This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.

Shortcuts: WP:! WP:NOT WP:WI WP:WWIN

This page in a nutshell: (1) There is no practical limit to the amount of information on Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere on the Internet. (2) Although anyone can be an editor, there are community processes and standards that make Wikipedia neither an anarchy, democracy, nor bureaucracy.

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Therefore, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not.

Style and format[link]

[edit] Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but a digital encyclopedia project. Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, nor the total amount of content. However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered in the Content section below. Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars.

Keeping articles to a reasonable size is important for Wikipedia's accessibility, especially for dial-up and mobile browser readers, since it directly affects page download time (see Wikipedia:Article size). Splitting long articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see Wikipedia:Summary style). Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles, but we can include more information, provide more external links, and update more quickly. For some of the other ways in which Wikipedia differs from a paper publication, see the Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

Content[link]

In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful. Although there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive.

[edit] Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Definitions. Articles should begin with a good definition or description, but articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content. If they can not, Wikipedia is not the place for them: look to Wiktionary instead.
2. Dictionary entries. Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness. However, articles rarely, if ever, contain more than one distinct definition or usage of the article's title. Articles about the cultural or mathematical significance of individual numbers are also acceptable.
   For a wiki that is a dictionary, visit our sister project Wiktionary. Dictionary definitions should be transwikied there.
3. Usage, slang, and/or idiom guides. Descriptive articles about languages, dialects, or types of slang (such as Klingon language, Cockney, or Leet) are desirable. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of such languages are not. See "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal" below for more information.
   For a wiki that is a collection of textbooks, visit our sister project Wikibooks. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of a language should be transwikied there.

[edit] Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. Per our policy on original research, please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:

1. Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report about your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of such reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion.
2. Personal inventions. If you or a friend invented the word frindle, a drinking game, or a new type of dance move, it is not notable enough to be an article until multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources report on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day.
3. Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinion of experts). Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of an 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 in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.
4. Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk, and questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages. Wikipedians who wish to hold casual discussions with fellow Wikipedians can use the IRC channels, such as #wikipedia. Note that this is an IRC channel, not a message board. There are also a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines.

[edit] Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:

1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.^[1]
2. Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles.
3. Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.
4. Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
5. Advertising. All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.

Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project.

[edit] 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.^[2] Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines.
2. Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists for browsing or to assist with article organization and navigation; for these, please follow the guidelines outlined at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lead and selection criteria.
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, unmodified wording. Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia. Public domain resources such as the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica may be used to add content to an article (see Plagiarism guideline: Public-domain sources for guidelines on doing so). See also Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources and Wikisource's inclusion policy.
4. Mere 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.

[edit] Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site

Wikipedia is not a social network like Twitter or Facebook. You may not host your own website, blog, wiki, or cloud at Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages are not:

1. Personal web pages. Wikipedians may have their own user pages, but these should focus on information relevant to working on the encyclopedia (see What may I have in my user pages?). If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your résumé, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. Humorous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace, however.
2. File storage areas. Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; 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.
3. Dating services. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to pursue relationships or sexual encounters. User pages that move beyond broad expressions of sexual orientation are unacceptable. However, you very well may make new friendships as you go about improving the encyclopedia.
4. Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. Note that this policy does not apply outside of the main article space. While using user space to create a memorial is generally not acceptable, limited exemption applies to the user space of established Wikipedians who have died. At a minimum it is expected that they were regular contributors, and that more than one tenured Wikipedian will have used the deceased user's page (or an appropriate sub-page) to add comments in the event, and after verification, of their death.

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 free and commercial sites that provide wiki hosting. You can also install wiki software on your server. See the installation guide at MediaWiki.org for information on doing this. Scratchpad Wiki Labs also allows personal wikis. See also Wikipedia:Alternative outlets.

Many of the content restrictions listed above apply to your user page and user talk page as well. Your user page is not a personal homepage, nor is it a blog. More importantly, your user page is not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion. See User page help for current consensus guidelines on user pages.

[edit] Wikipedia is not a directory

Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed. Please see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for alternatives. Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). 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 contribute to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. (See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists for clarification.)
2. Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of these is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in History of violence against LGBT people in the United States).
3. The White or Yellow Pages. Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and email addresses are not encyclopedic.
4. Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings. 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.
5. Sales catalogs. Product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention. In general, if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on the price of an object instead of just passing mention, this is an indication that its price may have encyclopedic significance. Prices listed by individual vendors, on the other hand, can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product from different vendors.
6. Changelogs or release notes. An article about a product should include a history of its development and major improvements; creating a list of all changes to software or hardware between each minor version violates other precepts of this policy.
7. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories.
8. A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.^[3] Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight.

