. Govvy (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically, we could, but "unexplained" – just raw data dumps – is what was actually intended to be covered was raw data dumps: "an article shouldn't just be a string of datapoints. It should contain at least some encyclopedic text explanation that puts the data in context." The List of goals scored by Cristiano Ronaldo meets that standard.
Also, please see item #1 in Wikipedia:Five pillars about Wikipedia being an almanac. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we have to keep an adjectival modification of "statistics", "unexplained" ought to be replaced with something closer to what is practiced, such as "shallow". JoelleJay (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Shallow" is meaningless. SportingFlyer T·C 01:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shallow? Really, I am saying we should remove one word so we just have Excessive listings of statistics and then go on why NOTSTATS applies. Govvy (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then we can go on to fights about what's "excessive". Is the length of each song in a discography "excessive"? Are the stats in {{Infobox baseball biography}} "excessive"? What about the contents of {{chembox}}, which are incomprehensible to most people?
"Unexplained" is something that editors can usually agree on: Either there's some sentences on the page, or there's not. But "excessive" is a matter of personal preference. One person's "excessive" baseball stats is another's insufficient information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree we should remove that word. JoelleJay (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Unexplained" is doing all of the work in this item. We have an awful lot of articles that are all about statistics (baseball record holders, planetary data, demographics, etc.). What matters is that they're given context to have educational value rather than just being a data dump. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've always consider that stats that are nominally published by other reliable sources for that type of topic are viable for us to include. So a baseball player's per season stats is very common in those books, or the type of chemical information we present on chemical infoboxes. I don't know enough of how assc football is covered to know if every goal made by one player is tracked by sources routinely but it feels out if place and unusual. — Masem (t) 19:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that in soccer, goals are uncommon enough that every report of any game includes an account of each goal scored, who scored them, etc. There are frequently only one or two goals in a whole game. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. When you have a qualifier in an important policy like this, it's there for a reason. You may not understand it, but that's hardly a reason to remove it. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding tone cleanup templates

[edit]

Somebody asked me to defer back to the talk page about my tone cleanup template edit. The reason why I added that line was because Template:Research paper and Template:Textbook linked back to the "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal" section. I see no reason as to why listing those templates is a bad idea, as that gives any user who reads it to know about them and to use them in future articles who have that same problem. It is definitely not off-topic, the templates directly links to the section, so I see no problem in simply linking it back. Although I do apologize for not talking about it first. Senomo Drines (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The prescription is a total tangent and too clunky of a general recommendation here, where we're teaching what not to do, not what maintenance templates are—moreover, most of the recommendations are about content, not tone, so recommending a small category of mostly-useless templates for tone problems is bizarre. Remsense ‥ 论 13:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then, I'll add in the specific templates most directly related to the topics of the section without the use of deferring back to the category. Senomo Drines (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not in policy. Write an essay, and if it's a good one, we'll link to it from here. NOT is one of the core-adjacent policies and we don't need this here. Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, most of the templates don't directly relate to the section, although I did find one, and added it in appropriately. Senomo Drines (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You still do not seem to appreciate a core problem multiple other editors have touched on—i.e. you telling editors what they should be doing in a given situation. Do you not understand why that is pretty inappropriate and unhelpful to put in one of our policies? Remsense ‥ 论 03:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it again, this is getting pretty semantic. Senomo Drines (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even moreso than with normal articles, you need to stop making changes to site policy no one else has agreed to. You're not entitled to impose your preferences on everyone else; this isn't something for you to shape in your own idiom, it's the norms we all respect and generally follow. I mean it when I say you need to get a clue, and fast—because your entire attitude here is completely beyond the pale. Remsense ‥ 论 03:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to this page.
"Although most editors find discussions helpful, especially at well-developed pages, directly editing these pages is permitted by Wikipedia's policies. Consequently, you should not remove any change solely because there was no discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Instead, give a substantive reason for challenging it either in your edit summary or on the talk page." Senomo Drines (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? We've spent the last several messages and edit summaries telling you no, and why, over and over, in no uncertain terms. Unbelievable. Remsense ‥ 论 03:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you cool your head before you get yourself blocked for WP:NPA. Senomo Drines (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good call to edit that out. Senomo Drines (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone can see the damn edit history. Remsense ‥ 论 04:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your conclusions and interpretations of others' remarks and site policy have been beyond obtuse and self-serving, and you seem almost entirely unconcerned with actually reaching meaningful consensus with other editors. I am being perfectly level headed when I say you need a serious attitude adjustment if you want to continue working with others on here going forward. I can't stop you from taking that as a personal attack, but I do mean it as advice, otherwise I wouldn't bother and would let you keep shooting yourself in the foot. Remsense ‥ 论 04:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page Protected

