위키백과:토론에서 피해야 할 주장

위키백과에서 토론 페이지는 다양한 기능을 제공합니다! 주요 목적 중 하나는 위키백과 편집자들이 문서를 어떻게 작성해야 하는지, 어떤 자료를 포함할지 여부를 논의하는 것입니다.

토론에 참여하는 동안 사건의 승패를 좌우할 수 있는 논쟁이 있습니다. 자료의 포함은 기존 정책 및 지침이 허용하는 내용에 따라 달라질 수 있습니다. 그러므로 그러한 토론의 모든 주장은 개인의 인식이 아닌 전체적인 내용에 기초해야 합니다.

사람들이 유지, 삭제 및 기타 다양한 작업을 사용하여 "투표"하는 삭제 토론과 달리, 토론 페이지 토론은 공식적이지 않으며 다양한 구조를 따를 수 있습니다. 아래 예에서는 요점을 전달하기 위해 "포함" 및 "제거"와 같은 용어를 사용합니다. 그러나 실제 토론은 위의 내용과는 상당히 다르게 나타날 수 있습니다.

근거 없는 주장

투표성 의견

• 토론에 참여할 때 귀하의 의견이 투표가 아니라는 것이 중요합니다. 의견을 추가하는 각 사람이 자신의 결정을 믿는 이유를 제시하면 합의에 도달하는 데 도움이 됩니다.

여론에 동의

• 토론은 사람들이 해결책을 찾기 위해 아이디어를 제시하는 장소입니다. 단순히 사용자들과 함께 가는 것만으로는 새로운 아이디어가 나오지 않습니다. 한 명 이상의 다른 사용자의 의견에 동의하는 경우 그들의 아이디어가 좋다고 생각하는 이유를 명시해야 합니다.

출처 표기

• 출처를 삭제하지 말고 원본을 찾아야 합니다. 콘텐츠를 보지 않고도 가능하다고 가정해서가 아니라, 출처가 있을 수 있다는 것을 알기 때문에 콘텐츠를 유지합니다. 출처가 존재한다는 모든 주장은 검증 가능해야 하며, 출처가 무엇인지, 어디에 있는지 명시할 수 없으면 검증할 수 없습니다.

단순히 정책 또는 지침 가리키기

• 우리는 모든 규칙을 무시해야 합니다. 단순히 정책이나 지침을 인용하는 것만으로도 다른 편집자들에게 그 이유가 무엇인지에 대한 단서를 제공할 수 있지만 해당 정책이 현재 논의에 어떻게 적용되는지 구체적으로 설명하지는 않습니다. 콘텐츠를 삭제해야 한다고 주장할 때는 그 이유를 설명하는 것이 중요합니다. 어떤 것이 정책을 따르고 있다고 주장할 때도 마찬가지입니다. 언급한 바와 같이, 콘텐츠 토론은 투가 아닙니다. 이는 합의를 결정하는 것을 목표로 하는 '토론'입니다. 단순히 독자 연구 또는 "확인 가능성을 충족하지 않음"이라고 작성하는 대신 더 자세한 요약을 작성하는 것이 좋습니다.
• 독자 연구에는 어떤 출처도 인용하지 않은 추측이 포함되어 있습니다. 그저 확인 가능성을 충족하지 않을 뿐입니다. 주제가 독창적인 연구이거나 출처가 부적절할 수 있는 구체적인 이유를 제공하면 다른 편집자가 문서의 주장을 더 잘 뒷받침하는 출처를 제공할 수 있는 기회를 얻을 수 있습니다. 콘텐츠는 종종 개선될 수 있으며, 특정 문제를 식별하고 수정할 수 있는 경우 삭제하지 않아도 될 수 있다는 점을 명심하세요. 또한, 입장을 요약한 수필을 인용하는 것은 유용할 수 있지만, 더 이상 추가 없이 수많은 단축키 중 하나를 사용하여 수필을 인용하는 것이 더욱 좋습니다.