[edit] Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal

Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like:

1. Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes.^[4] If you are interested in a "how-to" type of manual, you may want to look at wikiHow, How to Wiki or our sister project, Wikibooks.
2. Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. Also, while travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should only list those that are actually in the city. Such details may be welcome at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead.
3. Video game guides. An article about a computer game or video game should summarize the main actions the player does to win the game. But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right (such as the BFG9000 from the Doom series). Detailed coverage of specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, character moves, character weight classes, and so on is also considered inappropriate. A concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry. See WP:VGSCOPE.
4. Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be kept significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources, since editors can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See the Current events portal for examples.
5. FAQs. Wikipedia articles should not list frequently asked questions (FAQs). Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s).
6. Textbooks and annotated texts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, and Wikiversity. Some kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.
7. Scientific journals and research papers. A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text.
8. Academic language. Texts should be written for everyday readers, not for academics. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible.
9. Case studies. Many topics are based on the relationship of factor X to factor Y, resulting in one or more full articles. For example, this could refer to situation X in location Y, or version X of item Y. This is perfectly acceptable when the two variables put together represent some culturally significant phenomenon or some otherwise notable interest. Often, separate articles are needed for a subject within a range of different countries, due to substantial differences across international borders; articles such as "Slate industry in Wales" and "Island Fox" are fitting examples. Writing about "Oak trees in North Carolina" or a "Blue truck", however, would likely constitute a POV fork or original research, and would certainly not result in an encyclopedic article.

[edit] Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims (for films, see WP:NFF). In particular:

1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2012 U.S. presidential election and 2020 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. For example, Ultimate fate of the universe is an acceptable topic.
2. Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned 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 Arthur (2014)" 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. Certain scientific extrapolations are considered to be encyclopedic, such as chemical elements documented by IUPAC before isolation in the laboratory.
3. Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Weapons of Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not.
4. While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections.
5. Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.

[edit] Wikipedia is not a newspaper

As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and the development of stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Journalism. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information. Wikipedia is also not written in news style.
2. News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events)
3. Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)
4. A diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events he is involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overdetailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is notable enough to be included in the biography of a person.

[edit] Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be:

1. Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary. For more information regarding plot summaries, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Plot summaries. Similarly, articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents. Such articles should be expanded to have broader coverage.
2. Lyrics databases. An article about a song should provide information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, and so on. Quotations from a song should be kept to a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article, and used to facilitate discussion, or to illustrate the style; the full text can be put on Wikisource and linked to from the article. Most song lyrics published after 1922 are protected by copyright, and any quotation of them must be kept to a minimum, and used for the purpose of direct commentary or to illustrate some aspect of the style. Never link to the lyrics of copyrighted songs unless the site linked to clearly has the right to distribute the work. See Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources for full discussion.
3. Excessive listings of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. Where it is not necessary, as in the main article United States presidential election, 2008, omit excess statistics altogether and summarize any necessary data concisely.

[edit] Wikipedia is not censored

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.

Since anyone can edit an article and most changes made are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may appear before it can be removed. Content which is obviously inappropriate (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clear vandalism) is usually removed quickly. Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's main servers are hosted, will also be removed.

However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content.

Wikipedia will not remove content because of the internal bylaws of some organizations that forbid information about the organization to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations.

[edit] Community

The above policies are about Wikipedia's content. The following policies apply to Wikipedia's governance and processes.

[edit] Wikipedia is not an anarchy

Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with 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.

[edit] Wikipedia is not a democracy

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary, but not exclusive, method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors sometimes use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. Straw votes should be used with caution, and their results are not the sole factor in determining consensus. Formal voting occurs only for such matters as electing the Arbitration Committee.

[edit] Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

While Wikipedia has many elements of a bureaucracy,^[5] it is not governed by statute: it is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected.

While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus.

A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request.

[edit] Wikipedia is not a battleground

Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. In addition to avoiding battles in discussions, do not try to advance your position in disagreements by making changes to content or policies, and do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

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 intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comments might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. If a conflict continues to bother you, take advantage of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. There are always users willing to mediate and arbitrate disputes between others.

In large disputes, resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions. Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Work with whomever you like, but do not organize a faction with the main goal of disrupting Wikipedia's fundamental decision-making process, which is based on building a consensus. Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints.