[edit]

Protected page for 3 days due to the back-n-forth reversions. If this continues, sanctions, such as blocking, may occur. Please discuss and find consensus. - jc37 04:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a newpaper

[edit]

On 14 December 2024, a fifth subsection was added called Uptime tracking. This is a hyperspecific example of what sort of news content is not appropriate. Countless other examples of what should not be included could also be added, which would make the section unreadable. I see this as an example of instruction creep. I tried to remove it but my change got reverted because of an unrelated edit war. I intend to remove it when the current full protection expires in a few days, unless consensus emerges to keep it. Cullen328 (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the text, while valid, is too specific and should be removed. It was added on 14 December 2024. Johnuniq (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and boldly remove if you have the ability. It was boldly added, you can boldly remove. I do not mind adding this if there is a clear reason for it, but I don't edit in those areas. SportingFlyer T·C 10:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree its unnecessary as it overlaps with other NOT concepts.
That said, we should be making clear that NOT should not be read as an explicit and exhaustive list of things we are not (eg not prescriptive), but a descriptive attempt to say where the bounds and shape of the type of content we do not want to see on WP is, and the specific cases lists are more to help define that shape but should not be considered exhaustive. That is, without the new section, it should be clear that uptime tracking is similar to many of the other concepts on this paper and thus would fall under what WP is not without saying that expressively. Masem (t) 12:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to echo this. NOT isn't for things we don't do, NOT is for things we don't do even if all other relevant policies and guidelines are met. That is, a page of pure statistics can be notable, verifiable, NPOV, etc. and it's still not appropriate as a Wikipedia article. Jclemens (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having said all that, I do think we should keep NOT up to date with potential misuses (although not al of them), and should probably be proactive in doing so. I thank Cullen328 for his reversion; and also with Jc37's protection. The edit-warring was getting stupid. I agree that uptime doesn't warrant it's own section. However, perhaps there is a way of including it within another? E.g., '...other misuses of Wikipedia might include logging UP or DOWNTIME, or...' Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the subsection. Cullen328 (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Travel time, proximity to another spot and such

[edit]

