| {{em}} | "An Lua error in Modul:Redirect_hatnote at line 66: attempt to call field 'quote' (a nil value).
Cèṭa'an:Pp-protected
Lua error in Modul:Redirect_hatnote at line 66: attempt to call field 'quote' (a nil value).
 | | Galat: tidak ada pintasan yang ditentukan |msg= parameter tidak ditentukan. |
Cèṭa'an:Essay list
Essays, as used by Wikipedia editors, typically contain advice or opinions of one or more editors. The purpose of an essay is to aid or comment on the encyclopedia but not on any unrelated causes. Essays have no official status and do not speak for the Wikipedia community because they may be created and edited without overall community oversight. Following the instructions or advice given in an essay is optional. Generally soft advice belongs in an essay, thus avoiding instruction creep in Wikipedia's official protocols. There are over 2,000 essays on a wide range of Wikipedia-related topics. Wikipedia policy says, “Essays…that overtly contradict consensus, belong in the user namespace”.
Although essays are not policies or guidelines, many are worthy of consideration. Policies and guidelines cannot cover all circumstances. Consequently, many essays serve as interpretations of or commentary on perceived community norms for specific topics and situations. The value of an essay should be understood in context, using common sense and discretion. Essays can be written by anyone and can be long monologues or short theses, serious or humorous. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. An essay, as well as being useful, can potentially be a divisive means of espousing a point of view. Although an essay should not be used to create an alternative rule set, the Wikipedia community has historically tolerated a wide range of Wikipedia-related subjects and viewpoints on user pages.
The difference between policies, guidelines, and some essays on Wikipedia may be obscure. Essays vary in popularity and how much they are followed and referred to. Editors should defer to official policies or guidelines when essays, information pages or template documentation pages are inconsistent with established community standards and principles.
Avoid "quoting" essays as though they are policy—including this explanatory supplement page. Essays, information pages and template documentation pages can be written without much—if any—debate, as opposed to Wikipedia policies that have been thoroughly vetted by the community (see WP:Local consensus for details). In Wikipedia discussions, editors may refer to essays, provided that they do not hold them out as consensus or policy. Proposals for new guidelines and policies require discussion and a high level of consensus from the entire community for promotion. See Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance and Wikipedia:Policy writing is hard for more information.
Essays are located in the Wikipedia namespace (e.g., Wikipedia:Reasonability rule) and in User namespaces (e.g., User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles). The Help namespace contains pages which provide factual (usually technical) information on using Wikipedia and its software (see below). The {{Essay}}-family templates (with several variants like {{Notability essay}} and {{WikiProject advice}}), versus the {{Guideline}} (and variants, like {{MoS guideline}}) and {{Policy}} templates give an indication of a page's status within the community. Some essays at one time were proposed policies or guidelines, but they could not gain consensus overall; as indicated by the template {{Failed proposal}}. Other essays that at one time had consensus, but are no longer relevant, are tagged with the template {{Historical}}. Essays currently nominated for policy status are indicated by the banner {{Proposed}}. See Wikipedia:Template messages/Wikipedia namespace for a listing of namespace banners.
Wikipedia namespace essays
beccè'
Essays in the Wikipedia namespace – which are Hubungan berulang templat terdeteksi: Cèṭa'an:Em to be put in the main (encyclopedia article) namespace – typically address some aspect of working in Wikipedia. They have not been formally adopted as guidelines or policies by the community at large, but typically edited by the community. Some are widely accepted as part of the Wikipedia gestalt, and have a significant degree of influence during discussions (like "guideline supplements" WP:Tendentious editing, WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle, and WP:Competence is required).
Many essays, however, are obscure, single-author pieces. Essays may be moved into userspace as user essays Cèṭa'an:See below, or even deleted, if they are found to be problematic.[1] Occasionally, even longstanding, community-edited essays may be removed or radically revised if community norms shift.[2]
How to and information pages
beccè'
Wikipedia's how-to and information pages are typically edited by the community and can also be found in the help namespace. They generally provide technical and factual information about Wikipedia or supplement guidelines and policies in greater detail. Where "essay pages" often offer advice or opinions through viewpoints, information pages are intended to clarity and explain current community practices in an impartial way (e.g., Wikipedia:Administration).