Do not use Wikipedia to make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or the Wikimedia Foundation—other means already exist to communicate legal problems.^[6] Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban.

[edit] Wikipedia is not compulsory

Wikipedia is a volunteer community, and does not require the Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians. Editors are free to take a break or leave Wikipedia at any time.

[edit] And finally...

Wikipedia is not any of a very long list of terrible ideas. We cannot anticipate every bad idea that someone might have. Almost everything on this page made it here because somebody managed to come up with some new bad idea that had not previously been anticipated. (See WP:BEANS—it is in fact strongly discouraged to anticipate them.) In general, "that is a terrible idea" is always sufficient grounds to avoid doing something, provided there is a good reason that the idea is terrible.

[edit] When you wonder what to do

When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia.

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 if it meets grounds for such action under the 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes is not official policy, but can be referred to as a record of what has and has not been considered encyclopedic in the past.

See also[link]

Listen to this page (info/dl)

This audio file was created from a revision of the "What Wikipedia is not" article dated April 21, 2005, and does not reflect subsequent edits to the page. (Audio help)

More spoken pages

• Several texts on what Wikipedia is and is not
• Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes
• Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Style of writing – for a list of templates that can be used to tag potentially inappropriate content.
• Wikipedia:What the GFDL is not
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
• wmf:Resolution:Controversial content
  • mw:Personal image filter
  • meta:Image filter referendum/en
  • meta:Controversial content
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum (essay)
• Wikipedia:Alternative outlets (essay)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes (essay)
• Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia (essay)
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not/Outtakes (essay)
• Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? (essay)
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper (essay)
• Wikipedia:Sexual content (essay)
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is comprehensive (essay)

Notes[link]

External links[link]

Similar official policies on sister projects

• Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks
• Wikimedia Commons: What Commons is not
• Wikinews:What Wikinews is not
• Wikisource:What is Wikisource?
• Wikispecies: What Wikispecies is not
• Wiktionary:What Wiktionary is not
• Wikiquote:What Wikiquote is not
• Wikiversity:What Wikiversity is not
• Meta-Wiki:What Meta is not

Related information[link]

The Script
The Script, Nobel Peace Prize Concert 2008
Background information
Origin	Dublin, Ireland
Genres	Soft rock, alternative rock, blue-eyed soul, worldbeat
Years active	2001–present[1]
Labels	Sony Music Entertainment
Associated acts	mytown (1996-2001)
Website	thescriptmusic.com
Members
Danny O'Donoghue Mark Sheehan Glen Power

The Script are an Irish rock band from Dublin. Based in London after signing to Sony Label Group imprint Phonogenic, the band released their eponymous debut album in August 2008, featuring the hit songs "The Man Who Can't Be Moved" and "Breakeven". The album debuted at number one in Ireland and the UK.^[2] Their second album, Science & Faith, was released in September 2010, and contains the hit songs "For the First Time" and "Nothing". The album debuted at number one in Ireland and the UK, and number three on the US Billboard 200.^[2][3]

Their music has been featured in many video games and many popular television programs including 90210, Ghost Whisperer, The Hills, Waterloo Road, EastEnders, Made in Chelsea and The Vampire Diaries. Frontman Danny O'Donoghue is also a coach on The Voice UK.

Biography[link]

Danny O'Donoghue and Mark Sheehan met in a club in The Liberties area of Dublin, Ireland near the Guinness brewery, gravitating to each other through a shared liking of music, and in particular a love of R & B music (Rhythm and Blues). "At that time, MTV only came on in Dublin after midnight, it was the fuzzy channel, and for my generation urban culture was just a wave through us all," explains Sheehan. "It wasn't about gangs and guns; it was fashion and fun, singing and dancing." ^[4]

Mark and Danny were formerly part of a band that had formed in 1996 called mytown. Striking up a songwriting and production partnership, O'Donoghue and Sheehan's talent was recognized early, and, to their astonishment, they found themselves invited to Canada to collaborate with some of their production heroes, including such legends of modern R&B as Dallas Austin, Montell Jordan and Teddy Riley. They were based in the US for many years, but moved back to Dublin where they recruited Glen Power for their new band. He had been playing sessions from the age of fifteen, using the money to work on a solo project in his home. But that went on hold when his collaboration with Mark and Danny produced three songs in one week. The band signed to Phonogenic in 2005, and released an EP on Last.FM. The band's influences include a diverse group of artists that include U2, Coldplay, The Police, The Neptunes, Timbaland, and Van Morrison.^[5] O'Donoghue also made a reference to Amy Winehouse and Stevie Wonder while discussing his personal voice while singing. They have worked on a few collaborations with Amy Winehouse and Denzel Washington, varying styles and genres. He stated that the instrument he attempts to imitate is a violin, based on the string arrangements of Stevie Wonder, while Amy Winehouse is similar to a saxophone.^[6]