I'm currently in a disagreement whether such is considered WP:NOTGUIDE given that information is tailored to encourage traveling. Should a travel time to a resort, or a national park be considered "guide" per WP:NOTGUIDE? Discussion is at Talk:Mammoth_Mountain_Ski_Area#Travel_time although let's have a more general discussion here. Graywalls (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another similar situation at Special:Diff/1282525827 where whether including information like tour bus ride duration from xx to xx, the presence of restrooms, visitor centers is encyclopedic vs tour guide even though it's not in instruction manual format. Graywalls (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed restroom mention since that's generally a given for visitor centers, but YES, information about visitor centers IS encyclopedic. YES, context about the visitor experience is encyclopedic. NO, describing what tourists can do and where they go does not make this a forbidden tour guide. NO, providing travel time is does not make it a guide, it encyclopedically puts the place in geographic context. It informs the reader how large the park is and how a massive park must be accessed. Indeed, it's not just a parking lot shuttle or optional, these are very long bus rides many visitors take and it's encyclopedic to describe that. This is absurdly obtuse to delete swathes of information because it could be relevant (albeit highly incomplete) to a visitor when WP:NOTGUIDE only explicitly points out contact information, prices, and listings of every hotel. Reywas92Talk 21:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Distances and areas are fixed values and will not change so make to use as providing a quick mental picture of where a location is from major cities that are nearby, but times for making that trip should be avoided since that has a lot of variables involved. But that's only in the absence of any such coverage per Due. If many sources note, for example, that while something is only 30 miles from a city but it can frequently take 2 to 3 hours to travel there due to the nature of the roads there, that can be due to put in. — Masem (t) 22:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem:,and also, National Park Services even have social media team and they have entrenched interest in encouraging tourism. So, in that respect, extensively and predominantly sourcing things like "area is closed to private vehicles, except for those who are camping in xyz camp area, but can be accessed by bus" and citing the Parks Services website itself is although accurate, but undue. I see it no different than writing about amenities of hotels, resorts and such, basing it primarily on their website. Graywalls (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, things like that if only sourced to the primary work or even to third-party travel guides would be inappropriate. But if these are brought up in independent, third-party sourcing, it gets away from the promotional tone and would be reasonable to include. — Masem (t) 00:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92:, Listing of various attractions like visitors center, the absence/presence of parking amenities, WiFi, lactation station in my opinion falls under WP:NOTCATALOG #6 and certain advisory contents like how a visitor can accomplish certain things may fit in WP:NOTHOW #1 - #2. Graywalls (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you making up irrelevant crap? I would agree not to generally include details about parking, Wifi, or lactation, but none of those are in these articles. Presence of a visitor center as key infrastructure should absolutely always be mentioned, though not necessarily with listings of those kinds of items. Nothing here is a how-to guide. Reywas92Talk 02:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92:, disagree. area is closed to private vehicles, except for those who are camping in xyz camp area, but can be accessed by bus absolutely is comparable to "the hotel includes parking for those who stay two nights or more more" or "the restaurant has a lactation room". Graywalls (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So do you want to just remove the exception? Is that too detailed for you? That would be utterly absurd not to even mention how hundreds of thousands of visitors get into the park. Are you going to go around removing a bunch of Zion National Park#More recent history too? Usually from early April through late October, the scenic drive in Zion Canyon is closed to private vehicles and visitors ride the shuttle buses. Are you going to delete from Grand Canyon National Park#South Rim 2 From March to December, access to Hermit's Rest is restricted to the free shuttle provided by the Park Service? Glacier National Park (U.S.)#Recreation: A fleet of restored 1930s White Motor Company coaches, called Red Jammers, offer tours on all the main roads in the park. Give me a break, this is not a tour guide and is not forbidden. Reywas92Talk 02:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of shamelessly spammy articles and ultra non-notable restaurant and business articles that shouldn't exist that editors haven't got around to removing them. We're holding this discussion here, because you and I disagree on the interpretation of these guidelines as well as what we consider "useful" encyclopaedic contents. Absent consensus, your preferred version in favor of inclusiondoes not override mine per ONUS. Graywalls (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is spam or a notability issue, it's absurd to compare this to that, and you should not get around to removing any parts of these sections either. You don't automatically win because you're creating an issue out of something. Reywas92Talk 15:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to keep WP:CALM and see if we can work something out. I think there are two issues here:

  1. WP:NOTGUIDE is not very specific. It mentions Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. It appears that Graywalls (and perhaps others) interpret this to mean that any information that could reasonably appear in a travelogue and encourages tourism shouldn't appear in WP. (Graywalls, please correct this if I'm misinterpreting). Other editors (Reywas92 and possibly multiple reviewers at WP:FAC) appear to believe that infrastructural information about roads is encyclopedic.
  2. So far, the discussion has only involved 2-3 editors, and has been scattered across multiple talk pages (see Talk:Denali National Park and Preserve, Talk:Mammoth Mountain Ski Area), with substantial deletions on other articles (see Rocky Mountain National Park, June Mountain ski area). Because it could affect many articles, I think this topic would benefit from centralized discussion and wide notification, with many eyes on it.

Before we pull more people into the discussion, I think we need something more concrete to discuss. Masem had an interesting idea (above), where they suggested if a fact comes from a source that is neither a primary source about a tourist destination, nor from a travelogue, it can be included. That could be an very useful rule-of-thumb, but there are gray zones: many reliable news sources have "travel" sections (e.g., San Jose Mercury News travel section) --- would those be allowed?