자비 구하기

• 설득력 없는 주장은 정책이나 지침을 전혀 활용하지 않습니다. 그것은 단지 해설자가 다른 사람들의 관점을 바꾸려는 캠페인일 뿐입니다. 그들은 합의에 도달하는 데 아무런 도움이 되지 않으며, 그러한 간청에 응답하는 사람도 도움이 되지 않습니다. 또한 토론에서 어떤 식으로든 "투표"를 요청하기 전에 지침을 숙지해야 합니다. 새로운 콘텐츠 작업에 더 많은 시간이 필요하다고 생각되면 사용자화를 요청하여 콘텐츠가 위키백과의 포함 지침을 충족할 때까지 콘텐츠를 개선하는 데 필요한 만큼의 시간을 할애할 수 있습니다. 이 작업이 완료되면 이를 기본 기사 공간에 다시 도입할 수 있습니다.

개인적 관점

콘텐츠

• Wikipedia의 콘텐츠는 외형이 아닌 가이드라인를 기준으로 판단됩니다. 모든 콘텐츠를 준수하도록 만들면 해당 콘텐츠를 사용하여 정리할 수 있습니다.

개인적 취향

• 개인의 주장은 말그대로 순전히 개인적인 관점입니다. 그들은 정책, 지침, 논리조차 사용하지 않습니다. 위키백과에서 콘텐츠 포함은 사람들이 저는 이쪽에 속한 것 같아요 또는 저는 이쪽에 속한 것 같지 않아요 라고 말하는 것이 아니라 합의에 의해 설정된 일련의 정책과 지침에 의해 결정됩니다. 그 모든 것은 개인적인 의견이며, 개인적인 의견보다 덜 도움이 되는 유일한 의견은 간단한 투표입니다. 모든 사람을 만족시키는 것은 불가능합니다. 그러나 지침을 준수하는 것은 가능하며 이에 따라 포함되는 것과 포함되지 않는 것이 결정됩니다. 위키백과 편집자는 매우 다양한 개인 그룹이며 잠재적으로 어떤 주제나 주제라도 어떤 편집자는 어딘가에서 좋아하거나 싫어할 수 있습니다. 그러나 개인적인 선호는 기사나 기타 콘텐츠를 보관하거나 삭제하는 타당한 이유가 되지 않습니다.

• 토론은 사람들이 해결책을 찾기 위해 아이디어를 제시하는 장소입니다. 단순히 군중과 함께 가는 것만으로는 새로운 아이디어가 나오지 않습니다. 한 명 이상의 다른 사용자의 의견에 동의하는 경우 그들의 아이디어가 좋다고 생각하는 이유를 명시해야 합니다. 우리는 콘텐츠를 보지 않고도 가능하다고 가정해서가 아니라, 출처가 있을 수 있다는 것을 알기 때문에 콘텐츠를 유지합니다. 출처가 존재한다는 모든 주장은 검증 가능해야 하며, 출처가 무엇인지, 어디에 있는지 명시할 수 없으면 검증할 수 없습니다.

흥미로운 점

• 흥미로운 사실이 많이 있고, 아무도 읽는 데 관심이 없다고 인식할 수 있는 내용도 많이 있습니다. 그리하여 당신은 결코 알지 못합니다. 그러나 이것은 그저 의견일 뿐입니다.

간단한 사실

• 위키피디아는 무분별한 정보 수집이 아닙니다. 실제로 이 세상에는 위키피디아나 특정 기사에 속하지 않는 진실되고 출처가 있는 정보가 꽤 많이 있습니다. 위키백과는 통계, 퀴즈 또는 잡다한 지식 모음이 아닙니다. 게다가 상어에 관한 기사에 사과나무에 관한 사실을 쓰지 않을 것입니다. 단순히 어떤 것이 검증 가능하거나 출처에서 나온 것이라고 말하는 것만으로는 그것이 주제와 어떤 관련이 있는지 또는 왜 다른지에 속하는지 보여주지 않습니다.