WikiProject advice pages
beccè'
WikiProjects are groups of editors who work together. Advice pages written by these groups are formally considered the same as pages written by anyone else, that is, they are essays unless and until they have been formally adopted as community-wide guidelines or policies. WikiProjects are encouraged to write essays explaining how the community's policies and guidelines should be applied to their areas of interest and expertise (e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Recommended structure).
According to Wikipedia policy, "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." These are similar to essays placed in the Wikipedia namespace; however, they are often authored/edited by only one person, and may represent a strictly personal viewpoint about Wikipedia or its processes (e.g., User:Jehochman/Responding to rudeness). Some of them are widely respected by other editors, and even occasionally have an effect on policy (e.g., the WP:General notability guideline originated in a user essay).
Writings that contradict policy are somewhat tolerated within the User namespace. The author of a personal essay located in their user space has the prerogative to revert any changes made to it by any other user, within reason. Polemics in the form of personal attacks against particular people, groups, real-life ideas (e.g. artists or politicians), or against Wikipedia itself, are generally deleted at MFD, as unconstructive or disruptive. Likewise, advocacy of fringe POV and pushing of fringe content and conspiracy theories is not tolerated. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia that sides with RS and does not promote content based on unreliable sources. Such content is considered WP:UNDUE.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Meta-wiki was envisioned as the original place for editors to comment on and discuss Wikipedia, although the "Wikipedia" project space has since taken over most of that role. Many historical essays can still be found at Meta.Wikimedia.org.
It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be tagged as "Historical ", but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}} or {{WikiProject status|Defunct}}. See WP:INACTIVEWP for more details.
Creation and modification of essays
beccè'
Before creating an essay, it is a good idea to check if similar essays already exist. Although there is no guideline or policy that explicitly prohibits it, writing redundant essays is discouraged. Avoid creating essays just to prove a point or game the system. Essays that violate one or more Wikipedia policies, such as spam, personal attacks, copyright violations, or what Wikipedia is not tend to get deleted or transferred to user space.
You do not have to have created an essay to improve it. If an essay already exists, you can add to, remove from, or modify it as you wish, provided that you use good judgment. However, essays placed in the User: namespace are often—though not always—meant to represent the viewpoint of one user only. You should usually not substantively edit someone else's user essay without permission. To be on the safe side, discuss any edits not covered by REFACTOR and MINOR before making them. If the original author is no longer active or available, seek consensus on the essay's talk page (other editors who have worked on the essay are likely to care about it), or just write a new one.
Wikipedia:Essay directory lists about 2100 essays to allow searching for key words or terms with your browser. Essays can also be navigated via categories, the navigation template, or by a custom search box (as seen below).
- ↑ Miscellany for deletion (WP:MFD) is one process that can be used by Wikipedians to decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept (sometimes with modifications, which may include moving or merging), based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required. Pages which are not specifically being posted for deletion can also be moved through the requested moves (WP:RM) process.
- ↑ Two examples are "WP:Don't be a dick" and "WP:Don't feed the divas", replaced by the heavily revised WP:Don't be a jerk and WP:Don't be high-maintenance, respectively, after too many incivility complaints. Conversely, an attempt to replace the rather stern WP:Give 'em enough rope with a much more mild-toned "WP:Let the tiger show its stripes" was rejected by consensus, and the latter eventually deleted as redundant. Some essays, like WP:Advice for hotheads, are intentionally written with such history in mind, and are worded to not offend and to advise against using them in attempts to offend.
Cèṭa'an:Wikipedia essays
Cèṭa'an:User essays
 | Ringkasan halaman ini: Wikipedia's most important resource is its contributors. When considering the value of content in projectspace and userspace, don't just inflexibly apply policies and guidelines; think about the impact of the content on editors' feelings, and whether deleting the content may drive them away. |
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia needs people to write it. Unlike most other reference works, we don't pay people to write for us, and there are very few incentives, perks or privileges associated with contributing. As such, our most valuable resource is neither money nor webspace, but Wikipedia's contributors, those dedicated people who take time out of their lives to edit, improve or maintain articles. In short, editors matter; and one of the important priorities of the Wikipedia community must be to recruit and retain good contributors. The encyclopedia simply cannot survive without human beings to build and maintain it. This should be taken into account in making decisions, particularly in miscellany for deletion discussions.
