Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Active discussions

Wikipedia is not a self-biographyEdit

I propose that we add Wikipedia is not a self-biography to the list of things Wikipedia is not because I believe that Wikipedia is not a self-biography. The reasoning behind this is because we don't want some 12 year olds to write an article about themselves on here, as they are most obviously not notable. Does anyone else agree with this? Cheers, Razorflame 19:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, something like this in short should be added to the article. Battleaxe9872 / 21:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that already falls under a number of others things already on the list. -DJSasso (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
It's covered under #15. Kansan (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Red linksEdit

There are red links on the page, mind fixing them up? Fhusafnwfszdfsfgas (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes good Au598099 (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


Is “obituary” a simple word? I think not, though it is used in the article. Perhaps the wording could be simplified?--OlivierMiR (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

if it isn't, what wording do you propose? --Eptalon (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
See Obituary. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with your page, but I'm not sure it gives us any more than wikt:obituary does. It is acceptable to put the Wiktionary link onto the page, too. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


The example given of "testing anarchism" is wrong. Our own articles here on anarchy and anarchism describe that anarchy does not simply mean chaos, but the absence of rulers or outside controlling groups. It seems silly for an encyclopedia to make this type of description counter to history and politics simply because it is a common misalignment. It would be similar to saying that not being a democracy means we do not allow anyone to contribute who may not be of proper birth. In saying this, I do not mean to promote an ideology or change the actual rule, but to simply point out the misleading language used in describing it. Thanks, djr13 (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not simple either, so wording it differently would be an improvement. What would you suggest? "Pages that you can do anything you want to"...? "Pages for testing and vandalising..."? Osiris (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A change idea for number 15Edit

Its second-last sentence is "If upload a file, it should only be used for a Wikipedia page." It looks like it is missing "you" before "upload". I am not allowed to change the main page. ASchoenhofer (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Nice catch! Fixed it. Osiris (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

should there be a wikipedia type website with no rules?Edit

it could probably divert attention from vandals,most of them would go over there and most people could enjoy reading articles without the annoyance of a vandal ruining the page, it would for some funny memes too. just saying. it would be another spin of the main wikipedia,like wikitionary or,this website: Simple English Wikipedia. Hehjeb (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

What would be the point? Wikipedias serve a functional purpose - a wikipedia just for vandalism would be useless to the vast majority. Besides, I doubt vandals would be that interested in an empty wiki, or a wiki just filled with troll pages - I suspect the reaction is what entertains many vandals, not the actual act of vandalism itself. PrimordialTaco :D (say hii) 02:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
There are Wikis with different rules. Loose like Everypedia and tight like Citizendium and crazy like Conservapedia and silly like Uncyclopedia and specialized like Wookieepedia or Wikivoyage and exclusive like Scholarpedia. None have become bigger than Wikipedia, so vandals don't see much fun in attacking them. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Return to the project page "What Wikipedia is not".