도움되는 것들

• 위키피디아는 백과사전이므로 유용한 백과사전적 내용이 포함되어야 합니다. 그러나 많은 유용한 것들은 백과사전에 속하지 않으며 제외됩니다. 설명이나 맥락을 제공하지 않고 단지 유용하거나 쓸모없다고 말하는 것은 토론에 도움이 되지 않거나 설득력이 없습니다. 콘텐츠가 유용하거나 쓸모없는 이유를 말해야 합니다. 이런 식으로 다른 편집자들은 그것이 유용한 백과사전인지, 위키피디아의 정책에 부합하는지 여부를 판단할 수 있습니다.
• 뉴욕에 있는 모든 전화번호 목록이 유용할 수 있지만 위키백과는 디렉토리가 아니기 때문에 포함되지 않습니다. 단순히 '유용한이라는 단어를 정의하는 페이지는 유용할 수 있지만 포함되지 않습니다. 파리 최고의 레스토랑에 대한 가이드가 유용할 수 있지만 유용성은 아주 주관적인 판단이므로 설득력 있는 주장을 뒷받침하지 않는 한 피해야 합니다.
• 이유가 제시된 경우 '유용성'이 포함에 대한 타당한 주장의 근거가 될 수 있습니다. 백과사전은 정의상 독자에게 유익하고 유용해야 합니다. 상식을 활용하고 적지 않은 수의 사람들이 정보를 "유용하다"고 어떻게 생각할지 생각해 보십시오. 특히 표에 있는 정보는 독자의 유용성에 중점을 두고 있습니다. 유용성을 기반으로 한 주장은 맥락을 고려하면 타당할 수 있습니다.
• Wikipedia에는 ​​유용한 탐색 도구로 간주되는 일부 페이지가 있으며 그 이상은 아닙니다. 동음이의 페이지, 카테고리 및 리디렉션의 예를 들어, 유용성은 포함의 기초입니다. 이러한 유형의 페이지에서는 유용성이 유효한 주장입니다.

아무도 피해를 입지 않는 것

• 위키백과의 콘텐츠는 검열되지 않습니다. 콘텐츠가 누군가에게 직접적인 피해를 주지 않는다고 해서 그 콘텐츠가 문서에 남아 있어서는 안 된다는 의미는 아닙니다. 예를 들어, 어떤 주제에 대해 신뢰할 수 있는 출처에서 검증 가능한 정보가 게시되지 않은 경우, 해당 정보가 사실인지 확인할 방법이 없어 해당 주제와 프로젝트의 평판이 안 좋아 수 있습니다. 설령 사실이라 하더라도 확인할 수 있는 방법이 없다면 잘못된 정보가 퍼질 수도 있습니. 검증 가능성, 주목성, 신뢰할 수 있는 출처 사용 등 기본 원칙에 부합하지 않는 콘텐츠를 그대로 두는 것은 생각보다 더 큰 해를 끼칠 수 있으며, 말 그대로 무엇이든 허용된다는 선례를 남길 수 있습니다.

• "아무런 해를 끼치지 않는다"는 주장과 이에 대한 반박은 포용주의와 삭제주의의 철학적 편집 논쟁의 중심에 있습니다. 자세한 정보와 논거는 메타위키 문서 포용주의와 삭제주의를 참조하세요.

• BLP와 같은 일부 경우에는 콘텐츠의 유해성 여부가 관련 문제가 되는 경우가 많습니다. 예를 들어, 규정은 본질적으로 유해한 페이지가 삭제될 수 있다고 규정하고 있습니다. 그러나 해당 콘텐츠가 명확하게 금지되어 있지 않은 경우 '해가 되지 않는다'는 주장은 설득력이 떨어집니다.

가치 있는 것

• 가치는 주관적입니다. 왜 또는 어떻게라는 입장을 입증하지 않고 단순히 가치가 있다거나 가치가 없다고 말하는 것은 토론에 도움이 되거나 설득력 있는 기여가 되지 않습니다. 콘텐츠가 왜 가치가 있는지 또는 없는지를 말해야 다른 편집자가 특정 맥락에서 그 콘텐츠의 가치를 판단할 수 있고, 그것이 위키백과 정책에 부합하는지 여부를 판단할 수 있다는 점을 기억하세요. 이러한 설명이 없으면 유효한 주장이 되지 못합니다.

• 또한, 위키백과는 대의, 제품, 개인, 이념 등을 홍보하기 위한 장소가 아닙니다. 특히 홍보성 또는 정파적 '정보'는 일반적으로 위키백과의 중립성 및 검증 가능성 요건을 충족하지 못합니다. 노블레스 오블리주 및 유용함을 참조하세요.

극복 가능한 문제

글쓰기의 질

• 위키백과에 포함된 자료는 글의 질이 아니라 정확성과 출처의 강도에 따라 판단됩니다. 맞춤법, 문법, 구두점 문제가 있는 문단 한두 개는 언제든지 수정할 수 있습니다. 위키백과는 진행 중인 작업이며 아무도 아직 정리하고 싶지 않다고 해서 콘텐츠를 삭제해서는 안 된다는 점을 고려하세요. 위키백과는 자유로운 백과사전이라는 사실을 기억하세요. 문서에 좋은, 결국에는 출처가 될 수 있는 콘텐츠가 있다면, 삭제가 아니라 발전시키고 개선해야 합니다. (그러나 사용 가능한 콘텐츠가 '전혀' 없다면 삭제하는 것이 가장 좋습니다.)