Think about the impact of deletions
beccè'
From time to time, a good-faith editor who is contributing to the encyclopedia will create pages in their own userspace or in the project namespace which seem only tangentially related to Wikipedia, if at all. This may include large amounts of information about their likes, dislikes, hobbies, or political and religious views, or may include various wiki-games or "fun" pages. In general, this is because they are new to Wikipedia and are not familiar with the purpose of userspace. Many are younger users, and should be treated with consideration accordingly; all are human beings who may be affected by how the Wikipedia community treats them.
Frequently, a well-meaning long-term Wikipedian, who views their use of userspace as inappropriate, will throw the book at them, citing Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and the userspace guidelines. They may nominate the user's pages for deletion, and say something along the lines of "This user has more userboxes than edits" or "If they're not interested in contributing to the encyclopedia, there's no point keeping their userpage". This is completely the wrong approach, as it is likely to drive the user away.
Instead, the approach to take is to tactfully try to encourage them to contribute to the encyclopedia. Keeping surplus pages around for a while does not do any significant harm to the encyclopedia; Wikipedia needs editors more than it needs webspace (and deletions don't actually free up webspace, as deleted material stays in the archives). What does harm Wikipedia is to drive an active good-faith contributor away by threatening their userpages with deletion. So, if you encounter a new user of this type, don't go for a deletion nomination as the first step. Instead, be nice to them, don't bite, and try to encourage them to concentrate more on editing the encyclopedia rather than their own userspace.
Note that this does not apply to blatant abuses of userspace. For instance, a user who is attempting to use their userspace for obvious advertising purposes (for an individual, business, charity or other organisation), and has already been warned that this is inappropriate, may justifiably have their pages deleted through the miscellany for deletion process. Such accounts are unlikely to be used for constructive contribution.
Policy is not a trump card
beccè'
All too often, in deletion debates, people churn out references to policies and guidelines without actually relating them to what's best for the encyclopedia, or thinking about them. All too often, this happens at MfD in debates relating to userspace. For instance, someone's userpage will be put up for deletion on the grounds that "WP:NOT a free webhost"; other contributors will automatically agree, because Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is a policy, and they assume that anyone who cites a policy must ipso facto be right. They fail to consider the fact that deleting someone's userpage will drive that contributor away, which is bad for the encyclopedia.
In a deletion debate, don't just use trite policy-based catchphrases like "Wikipedia is not X". While the core content policies serve as reference points, it's always more helpful to relate an argument to what's actually best for the encyclopedia, and justify it in detail.
Questions to consider in debating a deletion
beccè'
When content in someone's userspace, or in the Wikipedia namespace, is put up for deletion using the miscellany for deletion process, don't just quote inflexible policies and guidelines, and don't blindly follow those who do. For instance, try not to do this:
Instead, try to consider the following important questions.
- Does the content make an editor happy, or strengthen Wikipedia's sense of community and shared enjoyment? If so, this is an argument for keeping, as it makes them more likely to contribute to Wikipedia. Unless it can be shown that the content is harmful, the presumption should be in favour of keeping it.
- Will deleting the page actually do Wikipedia any good? Remember that deletions don't actually free up space, and, as per Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance, we're not meant to worry about the capacity of the servers. In general, unless a page is actively harmful to the project, there's no reason to delete it.
- Is it harmless? A lot of editors counter valid arguments to Keep by citing the redirect WP:HARMLESS, which is taken from the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. While "it's harmless" is certainly not a valid reason for keeping encyclopedic content (such as articles, templates and images) which does not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it is a perfectly valid argument when applied to the Wikipedia namespace and to userspace. In general, content in these namespaces should only be removed if it's harmful to the encyclopedia.
| To indicate <em> stress emphasis (not just purely typographical italicization like for book titles or foreign terms) |
