Wikipedia talk:Five pillars

Mark this as essay?

IMO this has a greater status than an essay, and the only issue is that we have no category for such things. An editor marked it as an essay and I reverted, saying that we should discuss such a change. My revert was reverted. Should we mark this as an essay? North8000 (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Another editor replaced it with {{Information page}}, which is better than {{essay}}. I just forgot we had that one, or I would have added it instead. BilCat (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the information page template. This page is the backbone of the project, described elsewhere as "fundamental principles". Having stood this long without tags or descriptor, should stay without the extra clutter or attempts to define it. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

"This page is the backbone of the project" - It really, really isn't. It's a mission-statement, slogan, it isn't anything really all that core and if it suddenly disappeared nothing would happen. FOARP (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• What Randy said. Everything doesn't need a header, and certainly not this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Just so it's said - I don't mind the removal of the info template. My goal was to find a middle ground to (hopefully) stop the reverting. I thought the info template works ok for this page. Though I suppose the last line of it could seem to make this page appear to be less than it is. - jc37 23:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

We need to create a name/group of highly vetted "core documents" (which are not a policy or a guideline). I've been noodling on that for a long time and plan to propose it someday. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• As of right now, this page is not a PAG. If folks want to change that, would probably need an RFC, just to confirm the consensus, like has been done with all the other PAG pages. Oh, and no objection to either keeping it unmarked, or adding an essay/explanatory supplement/info page tag, or whichever of the myriad of non-PAG tags fits best. Maybe we should consolidate the non-PAG tags into one tag someday. The system really only has three levels: policy, guideline, not-PAG. I don't think it would be a good idea to add a fourth level of "highly vetted core documents", rather it would probably be best to RFC such documents and see if there is support to make them a policy or guideline. My two cents, hope it helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems like a sort of level problem to me trying to stick this page under the classification and rules of WP:PG. What is here is the sort of thing a company would say in their boardroom but the policies and guidelines are what the general manager is in charge of. The page is very important for Wikipedia - but could disappear without immediately affecting day to day running, Very possibly it will eventually get superseded by by something better as were WP:TRIFECTA or WP:JWP or even the first statement of WP:PG. I think just having it in category Wikipedia basic information and listed in WP:PRINCIPLES and letting it sink or swim like the other things there is best. NadVolum (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I view the US constitution and laws as an example if you don't try to carry the imperfect analogy too far. The constitution is authoritative and sets the general direct direction but is not detailed enough / too open to many interpretations to (allow to) get invoked/applied directly on a day to day basis. Laws do that. Policies and guidelines are like laws with respect to specificity. North8000 (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The problems caused by the US constitution are reason enough not to treat this, which was never written to be any such document, as some kind of unquestionable founding text. FOARP (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• I think we need to just leave it as is. As I said earlier, we don't need to put labels on everything. It isn't policy, it isn't a guideline, it is the 5 Pillars, and it stands on its own. It has already stood the test of time. That tells me there is a consensus to not only follow the principles, but to leave it in the form that it exists. Too many of use have a compulsion to label everything, put it in a neat little box, to define it. This is one of the pages that specifically needs to NOT be defined this way. Pages in categories, like "essay" or "policy" can be compared to each other. This isn't comparable to any other page here, so stop trying. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with Dennis Brown that the Five Pillars is a document that does not need to be categorized or classified. Leave it as it is. This is a fine and inspirational document that should be cited in project discussions more frequently. Cullen328 (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  +1 to Cullen and Dennis. There is a reason Wikipedia principles redirects to the five pillars. It's neither an essay nor a policy, it's the founding principles that all policies and guidelines are based on. Marking as an essay would be absurd. Steven Walling • talk 18:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  Agree that it doesn't need classification. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and keeping this as-is seems more in line with the document itself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  "it's the founding principles that all policies and guidelines are based on" - It absolutely is not. It was not written that early in the history of Wikipedia, a number of PAGs pre-date it by years (WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:OR etc.). Parts (e.g., the random reference to gazetteers) were added in after I joined Wikipedia, and I am far from the longest tenured editor.