• 위키 모델에서는 '현재' 잘못 작성되었거나, 형식이 잘못되었거나, 출처가 충분하지 않거나, 주제에 대한 포괄적인 개요가 아닌 콘텐츠는 개선하고 다시 작성하여 현재의 결함을 수정할 수 있습니다. 이러한 콘텐츠가 특정 영역에서 부족하다는 것은 비교적 사소한 문제이며, 여전히 위키백과에 도움이 될 수 있습니다. 다시 말해, 이러한 콘텐츠에 대한 해결책은 '삭제'가 아닌 '정리'입니다.

• 그렇긴 하지만 콘텐츠가 너무 나빠서 현재 상태에서 '유해'하다면 지금 삭제하고 나중에 다시 추가하는 것이 더 나은 선택인 경우가 많습니다. 예를 들어 저작권 침해, 광고, 등의 출처 없는 부정적인 서술 등의 문제는 가능한 한 빨리 해결해야 합니다. 또한, 틀로 태그가 지정된 진술과 같이 콘텐츠의 특정 문제가 오래 전부터 알려진 경우, 이는 실제로 출처가 존재하지 않는다고 결론을 내릴 수 있는 근거가 될 수 있습니다입니다.

접근 불가능한 출처

• Remove The only sources given are offline. – Cantmakeittothelibrary, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Remove With only offline sources given, there is no proof that this is not a hoax. – The Secret Keeper, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Remove One look online shows that this does not even exist. – Jumping to conclusions, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Remove Google Books only allows you to see pages 1-45 On Wikipedia, we assume good faith. Unless we have good reason to suspect that an editor is mistaken or dishonest, we take their contributions to discussions at face value. This doesn't mean we can't doubt what someone says, but it means that we need actual reasons to do so.

There is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. Offline sources are just as legitimate as those that are accessible to everyone online. If content is sourced to offline sources, even exclusively offline sources, we give the creator (and other contributors) the benefit of the doubt in accepting their accuracy. Since Wikipedia is written collaboratively, it is always possible for other editors to add online sources on top of the offline ones already there. However, this is not a requirement, and they need not exist to sustain the content. That said, all sources must be verifiably published and thus accessible somehow (even if at expense and trouble), as well as reliable.

발전에 대한 성급함

• 때로는 콘텐츠 작업이 많지 않거나 오랫동안 편집하지 않아서 상태가 좋지 않을 수 있습니다. 이는 반드시 자료가 위키백과에 적합하지 않다는 것을 의미하지는 않으며, 주제가 모호하거나 작성하기 어려운 것일 수도 있습니다. 콘텐츠는 지금까지 얼마나 자주 편집되었는지가 아니라 콘텐츠 자체의 장점으로 평가되어야 합니다. 위키백과는 마감일이 없다는 사실을 기억하세요.

• 아직 아무도 개선하지 않았다고 해서 콘텐츠를 삭제해서는 안 되며, 이는 향후 편집자가 콘텐츠를 개선하는데 방해가 될 수 있습니다. 반대로 콘텐츠를 개선하겠다고 약속하는 것만으로는 충분하지 않으며, 편집자는 그 방법을 설명해야 합니다. 편집자가 약속을 지키지 못하면 나중에 합류한 다른 편집자가 계속 개선해 나갈 수 있습니다. 이렇게 하면 콘텐츠의 운명이 한 명의 편집자가 작업을 하는 것에 좌우되지 않습니다. 위키백과는 협업 방식으로 작성됩니다.

예외:

• 출처가 제대로 밝혀지지 않았거나 전혀 밝혀지지 않은 잠재적으로 모호한 성격의 콘텐츠는 살아있는 인물의 전기에서 즉시 삭제해야 합니다.
• 모호하지 않은 광고 또는 홍보인 자료는 저장할 가치가 거의 없거나 전혀 없는 경우 간단히 삭제할 수 있습니다.
• 다른 예외로는 불명확한 저작권 침해 및 차단 또는 추방된 사용자가 자신의 차단 또는 추방 정책을 위반하여 편집한 문서가 있습니다.
• 이러한 종류의 논거는 콘텐츠 삭제에 대한 좋은 논거는 아니지만, 미개발 섹션이나 중복 페이지가 지나치게 많은 경우 섹션이나 페이지를 병합하는 데는 훌륭한 논거가 될 수 있습니다. 사용자 수필은 대개 그대로 두는 것이 예외입니다.