Is there any other way to generally resolve this dispute? Does anyone have any ideas of how to reconcile Graywalls' interpretation of WP:NOTGUIDE with the (implicit) consensus in the FA articles? Is some compromise possible? — hike395 (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Glacier National Park (U.S.), FA evaluation was in 2006, so nearly 20 years ago and a bloggy WP:QS seriouswheels.com was added as a source years after the FA review. When questionable sources are introduced into a featured article years later, it's not automatically a part of "featured" piece. When referencing "featured article" as a baseline example, I like to look at when the contents in question was added vs when it was listed as FA. Consensus also evolves. You will also see quite a few articles with terrible sources like quora, stachexchange and such, but they're like debris in the ocean. Just because you can identify and point out unaddressed dumping is not a good justification to do more dumping or resist the removal of garbage. Graywalls (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your points about old FA edits and consensus changing are good ones. I'm hoping we can figure out how to probe the current consensus beyond the four editors who are currently involved.
You mentioned terrible sources, which has been a persistent problem in WP. What do you think of Masem's suggestion, above? That would avoid the need to exactly define the topics that fall inside/outside WP:NOTGUIDE (although we would need to understand what a travel source is). — hike395 (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Graywalls is wildly out of place here. Wikipedia is welcome to describe tourism and should in fact provide details of how it works. It should describe how places are designed for visitors, what the visitor experience may involve, how geography and access are structured, and much more. This is widespread across the encyclopedia because it is indeed encyclopedic content, and any article about a park or other location that receives visitors would be woefully incomplete if it lacks overview of what visitors do or what attraction are. Describing what tourist activities occur is integral and relevant to a wide array of topics and informative to readers whether or not they are visiting themselves. NOTGUIDE discourages us from including detailed listings of hotels, not from mentioning that lodging is available; it discourages us from including a price list for services, not that visitors often use such services; it discourages us from listing contact information or hours for visitor centers, not that parks have visitor centers with exhibits; it discourages us from using using the second-person directing readers how to do things, not that such things can be done. Reliable sources that are targeted at travelers are absolutely welcome to be used, and there is no restriction on sourcing information to guidebooks or other such published sources whatsoever – we must adapt that to the proper encyclopedic voice that is neutrally descriptive rather than instructive, but this type of content should not be deleted in bulk. Yes, there are some pages that haven't gotten proper attention and need clean-up to improve a promotional tone or weak sourcing, but NOTGUIDE should not be misinterpreted so expansively as to prohibit much information about traveling generally. Reywas92Talk 04:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with Reywas92. Just because information can be found in a travel guide does not mean that information is necessarily unencyclopaedic, and we harm the encyclopaedia by trying to make it otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 08:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reywas92's explanation of WP:NOTGUIDE matches my understanding, also. I have some sympathy for Graywalls position, however, because of WP:NOTADVERT. I agree with Thryduulf's argument that strictly implementing a "no information that appears in travel guides in WP" rule could be disruptive and may not match broad consensus. — hike395 (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stress again that as long as the info is coming from a reliable, independent, non-travel guide source, even if the info us travel guide-ish in nature, it should be fine. That is, we should consider how a tourist attraction is discussed in sources that are not devoted to discussing tourist attractions, so if that does include the various amenities, great. If no source but literature from the site discusses these, then we should omit them. Masem (t) 13:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, travel guides are okay to use too. National Geographic Guide to National Parks of the United States 9th Edition is certainly "devoted to discussing tourist attractions" and tells readers how to visit them in the second person, but it's very much reliable and can identify relevant information and be adapted to encyclopedic tone. We are not restricted to newspapers or history books. Primary sources should be used with standard care but they are not restricted either: e.g. recent FA Morningside Park (Manhattan) is extensively sourced to the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. Reywas92Talk 14:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it is being used to fill in small gaps not coveted by independent, non guide sources, that's reasonable (which just judging on Morningside Park, is the case there) If we are extensively using that guide for sourcing with little independent sourcing, that's a problem. Masem (t) 15:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source improvement is always a goal, but content should not simply be deleted or challenged because it uses guides as a source or relates to travel. Brief mentions of businesses or review-type content in comprehensive guidebooks may be weak for notability, but there is nothing wrong with guidebooks in general. There is plenty of perfectly encyclopedic content that is not written in newspapers (outside of travel sections) and history books. Reywas92Talk 15:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At first, I was going to reflexively agree with User:Graywalls. Then I thought this through carefully. I do not necessarily agree with all of User:Reywas92's blithely enthusiastic views towards inclusion; rather, my position is that I reluctantly agree with User:Thryduulf's more nuanced analysis.