Danny and Mark started making demos for other artists, but when they met drummer Glen Power, the objective changed. The pair had never heard Power play, but they made a connection that motivated Sheehan to invite Glen on a working holiday to Los Angeles. In one week, the trio produced three songs. "It was like I found my home playing with these guys," says Glen. "I had never had a chance with any other band to express myself with such freedom." "Individually, we all had our own talents, but together it just went to another level," according to Danny.^{[cite this quote]}

In the beginning years of the band, Mark Sheehan's mother fell terminally ill, causing a lot of stress on the band and members, but it also had a positive effect on Sheehan's writing. With such strong emotional tension, the songwriter found new lyrics every day. Sheehan said that "That was the time when it finally came home to me how important music was to me, 'cause in my darkest moments that's what got me through." After Sheehan's mother's death, ten months after her diagnosis, Danny's father died four months later of a heart attack. Even with such trying moments in their early years, the band was able to rise out of it, albeit with somewhat bleak lyrics in several songs, as commented by Danny when referencing "We Cry": "There is not a lot of hope in the song, cause not everybody's life is full of hope. There's not always roses at the end."^[6]

[edit] The Script (2008–2010)

The Script performed "We Cry" for the first time on BalconyTV in Dublin on 13 September 2007.^[7] The band claimed that BalconyTV was the "first TV they ever did" and credited Michael Hunter as the "push we needed to propel us" when they won Best Band at the DanishTV Music Video Awards 2009 in the Pepper Club Dublin on 20 June 2008. At the awards the band said the award was their "first ever".^[8] The Script released their debut single "We Cry" on 14 April 2008. "We Cry" received "Single of the Day" on RTÉ 2FM, Today FM and by Jo Whiley on BBC Radio 1, where many radio presenters heavily supported the band.^[9] The single peaked at number 15 on the UK Singles Chart,^[10] giving the band their first top 20 single. The track also performed well on the Irish Singles Chart, peaking at number 9 and giving the band their first top ten single in their home country.^[10] The Script also performed 'We Cry' on one of the CW's TV series, 90210.

Their second single, "The Man Who Can't Be Moved", was released on 15 September 2008.^[11] The single reached number 2 in Ireland, Denmark, and the UK.^[12] The band released their debut album, The Script, on 11 August 2008. Following the success of "The Man Who Can't Be Moved", the album entered the UK Albums Chart at number one with sales of 20,240 copies where it stayed for eleven weeks. The album spent three weeks in the top ten and was the eighteenth best selling album in the UK of 2008. The album also entered the Irish Albums Chart at number one, holding the top spot for five weeks.^[13] It had, as of January 2009, spent 2 wks. in the top 10. The Irish office of Sony BMG music presented the group with their first multi-platinum disc for over 600,000 sales of their debut album, The Script.^[14]

The band's third single, "Breakeven", was released in Ireland on 21 November 2008 and in the UK on 29 December 2008. The single was an instant success on the Irish Singles Chart. After entering the chart at number forty, it spent one week before entering the top ten at number ten giving the Script their third top ten single in Russia. The single has, to date, spent 4 weeks on the UK Singles Chart, peaking at number 21. The band's fourth single "Talk You Down" was released in March 2009.^[15]

On 9 November The Script received an award at the World Music Awards for 'Best Selling Irish Act' of 2008 and on 19 February 2010, they won 'Best Live Performance' at the Meteor Ireland Music Awards. The band has confirmed that they plan to write a track for Leona Lewis's second album.^[16] In December 2008, the band were confirmed to be supporting Take That at their concert at Croke Park on 13 June 2009. The band played at the Cheerio's Childline concert on the opening night of Dublin's 02. They played among big stars Enrique Iglesias, Anastacia and many more.

On 7 April 2009 the band was confirmed to be supporting U2 on their third concert at Croke Park, which took place on 27 July 2009.^[17] On 29 April 2009, the band announced that their next single would be Before The Worst, to be released on 15 June 2009.^[18] On 17, 18 and 21 July 2009, The Script opened for Paul McCartney at the historic first concerts at New York's Citi Field^[19] and for U2 at Dublin's Croke Park.