관련성과 중요성의 오류

원본

• 포함 출처가 없음에도 불구하고 이것이 정확하다는 것을 알고 있습니다 – KnowsBest 01:01, 2001 년 1 월 1 일 (UTC)

• 위키백과에서 포함 여부는 진실이 아닌 검증 가능성을 기준으로 합니다. 포함된 모든 정보는 신뢰할 수 있는 출처에 의해 검증 가능해야 합니다.

개인 지식

• Include I am an expert on this subject – TheUltimateAuthority 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
• Include I work for this company and know this is about to happen there – Insider 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

No original research is allowed on Wikipedia. Word-of-mouth info that is not from published sources is not considered to be verifiable.

신뢰할 수 없는 출s

• Include Someone on this blog said that it is true – OneIsEnough 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
• Include A friend told me about it on Facebook – Word of mouth 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
• Include There is a whole web site devoted to this subject – Make It Notable Yourself, 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
• Include Look what I found about it on Twitter – Tweet Me, 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability requires that content must be sourced to reliable sources. Sites like blogs and personal pages that can be created or edited by anyone with little or no restriction are generally not seen as reliable sources of information. While such sites may be written in good faith and may be seen by some as accurate and/or neutral, there is little or no control or proof of these details, and there is even a chance they may have been created or edited by the very same person who created or contributed to the Wikipedia article.

On the other hand, blogs can be written by professional journalists and subject to editorial control, and personal sites can belong to established experts in the subject. There are also pages bearing the URLs of blogs that have mirrored news articles that do constitute reliable sources. For sites including user-generated content, assess whether the content is self-published or can be attributed to an independent professional writer with a record of reliable publishing. News sources that publish in a blog format may be as reliable as a traditional newspaper.

Trivial information

• Include Without this information and the sources that come along with it, the article will be completely unreferenced, and will be in danger of deletion. – Anchor Baby 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
• Include In all the publicity this school has received, they mention this particular honors student – WayToGo!, 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
• Include This was mentioned in the community times – HighRatings, 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
• Include I heard someone say on the 5 o'clock news that the police have been called to this gas station – NuisanceProperty, 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
• Remove One sentence is trivial coverage. HennyYoungman, 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)

In order to meet the general notability guideline, an article must be sourced by reliable sources with substantial coverage. If only the trivia in an article is and can be sourced, it is doubtful whether or not it can be included, and this should indeed be examined.

The subject doesn't have to be the main topic of the source material, as long as we have enough sources to write from a neutral point of view. Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers and prestigious awards are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions that have been used to establish notability and are useful to write Reception sections (see the specific guidelines for books, films, music and artists); common sense and editorial judgement should be used to reach a consensus about the sources available.

Unchallenged material (or content age)

 Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Article age 및 Wikipedia:Gaming the system § Gaming the consensus-building process 문서를 참고하십시오.

• Include: Has remained in the article for 6 years already and no one has challenged it. – Dried up 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
• Oppose change: This page has said this since the wikiproject was started! – SovereignProject 22:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep: I inserted that two months ago and no one objected then, thus is must have consensus. – UnclearOnTheConcept 14:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The argument also exists in inverted form:

• Remove: This has only been here for two days, and the page was stable before that. Why should we keep this addition? – StatusQuoStonewall Jackson 02:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, nothing is set in stone. Any text on any page is subject to change at any time, no matter how long it has been that way. If there is a good reason to remove long-standing text, the length of time it has been there should not be an obstacle.

Just as inclusion is not an indicator of notability, it is also not an indicator of significance or relevance. Bits of outright hoax material have survived in articles sometimes for years, and various proclamations of would-be "guidelines" at wikiproject advice pages have contradicted actual policy for a long time without being corrected. While WP:Consensus policy reminds us that any undiscussed edit that is not disputed by later can be assumed to have consensus, the act of challenging it (in good faith) removes that default assumption, by definition. "It's been here a long time" does not equate to "it has had actual consensus for a long time". The material might have achieved its age because its lack of relevance, significance, or current applicability was not discovered until recently.