I went back and reviewed the Mammoth Mountain Ski Area dispute that touched off this mess. A lot of the information that User:Graywalls purged is unsourced garbage amounting to original research that violates core policies WP:NOR, WP:NOT, and WP:V. So such content was properly purged for those reasons.
However, certain points could come back if properly sourced, even if they overlap with information usually found in a travel guide. For example, if anyone can find a reliable published source that actually analyzes the travel distances via land between Mammoth Mountain and major metro areas and uses those distances to then explain how Mammoth struggles to attract Bay Area skiers and snowboarders relative to Lake Tahoe resorts, I don't see any problem with bringing that fact back into the article. It's like reporting on any other trials and tribulations of a business that is the subject of a WP article. For example, the articles on the California Community Colleges and Visa Inc. (which I largely wrote) do not make sense unless one understands that Fresno is one of the most remote cities in California and that such remoteness directly shaped their history (a point made in the cited sources).
What matters to keep WP from crashing into Wikivoyage is tone and presentation: a fact has to be carefully presented as a neutral fact (per WP:NPOV) in terms of "here's the facts, take it or leave it" rather than as travel advice (which is where one risks crashing into WP:NOT) in terms of "this is what you ought to know if you are going there".
I am very skeptical of travel guidebooks as sources. But after thinking this through, I think each needs to be analyzed on the merits. For example, a well-written guidebook with a full masthead of writers and editors from a reputable publisher may be a reliable source, while an error-ridden self-published guidebook by a single author would fall under WP:SPS and we would treat it like any other self-published blog or web site. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do you feel about extensively citing NPS.gov on National Parks articles? How I feel is that just because it is a .gov doesn't mean that it can't be advertorial and it should be viewed the same thing as writing about a hotel, resort etc extensively sourced to the resort's website. Graywalls (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am just concerned when we include info that is just published in a guide and absent for non guide material. And this includes looking at multiple articles and determining scope. For example if the total hiking trail length in every national park is given by non-guide sources, but for some reason one specific park does not have this but can be found in guide like material, it seems fair to include. On the other hand, it f the hiking path length is only given by guides, it's probably not appropriate for WP.
Guides can obviously be used for things not related to a guide, such as the history or management of a tourist location. Its a grey line but when we are talking clear guide-like info (such as a description of every major ski slope at a ski resort rather just citing the number and difficulty) sourced only to guides then that's where the NOTGUIDE issues arise. This is consistent with the other sections in this NOT block, like GAMEGUIDE Masem (t) 20:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I know hike395 is trying to centralize discussion here, but Graywalls has requested additional opinions at Talk:Denali National Park and Preserve#Amenities guide. I believe the article's "Access" content, including a line about visitors being required to take buses on most of the main road, is appropriately encyclopedic and not promotional or written as a guide. Reywas92Talk 13:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a good guide/indicator would be a reader who wants to learn about the park (or the subject of the article) but does not intend to visit it. Would it be the type of info that they want to read to learn about the park? This would tend to leave out info that is overly focused on being a visitor guide. I do think that Graywalls's criteria / interpretation is more extreme than the norm / common community practice. North8000 (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My thought upon reading the section title was that travel time and proximity could be quite meaningful info, as they might be crucial to why a location becomes popular and why it changes, or have some other impact. I would however expect a source to discuss this impact directly, rather than putting such information in all articles. CMD (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like North8000's idea. — hike395 (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
North has the right idea, but I can see problems if the wording is not careful or explained in more detail. An hypothetical, an avid Amercian skier as a WP reader may never plan on being able to visit a European ski resort, but would want to know what the exact ski slope difficulties and routes. There's a loose concept that our target content should be written for a broader level than those actually interested in that content, but that line can be really fuzzy with travel guide information that readily overlaps with more practical/encyclopedic information (eg distances from nearby landmarks). Perhaps this is where an essay or guideline about the dos and do nots of writing articles about tourist destinations so that there's an idea where a line could be drawn. Masem (t) 06:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why must Wikipedia follow Unites States laws?