  What it is is "a non-binding description of some of the fundamental principles, begun by User:Neutrality in 2005". I think especially people who came up in the US tradition expect things to have a constitution similar to the US one - Wikipedia doesn't have such a document. FOARP (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I brought up the US constitution analogy (only) in two narrower senses:

1. It lays out major principles, albeit in general (= vague) terms.
2. Being vague language, it is too vague to apply directly on a day to day basis

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Obviously I'm in danger of going too far off topic here, and I don't think we differ too much here, but since this "It's a constitution for Wikipedia!" point does get made fairly regularly (despite it being explicitly denied in the FAQ on this page), my issue here is that a constitution is ultimately a set of laws. The distinction between the constitution and statute is more of a US thing and even in that context the US constitution contains amendments that are very obviously actionable laws and not merely vague principles. Even other countries that have constitutions codified into a single document like Germany refer to their constitution as "The Basic Law" (Grundgesetz).

I come from the UK where our constitution is part statue law, part case law, part written commentary, etc.. The UK constitution very obviously does include actionable laws that you can rely on from day to day, not mere vague expressions of principle.

I'd therefore say it summarise some principles of Wikipedia. Those principles neither originate with 5P, nor is 5P decisive of what they are, nor does 5P include all of the major principles. It is more of an FAQ, pointer, footnote, whatever you want to call it. It is not a constitution.

I've also got to say that I am not aware of it being a particularly helpful document for new editors and don't know if there's any great justification to sending it to new editors, but tradition is tradition. FOARP (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Basically what WP:POLICY says about it. Plus the reason too - it's suposed to be a quick summary for new editors especially if they don't want to waste time reading a load of unnecessry stuff but do something useful. What is it you think would be more useful to new editors? I think it is very useful at the first step, to ensure they are approaching what they are doing from the right angle. Techniques for citations etc can be learnt on the go and people will normally help if it is actually a useful contribution. NadVolum (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I used a "constitution" analogy only on the narrow aspects I described. I agree that 5P is not a "constitution", and it would be a really bad idea to call it that. I would disagree with many of the "outside of Wikipedia" things that you said, but they are "outside of Wikipedia". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

A better read us that 5p is like the Declaration of Independence, outlines high level goals, whereas PAG is like the Constitution that us laying out the broadest level of how we exactly reach those goals. 5p can only be seen as guidance, though id not demote it to an essay because of its broad agreement in the community (essays are guidance that does not yet have that) Masem (t) 00:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I think calling it a "mission statement" would be closer. The US declaration of independence came at the start. FOARP (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I view he mission statement as given by the end of the first statement of WP:POLICY "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practices, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia". But yes the five pillars do cover that and plus basic directions on how editors should accomplish that. NadVolum (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:POLICY says "There is no need to read any policy or guideline pages to start editing. The five pillars are a popular summary of the most pertinent principles." NadVolum (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Online encyclopaedia

I reverted online because being online was not the point of the pillar and because of [1]. NadVolum (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@NadVolum: I didn't even consider it being on a CD or DVD. I know that Wikipedia is mainly an online encyclopedia, but it is also other things. Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say that it is not the point of the pillar? I appreciate your explanation. Interstellarity (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

If you read the text for the pillar it is all about what it is and isn't because it is an encyclopaedia. There is nothing about what it is or isn't because it is online and being online makes very little difference for that. NadVolum (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Inserting "online" to give Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia obfuscates the point of the message. That point is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not the other things. Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: Thanks for your ideas and efforts but I agree with NadVolum and Johnuniq. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Some of the FAQ should be moved to the article page

The FAQ already reflects a long-standing consensus about what this page is and provides important context necessary to avoid misunderstandings (e.g., "OMG this is the constitution of Wikipedia!!!!1111oneoneone"). I think at least a simple statement somewhere that "This is not a policy or guideline, or the source for all policies and guidelines" is worth making somewhere in the article, either in a hatnote or an infobox. FOARP (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Why? The more you write the more people like that will get confused or argue. NadVolum (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that the reality is that it has a strong place, even though we don't have a category for such a thing. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Right, but whilst we don't have a name for what it is, we do have an agreed definition of what it ain't, which possibly should be given a higher billing. FOARP (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Is your proposal to add an {{Essay}} tag to the top? –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

No? The proposal is what it says on the tin. My preference is for the FAQ to be in an infobox low down on the page, preferably in the same line but on the opposite side to the existing box for the audio version. If the text is too long it can be truncated with a click-to-expand.