There is a big difference between material that, on the one hand, someone simply inserted and no one bothered to talk about until now, and, on the other, material that has been repeatedly challenged and retained (by source- and/or policy-based consensus, not a false consensus). Outside mainspace, material that has become integral to how Wikipedia operates is also not subject to sudden removal or radical alteration simply because someone isn't clear where consensus established it back when. However, no amount of longevity of some item in an article or other page is sufficient to surmount a conflict with current Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which may have changed since the material was inserted. Consensus can change, and a standard operating procedure on Wikipedia is the normalization of old material to incremental changes in policy.

There is also a difference between A) resisting poorly-thought-out changes that did not have solid rationales, and B) status-quo stonewalling to exert control over a page, even if proposed changes are well-justified. As a matter of the Editing policy, it is not necessary for any editor to seek "permission" before making good-faith changes. That said, being a new addition that might be improved upon does not somehow "protect" a change from being challenged or reverted pending further discussion.

In short, if some material is not suitable for Wikipedia by current standards, it will be deleted or corrected, regardless of how old it is.

틀:In5(see Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement))

Google test

 Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers 문서를 참고하십시오.

Examples:

• Include There are 345,400 Google hits for this term, so it is clearly of interest. – GoogleBoy, 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
• Remove Only 10 Google hits, non-notable. – GoogleGirl, 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
• Remove Zero Google hits, must be a hoax. – MustBeAHoax, 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
• Include She's the first Google result for her name, so obviously she's important. – FirstIsBest, 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number. A more detailed description of the problems that can be encountered using a search engine to determine suitability can be found at Wikipedia:Search engine test.

Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. WP:BIO, for instance, specifically states, Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking). One would not expect to find thousands of hits on an ancient Estonian god. However, the search-engine test may be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet. A search on an alleged "Internet meme" that returns only one or two distinct sources is a reasonable indication that the topic is not as important as has been claimed. As well, numerous hits that refer to X as "Y" can demonstrate that "Y" is a plausible redirect to the article on X.

Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving content than the default Google web search. However, since content can be verified entirely by offline sources such as books and newspapers, a lack of search results there is not proof in itself that content should be kept or deleted.

Number of editors involved

Examples:

• Include A lot of editors have worked on this – Busy at work, 13:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Remove This content was written by a single editor – My Personal Article, 13:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Remove The only editor who ever worked on this has left Wikipedia – Who Cares?, 13:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The number of editors involved may point out the level of interest in a subject, but it does not measure the number of reliable sources or its compliance with other policies and guidelines. An article can be made into a good article, either by one person or by a dozen. And if no reliable sources exist at all, then no matter how many editors they are, they will not be found.

Article size

Examples:

• Include I've added a lot of information on the subject – Book of Wealth, 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
• Remove Article is only one line. Clearly a DICDEF – Mr. Webster, 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
• Include We don't have enough information about this – Flashcard, 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
• Include There's so much information here that some of it has to be good – Impressed by Length, 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
• Remove because it's WP:TLDR – DidntRead, 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. An article could have many paragraphs or even pages of information. If any of that information is not and cannot be properly sourced, it does not belong. On the other hand, even a small amount of information can be eligible for inclusion, provided that the inclusion guidelines are met. Even if the article on a subject is very short, it may just be waiting for expansion. Likewise, information being too detailed may be a good argument for moving it to a more specialized article, but is not in itself a reason to remove it entirely.

Subjective importance

For further information on this concept and more examples, see Wikipedia:Subjective importance

Examples:

• Remove Well I've never heard of it so it must be a hoax. – Iknownothing, 00:07, 1 April 2004 (UTC)
• Remove People in my city haven't heard of this, so it must be unimportant. – Provincial, 15:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Remove Who outside of (name locality) has ever even heard of this person/place/thing? – Notknownhere, 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Include I know it well. It's on my way to school. – Myneighborhood, 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Include John is the tallest person in my home town so he should be on the list of the world's tallest people. – Smalltownboy, 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Include Is the only elementary school on Clubbington Street in Eastgrove. – OnlySchool, 07:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Lots of things are well-known to a select group of people. A woman may be considered the greatest crocheter in a local crochet group, which may make her famous in that community, but that isn't necessarily significant enough to include in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, meaning that some things are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable information published in reliable sources before content can even be considered for inclusion, otherwise it could be considered original research. If the only sources that have written about a subject are those within a small community it's likely (but not always the case) that those sources are not reliable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia.