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The original question has already been answered. After it, it became wild speculation over things that have not taken place nor there is any tangible evidence they will. Cambalachero (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It says in the censorship section that it has to follow United States laws. Does this mean that if the U.S. wanted to censor Wikipedia, it would be censored for people in the U.K. and Australia and the rest of the world? Why is it like this? I am not from the U.S.A., so please forgive my ignorance. Thanks. 04:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC) Squidboy85 (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is exactly what it means. The United States asserts that its laws apply world-wide. If the U.S. wanted to censor Wikipedia, then it could. What is most likely to happen is that access would be cut off, as has happened in other countries, and the English language Wikipedia would split into separate US and elsewhere versions. WMF wants to avoid this at all costs, and one way it does this is by complying with US laws world-wide. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The United States asserts that its laws apply world-wide. Is that the reason? I thought it was because the servers sit in the US. DeCausa (talk) 06:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The servers sit in the US and the Wikimedia Foundation is incorporated under US law. It is worth noting that, as seen by the recent India court cases, the WMF will also work within other legal systems. CMD (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now; thank you for explaining. :) Squidboy85 (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That used to be the case, but no longer. WMF now also has servers in the Netherlands, Singapore and France. But this is of little importance; incorporation is far more important. But WMF could always move to somewhere like Denmark. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Wikipedia should move to another country, such as Denmark. That way it can avoid issues involving censorship. 1101 (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While there may very be legitimate arguments for moving Wikipedia (or more accurately, the WMF, of which Wikipedia is a part), regardless of where it is sited, local laws there will still apply, and there is nowhere in the world where government censorship of some sort doesn't exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but risk of government censorship is quite arguably significantly higher in the United States than in Denmark. Nordic countries (incl. Norway, Denmark, and Iceland) are known for their freedom of speech. Another country to consider is Switzerland, due to its reputation for security and neutrality. 1101 (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If discussing the physical location of servers (which is what really matters, as far as minimising the risk of malicious government actions is concerned), Norway has the merit of having abundant renewable hydroelectric power available. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they were willing to move to Canberra, Australia, I could offer a site that has zero carbon footprint. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of us have a say on things on that level, so it is pointless to discuss that. We may have a better chance discussing the casting choices of Avengers: Doomsday Cambalachero (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following U.S. law is statement of compliance rather than an ideal: the WMF is headquartered in California. No jurisdiction is completely anarchic when it comes to speech, and we've had to delete (otherwise reliable) material due to concerns about libel, defamation, copyright infringement, and so on. I agree that if U.S. laws become too onerous, we would need to have a discussion about how to response as a project. I understand why these concerns are starting to come up now. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that with "if U.S. laws become too onerous, we would need to have a discussion about how to response as a project". I would say rather "We need to get everything we can out of the USA, and fast". Our servers and other equipment can be seized by executive order alone, a credible threat to cause various serious problems for the organization (baseless but expensive and numerous lawsuits or criminal investigations backed by the resources of the US government, for instance) if the organization does not perform certain redactions or additions requested by the US government, or provide IP address of some editors, or whatever. Whether there is a law allowing this or not, the US President can de facto do this, and has, and I wouldn't overestimate how much time we have. Out now. That would be my advice. New Zealand might be better. Herostratus (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or better yet, Latveria. Only Doom can help us.
Now, seriously... any country you may choose, things may be fine now, but what makes you think that 20 or 30 years in the future they will still be? In fact, could someone had forseen the emergence of Donald Trump in the US back when Wikipedia started?
And also... "our" servers? Cambalachero (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way that Wikipedia can be backed up, so that if Trump were to shut it down the information wouldn't be permanently lost? Squidboy85 (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia already has servers in multiple countries. Furthermore, any person or institution can back Wikipedia up if they want to. CMD (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the wikipedia servers in California were destroyed, what would happen to the articles? Squidboy85 (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If San Francisco was levelled by an earthquake? (Unlikely but possible.) Nothing. San Francisco only does caching. The main site is in Ashburn, Virginia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that someone should keep a backup of Wikipedia files (preferably in multiple locations) outside of the USA so that if Trump or any other malicious, powerful American were to decide to force the servers to shut down, the information wouldn't be destroyed. They might already; I do not know. Squidboy85 (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not&oldid=1285386719"