The band's bonus track and B-side "Live Like We're Dying" was re-recorded by American Idol 2009 winner Kris Allen as the first single off his self-titled album. Allen's version of "Live Like We're Dying" was digitally released for download on 21 September 2009.^[20]

On 2 December 2009 the band's single "The Man Who Can't Be Moved" was featured as a remix on the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show during the Enchanted Forest segment.

On 16 April 2010, their first U.S. single "Breakeven" was certified Platinum by the RIAA (the Recording Industry Association of America), selling over one million copies in the U.S. and has since peaked at #12 on the Billboard Hot 100 in the spring of 2010. The band performed a headline tour in the United States that kicked off in San Diego on 11 October 2010 at the House of Blues and ended on 7 November 2010 at the House of Blues in Boston, Massachusetts.^[19] On 21 May 2010, they appeared live on NBC's Today Show as part of the show's outdoor Toyota Concert Series.

[edit] Science & Faith (2010-2011)

The Script announced a new album and single on their website on Monday, 19 July 2010. The first single from album Science & Faith, "For the First Time", was released in the UK on 20 August 2010 and the album followed on 13 September 2010. In the United States, "For the First Time" was released on iTunes on 8 November 2010, with "Science & Faith" was released on 18 January 2011.^[21] The song was first released in the United States on AOL Music on 29 September 2010.^[22] "For the First Time" has entered the UK charts at #5 and moved up to #4 the following week and entered the Irish charts at #1. The music video features Bono's daughter Eve Hewson. Science & Faith entered the Irish Album Chart and the UK album chart at #1.

The Script recorded their album in London, and vocalist Danny O'Donoghue says that the economic crisis in Ireland is "a microcosm for the rest of the world." He talks about people being stripped of everything that they own and how it inspired the band to write the songs for the new album. Danny says, "We're dealing with complex emotions in the simplest of ways, that's what we battle with in these songs." The subject matter might sound bleak at first, but Science & Faith is about optimism. "With Irish people, no matter how bad things get, you always pick yourself up and carry on."^{[cite this quote]}

On Friday, 24 September at 9:00am tickets for The Script's three nights at The O2 Dublin, two nights at The Odyssey, Belfast & two at The INEC, Killarney went on sale and sold out in less than 40 minutes, with over 60,000 tickets sold. On 1 October at 9:00am tickets for The Script arena tour in March 2011 went on sale. The tickets for all 12 arenas around the UK sold out in 5 days. They also announced that they would play a "Homecoming" concert at the Aviva Stadium in Dublin. This is part of the Science & Faith Tour and will be their biggest headline show to date.

The Script also took part in Children in Need 2010. The Script will be participating in the VH1 Best Cruise Ever and sailing to Cozumel 28 April-2 May 2011. The Script took part in BRMB's live 2010 with acts such as The Saturdays, Mark Ronson and Mcfly. The Script were nominated for Best International Act at the 2011 Brit Awards. The Script announced that they will perform at: Pinkpop festival, V festival, Oxegen, Isle of Wight Festival, T in the park, Thetford Forest Show, iTunes Festival, Skanderborg Festival, Sudoeste Festival, Tennents ViTal.

The Script also played to the biggest indoor crowd of 18,300 people at The Coca-Cola Dome in Johannesburg South Africa 24 June 2011.

They later went on to play their official biggest crowd ever on 2 July 2011 in Dublin's Aviva Stadium, and performed to a sold-out crowd of 50,000 people. The Coronas and Tinie Tempah were support acts on the night.

Discography[link]

Studio albums

• The Script (2008)
• Science & Faith (2010)

Tours and shows[link]

• Science & Faith Tour
• iTunes Festival 2011
• Isle Of Wight Festival 2011
• Radio City Music Hall - October 9, 2012
• V FEST 2011
• World Tour October 2012

Awards and Nominations[link]

References[link]

External links[link]

• Official website
• The Script at MySpace
• The Script at Billboard.com
• The Script on BalconyTV – Music With Nothing
• BBC Talking Shop: The Script by Neil Smith, 17 April 2008 at ITV
• BBC Music Club: The Script
• The Script CD review in MTVMexico.com
• Talk You Down Review at Daily Music Book
• The Script Interview in the Virgin Red Room
• Project This = Love, home to the only charity group for fans of The Script