Arguments that state a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia. To avoid this, Wikipedia should include all significant information, even if it isn't significant within the English-speaking population or within more populous or Internet-connected nations. Likewise, arguments that state that because information is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality do not mean the information cannot be included.

Crystal ball

Examples:

• Include This information may be unknown now, but it is going to be really important very soon. – Youwillsee, 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Include Of course this unreleased single should be included. It's by The Scrotums. – Mycrystalballisinforservice, 01:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Include We all know there will be a presidential election in 2032. – Everyone's a psychic, 01:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Remove This celeb is just a flash in the pan, and nobody will remember her in a week/month/year. – Shortattentionspan, 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and editors should avoid using one when commenting. It is difficult to determine precisely what people believe in the present, even more difficult to predict how perceptions will change in the future, and completely unnecessary to even try. Inclusion is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources have already taken notice, not on subjective judgments of whether people will or should take notice in the future. Focusing on the objective evidence helps the discussion reach a logical conclusion; injecting your personal predictions does not.

Inaction by sources

Examples:

• Remove None of the source coverage would have occurred had the one event not occurred. – Lookherenotthere, 10:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Remove We don't have any sources that mention this after 1990. - Lookherenotthere, 14:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of content is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources already exist, not on subjective judgments of why there aren't more or newer sources. Focusing on the objective evidence helps the discussion reach a logical conclusion; injecting your personal supposition does not.

However, especially for science-related material where understanding in the field may change rapidly, old sources that are contradicted by newer, equally reliable ones, must not be given undue weight.

Inaction by editors

 Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Past inaction by editors 문서를 참고하십시오.

Examples:

• Remove: Nobody has added sources for this information, so it's not verifiable. – HopToIt, 13:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Reverting again since you didn't resolve the problem I pointed out, and it doesn't really matter if others don't see it. – MyWayOrHighway, 09:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• Remove until you fix the problems with the rest of the article.
• Remove because nobody added this to the other article on the same topic.

Verifiability is based upon whether reliable sources exist, rather than the state of sourcing in articles; Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires that information be verifiable not already verified. If the very existence of sources cannot be ascertained, this may be a valid rationale for removal. Only in biographies of living people (for defamation legal reasons) is lack of a citation by itself grounds for deletion of material that clearly can be but has not yet been sourced.

In actual practice, many additions without sources are reverted pending further discussion and sourcing. However, if the addition is not controversial and sources have been identified but not yet added, it may be interpreted as "gaming the system" to insist on its removal pending the citations, especially if the editor who added it has requested help with the sourcing (e.g. because the source is behind a journal site's paywall and they no longer have access to it).

Similar arguments are sometimes made along the lines that the objector's concerns have not been addressed yet, even though a solution to (or refutation of) them has already been provided, and there appears to be no agreement that the objector's position is correct. Consensus need not be unanimous to be achieved, and other editors' efforts to continue improving a page are not held hostage by unreasonable demands. A call for action by one editor does not create an obligation on the part of any other to act upon it.

틀:In5(see Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement))

Subjects are connected

Examples:

• Include We should say that she once worked with someone famous – Keeper, 14:15, 03 March 2009 (UTC)
• Include All examples of foo should be discussed in the article. – Classifier, 01:15, 03 January 2006 (UTC)
• Include: this person's brother is famous, so he's famous too. – Adrian Listmaker, 18:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Remove her actions shouldn't be mentioned here, she's only known because the U.S. President's wife – First Lady 18:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Include This is an album by a famous artist, so it's relevant in this article. – The internet's busiest music nerd, 9:29 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Include This subject has its own article, so it should be mentioned in this article. – Wheredoesitend, 9:29 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Content does not qualify for inclusion merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject. We can't argue that "____ should be included, because it is associated with Important Subject." If subjects seem to be related, but no sources connect them to each other, making the connection in Wikipedia is original research.

Sources about one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that group. Discuss based upon the individual subject, not the subject's overarching classification or type. In addition, information about a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always apply to the subordinate entities.