We have the FAQ. The FAQ has consensus. It has existed for a comparable amount of time to the content of the article itself (originally added in 2010 though I think there was an earlier version). It provides important context to the article and should be included there. FOARP (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd rather not. I think we need a new category for a very very very short list of highly consensus ed core but vague items like this and until then I'd rather not add anything that takes away from it.North8000 (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Basically dilution as in the average weight of each of the five pillars goes down as you add more text outside of them? NadVolum (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Not what I meant.....I meant that that wording emphasizes things (and also seem to argue for) that minimize 5P's position in Wikipedia. I'd rather not repeat that on the front page. Also, I don't know the history of the talk page FAQ but in general they are less vetted and get more presence-by-default than the actual page and so this would be a decision to elevate the contents of that FAQ. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC).

I think a lot of what's in WP:5P is presence-by-default. That goes particularly for the bit about gazetteers, and even more for the bit about almanacs which I've never seen anyone seriously defend except by reference to it having been in there a long time and 5P generally not meaning all that much. But if your position is that the FAQ is wrong, then it should be removed entirely. FOARP (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Everything is wrong but there's degrees of wrongness. Removing things that are imperfect is a route to Śūnyatā :-) NadVolum (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Add WP:5 as a shortcut?

The revision history shows that many users attempted to add the shortcut WP:5 to this page, but these edits were reverted. This shows that a consensus is needed for us to add this shortcut or not.

Use oppose if you oppose this addition, or support if you agree with adding the WP:5 shortcut. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I stopped counting at 10 diffs in the edit history. If folks want it this bad, let's just add it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support, sure, just about the shortest shortcut, and per above. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support North8000 (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Sure, why not? - No reason conceivable to oppose, seems to be useful. FOARP (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose It doesn't need such a short shortcut when 5P is there and expresses the title much better. NadVolum (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

NadVolum, will try to change your mind the old-fashioned way. Will hypnotize you. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The shortcut box should show what is recommended. Writing WP:5P is not onerous and helps readers because "5P" gives a reminder whereas "5" is a mystery. There is a reason for WP:TWOSHORTCUTS: more shortcuts creates confusion. Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The five pillars are widely known, and per Novem Linguae. mwwv(converse) 16:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

expression "Five Pillars" is unhelpful

The term "five pillars" is clearly borrowed from Islam, and despite the assertion above that the expression is "not sacred" and does not offend Muslims, it remains, IMHO, rather problematic as a disconcerting and unnecessarily religious reference. I'm not arguing that it is necessarily offensive to Muslims, but consider as well the genuine critics of the Muslim religion - of which there are not a few - they too ought to feel free to participate in Wikipedia without any implicit or explicit hostility. I'm left wondering, and can't decide, whether use of the term "five pillars" might be used either to mock Islam flippantly, or else to compliment Islam reverently? Or perhaps both? Wouldn't entertaining this question at all be something better off simply avoided entirely? I would say so. Neutrality ought to be demonstrated by a matter-of-fact stating of the "Rules" - thereby avoiding cringy terminology that is unnecessarily quirky and off-putting. Enri999 (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

There's lots of uses of 'five pillars'. Do you find someone talking about 'the ten commandments' or 'written in stone' annoying when they're talking about for instance company rules? NadVolum (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

When you speak for yourself you can seek to delight your in-group by using whatever witty expressions you think clever, but when you speak on behalf of many others in a collective capacity you have to be more professional. It displays a tone-deaf arrogance to do otherwise. One person at a company sales meeting might harmlessly use a religious metaphor, but it would be inappropriate for the company itself to officially invoke religious language since that risks alienating stakeholders (employees, suppliers, the community) with its unnecessary flippancy. We might also detect here that tendency when a mistake is made to entrench in the bad decision defensively out of pride rather than back down and cut one's losses by doing the right thing. The "Five Pillars of Wikipedia" is a cringe inducing expression that will never become non-controversial by the passage of time. Enri999 (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

There's quite a lot of Muslims around. They don't need you to invent grieviances on their behalf. NadVolum (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Didn't Enri999 (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

With respect, it is already quite non-controversial. For my view, I find the use neither flippantly mocking nor reverent. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)