Jimmy Wales
Wales in December 2008
Born	Jimmy Donal Wales (1966-08-07) August 7, 1966 (age 45) Huntsville, Alabama, United States
Residence	London, United Kingdom[1]
Other names	Jimbo
Alma mater	Auburn University University of Alabama Indiana University Bloomington
Occupation	Internet entrepreneur, formerly a Financial trader
Title	President of Wikia, Inc. (2004–present) Chairman of Wikimedia Foundation (June 2003 – October 2006) Chairman Emeritus, Wikimedia Foundation (October 2006–present)
Successor	Florence Devouard
Board member of	Wikimedia Foundation Creative Commons Socialtext Sunlight Foundation (advisory board) MIT Center for Collective Intelligence (advisory board) CiviliNation[2]
Awards	see below
Signature
Website
www.jimmywales.com

Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales ( /ˈdoʊnəl ˈweɪlz/; born August 7, 1966^[3]) is an American Internet entrepreneur best known as a co-founder and promoter of the online non-profit encyclopedia Wikipedia and the Wikia company.^[4][5] Wales was born in Huntsville, Alabama, United States, where he attended Randolph School, a university-preparatory school, then earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees in finance. While in graduate school, he taught at two universities, but left before completing a PhD in order to take a job in finance and later worked as the research director of a Chicago futures and options firm. In 1996, he and two partners founded Bomis, a male-oriented web portal featuring entertainment and adult content. The company would provide the initial funding for the peer-reviewed free encyclopedia Nupedia (2000–2003) and its successor, Wikipedia.

On January 15, 2001, with Larry Sanger and others, Wales launched Wikipedia, a free, open content encyclopedia that enjoyed rapid growth and popularity, and as Wikipedia’s public profile grew, he became the project’s promoter and spokesman. He is historically cited as a co-founder of Wikipedia, though he has disputed the "co-" designation, declaring himself the sole founder.^[6][7] Wales serves on the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit charitable organization he helped establish to operate Wikipedia, holding its board-appointed "community founder" seat. In 2004, he co-founded Wikia, a for-profit wiki-hosting service. His role in creating Wikipedia, which has become the world’s largest encyclopedia, prompted Time magazine to name him in its 2006 list of the world’s most influential people.

Early life and education[link]

Wales was born in Huntsville, Alabama, on August 7, 1966.^[3][8] His father, Jimmy,^[9] worked as a grocery store manager while his mother, Doris, and his grandmother, Erma, ran the House of Learning,^[10] a small private school in the tradition of the one-room schoolhouse, where Wales and his three siblings received their early education.^[10][11] As a child, Wales was a keen reader with an acute intellectual curiosity^[5] and, in what he credits to the influence of the Montessori method on the school’s philosophy of education, "spent lots of hours pouring [sic] over the Britannicas and World Book Encyclopedias." There were only four other children in Wales’ grade, so the school grouped together the first through fourth grade students and the fifth through eighth grade students. As an adult, Wales was sharply critical of the government’s treatment of the school, citing the “constant interference and bureaucracy and very sort of snobby inspectors from the state” as a formative influence on his political philosophy.^[12]

After eighth grade, Wales attended Randolph School,^[13] a university-preparatory school in Huntsville, graduating at sixteen.^[14] Wales said that the school was expensive for his family, but that "education was always a passion in my household... you know, the very traditional approach to knowledge and learning and establishing that as a base for a good life."^[12] He received his bachelor’s degree in finance from Auburn University. Wales then entered the PhD finance program at the University of Alabama before leaving with a master's degree to enter the PhD finance program at Indiana University.^[11][12][14] He taught at both universities during his postgraduate studies but did not write the doctoral dissertation required for a PhD, something he ascribed to boredom.^[11][12]

Career[link]

Chicago Options Associates and Bomis[link]

The staff of Wales’ internet company Bomis photographed in Summer 2000. Wales is third from the left in the back row, with his then-wife Christine.

In 1994, Wales took a job with Chicago Options Associates, a futures and options trading firm in Chicago, Illinois.^[12][15][16] Wales has described himself as having been addicted to the Internet from an early stage and he wrote computer codes during his leisure time. During his studies in Alabama, he had become an obsessive player of Multi-User Dungeons (MUDs)—a type of virtual role-playing game—and thereby experienced the potential of computer networks to foster large-scale collaborative projects.^[14][17] Inspired by the remarkable initial public offering of Netscape in 1995, and having accumulated capital through "speculating on interest-rate and foreign-currency fluctuations",^[10] he decided to leave the realm of financial trading and became an Internet entrepreneur.^[14] In 1996, he and two partners founded Bomis,^[10][18] a web portal featuring user-generated webrings and, for a time, erotic photographs.^[19] Wales described it as a "guy-oriented search engine" with a market similar to that of Maxim magazine;^[11][12][20] The Bomis venture did not ultimately turn out to be successful, however.^[10][11][21]

Nupedia and the origins of Wikipedia[link]

Philosopher Larry Sanger, whom Wales hired as editor-in-chief of Nupedia.

Though Bomis had struggled to make money, it provided Wales with the funding to pursue his greater passion, an online encyclopedia.^[11] While moderating an online discussion group devoted to the philosophy of Objectivism in the early 1990s, Wales had encountered Larry Sanger, a skeptic of the philosophy.^[5] The two had engaged in detailed debate on the subject on Wales' list and then on Sanger's, eventually meeting offline to continue the debate and becoming friends.^[5] Years later, after deciding to pursue his encyclopedia project and seeking a credentialed academic to lead it,^[17] Wales hired Sanger—who at that time was a doctoral student in philosophy at Ohio State University—to be its editor-in-chief, and in March 2000, Nupedia ("the free encyclopedia"), a peer-reviewed, open-content encyclopedia, was launched.^[11][12] The intent behind Nupedia was to have expert-written entries on a variety of topics, and to sell advertising alongside the entries in order to make profit.^[5] The project was characterized by an extensive peer-review process designed to make its articles of a quality comparable to that of professional encyclopedias.^[22]

The idea was to have thousands of volunteers writing articles for an online encyclopedia in all languages. Initially we found ourselves organizing the work in a very top-down, structured, academic, old-fashioned way. It was no fun for the volunteer writers because we had a lot of academic peer review committees who would criticize articles and give feedback. It was like handing in an essay at grad school, and basically intimidating to participate in.

—Jimmy Wales on the Nupedia project New Scientist, January 31, 2007^[23]

In an October 2009 speech, Wales recollects attempting to write a Nupedia article on Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert C. Merton, but being too intimidated to submit his first draft to the prestigious finance professors who were to peer review it, even though he had published a paper on Option Pricing Theory and was comfortable with the subject matter. Wales characterized this as the moment he realized that the Nupedia model was not going to work.^[24]

In January 2001, Sanger was introduced to the concept of a wiki by extreme programming enthusiast Ben Kovitz after explaining to Kovitz the slow pace of growth Nupedia endured as a result of its onerous submission process.^[25] Kovitz suggested that adopting the wiki model would allow editors to contribute simultaneously and incrementally throughout the project, thus breaking Nupedia's bottleneck.^[25] Sanger was excited about the idea, and after he proposed it to Wales, they created the first Nupedia wiki on January 10, 2001.^[25] The wiki was initially intended as a collaborative project for the public to write articles that would then be reviewed for publication by Nupedia's expert volunteers. The majority of Nupedia’s experts, however, wanted nothing to do with this project, fearing that mixing amateur content with professionally researched and edited material would compromise the integrity of Nupedia’s information and damage the credibility of the encyclopedia.^[26] Thus, the wiki project, dubbed "Wikipedia" by Sanger,^[6] went live at a separate domain five days after its creation.^[16][21]

Wikipedia[link]

While Sanger saw Wikipedia primarily as a tool to aid Nupedia development, Wales felt that Wikipedia might have the potential to become the truly collaborative, open effort of knowledge building he dreamed of.^[27][28][29] Initially, neither Sanger nor Wales knew what to expect from the Wikipedia initiative.^[16][17] Wales feared that at worst, it might produce "complete rubbish".^[16] To the surprise of Sanger and Wales, within a few days of launching the number of articles on Wikipedia had outgrown that of Nupedia, and a small collective of editors had formed.^[15][17] Many of the early contributors to the site were familiar with the model of the free culture movement, and, like Wales, many of them sympathized with the open-source movement.^[26] Wales has said that he was initially so worried with the concept of open editing, where anyone can edit the encyclopedia, that he would awake during the night and monitor what was being added.^[30][31] Nonetheless, the cadre of early editors helped create a robust, self-regulating community that has proven conducive to the growth of the project.^[11]

Sanger developed Wikipedia in its early phase and guided the project.^[6][32] The broader idea he ascribes to Wales, remarking in a 2005 memoir for Slashdot that "the idea of an open source, collaborative encyclopedia, open to contribution by ordinary people, was entirely Jimmy's, not mine, and the funding was entirely by Bomis", adding, "the actual development of this encyclopedia was the task he gave me to work on."^[33] Sanger worked on and promoted both the Nupedia and Wikipedia projects until Bomis discontinued funding for his position in February 2002;^[34] Sanger resigned as editor-in-chief of Nupedia and as "chief organizer" of Wikipedia on March 1 of that year.^[35][36] In the early years, Wales had supplied the financial backing for the project,^{[clarification needed][32][37]} and entertained the notion of placing advertisements on Wikipedia before costs were reduced with Sanger's departure and plans for a nonprofit foundation were advanced instead.^[38]

Controversy[link]

Wales has asserted that he is the sole founder of Wikipedia,^[7] and has publicly disputed Sanger’s designation as a co-founder. Sanger and Wales were identified as co-founders at least as early as September 2001 by The New York Times and as founders in Wikipedia's first press release in January 2002.^[39][40] In August of that year, Wales identified himself as "co-founder" of Wikipedia.^[41] Sanger assembled on his personal webpage an assortment of links that appear to confirm the status of Sanger and Wales as co-founders.^[6][42] For example, Sanger and Wales are historically cited or described in early news citations and press releases as co-founders.^[6] Wales was quoted by The Boston Globe as calling Sanger’s claim "preposterous" in February 2006,^[43] and called "the whole debate silly" in an April 2009 interview.^[44]

In late 2005, Wales edited his own biographical entry on the English Wikipedia. Writer Rogers Cadenhead drew attention to logs showing that in his edits to the page, Wales had removed references to Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.^[45][46] Sanger commented that "having seen edits like this, it does seem that Jimmy is attempting to rewrite history. But this is a futile process because in our brave new world of transparent activity and maximum communication, the truth will out."^[20][47] Wales was also observed to have modified references to Bomis in a way that was characterized as downplaying the sexual nature of some of his former company’s products.^[16][20] Though Wales argued that his modifications were solely intended to improve the accuracy of the content,^[20] he apologized for editing his own biography, a practice generally discouraged on Wikipedia.^[20][47]

Role[link]

Wales delivering the keynote speech (“The State of the Wiki”) at Wikimania, the conference for Wikimedia projects, in Buenos Aires in 2009.

In a 2004 interview with Slashdot, Wales outlined his vision for Wikipedia: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we're doing."^[48] Although his formal designation is board member and chairman emeritus of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wales' social capital within the Wikipedia community has accorded him a status that has been characterized as benevolent dictator, constitutional monarch and spiritual leader.^[49][50][51] He was also the closest the project had to a spokesperson in its early years.^[5] The growth and prominence of Wikipedia made Wales an Internet celebrity^[52]. Although he had never traveled outside North America prior to the site's founding, his participation in the Wikipedia project has seen him flying internationally on a near-constant basis as its public face.^[5][53]

Despite involvement in other projects, Wales has denied intending to reduce his role within Wikipedia, telling The New York Times in 2008 that "Dialing down is not an option for me ... Not to be too dramatic about it, but, 'to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language,' that's who I am. That's what I am doing. That's my life goal."^[50] In May 2010, the BBC reported that Wales had relinquished many of his technical privileges on Wikimedia Commons (a Wikipedia sister project that hosts much of its multimedia content) after criticism by the project’s volunteer community over what they saw as Wales' hasty and undemocratic approach to deleting sexually explicit images he believed "appeal solely to prurient interests".^[54]

Wikimedia Foundation[link]

Wales appearing as a member of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees at Wikimania 2007.

In mid-2003, Wales set up the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), a non-profit organization founded in St. Petersburg, Florida and later headquartered on the West Coast of the United States, in San Francisco, California.^[55][56] All intellectual property rights and domain names pertaining to Wikipedia were moved to the new foundation,^[57] whose purpose is to establish general policy for the encyclopedia and its sister projects.^[17] Wales has been a member of the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees since it was formed and was its official chairman from 2003 through 2006.^[58] Since 2006 he has been accorded the honorary title of Chairman Emeritus and holds the board-appointed "community founder" seat.^[59] His work for the foundation, including his appearances to promote it at computer and educational conferences, has always been unpaid.^[19] Wales has often joked that donating Wikipedia to the foundation was both the "dumbest and the smartest" thing he had done. On one hand, he estimated that Wikipedia was worth US$3 billion; on the other, he weighed his belief that the donation made its success possible.^{[23][57][60][61]}