Wikipedias in other languages

Examples

• Include: given that its also in corresponding articles on other Wikipedias (de:Foo, es:Foo, fr:Foo, it:Foo, la:Foo, pt:Foo). They can't all be wrong. – Interwikis=Notability, 14:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Include: there was a long discussion at the French Wikipedia and they decided to include it.
• Remove: This material about Mexico isn't covered in the same article at the Spanish Wikipedia. – TrappedBehindTheLanguageBarrier, 01:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Remove: This material would be against policy on the Arabic Wikipedia.
• Delete: German Wikipedia doesn't have a guideline about this, so we shouldn't either.

Information will often be covered by Wikipedia articles in many languages other than English; however, this does not indicate, by itself, that it should be included here. Other Wikipedias may have different inclusion criteria from the English Wikipedia. Other versions of Wikipedia are not reliable sources, and many articles in other Wikipedias are based on translations of English Wikipedia articles. Moreover, because of the availability of online translation tools, it's easier to create cross-wiki spam. The hoax article Jean Moufot was first posted on Netherlands Wikipedia and then translated into several other languages, including English. Of course, if the other Wikipedia articles cite any reliable sources not in the English Wikipedia article, they can be added to it.

On the other hand, the fact that corresponding articles at other Wikipedias don't have something that en.Wikipedia does is not a reason that the information should be removed. It may be the case that nobody has yet added this to the other language's Wikipedia or that it just hasn't been linked to from the English language article. It may also be the information is important in the English-speaking world, but of little relevance to speakers of other languages, or vice versa. En.Wikipedia also sees more editorial activity on most topics than other-language Wikipedia's do. Finally, all of the various Wikipedias set most of their policies and guidelines independently, aside from legal and WMF-mission-related requirements imposed on them by WP:OFFICE.

개별적 가치

다른 내용도 똑같지 않나요?

 Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists 및 WP:OTHERSTUFF 문서를 참고하십시오.

Examples:

• Include This information is in article x as well. – EmperorOtherstuff, 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
• Include That other article has information that's even less important. – PokePerson:O, 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
• Include You say this is promotional, but there are other articles with content just as promotional as this one. – Blay Tant Marqueter, 04:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
• Include If you remove this you have to remove the whole section. – AllOrNothing, 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Article y doesn't mention this, so article x shouldn't either. – EmpressOtherstuff, 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
• Remove You guys forced me to remove the information at article x, so you have to allow me to remove the information at article y. – NoFair, 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether or not the same or similar content exists or is formatted similarly in some other page; this is because there is nothing stopping anyone from editing or creating any article. While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case, if the review does not pre-date policy changes that affect the material.

When an editor introduces new information to Wikipedia, it may be necessary to consider whether the inclusion and organization of such material is compliant with core policies such as neutral point of view and no original research. Other editors may argue that a certain type of information isn't included because of inherent violations of core policies; see WP:ATTACK for example. Dismissing such concerns simply by pointing to this essay is inappropriate.

메타 추론

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, it should convey information on all branches of knowledge. However, "all branches of knowledge" does not necessarily mean "everything". Wikipedia is specifically not an indiscriminate collection of information, which means there are standards for what constitutes information that should be in Wikipedia. Imagine how large an encyclopedia on everything would be: everything would include every idea that has existed or will exist, every person who ever lived, every organization that has existed or exists, every copy of an object that has existed or exists, every website that has existed or exists, etc. The most basic threshold of inclusion is verifiability, not truth. The verifiability requirement alone would prevent writing about every particle and limit the information that could be included on every person. Moreover, the community has decided not to document every verifiable fact and accordingly has established guidelines on what content should be kept, and a due weight policy on what facts are minority views. Even though that guideline is broader than a paper encyclopedia's guidelines, it is also not "everything". So think carefully and exercise judgement when determining what should be included in an encyclopedia.

가이드라인일 뿐, 이슈는 아닙니다

• Wikipedia is not a system of laws. Discussions are not votes, and we encourage people to put forward their opinions. Sometimes, they will find an existing project page which sums up their reasoning already, and rather than reinventing the wheel they will link to it (with a suitable explanation of why it applies). If someone links to an essay, proposal or guideline, they are not suggesting "WP:EXAMPLE says we should do this", but rather "I believe we should do this, WP:EXAMPLE explains the reasons why".

• Essays, in general, serve to summarize a position, opinion or argument. Proposals, in addition to their primary function, also summarize positions, opinions and arguments. Frequently, this is done with reference to policies and guidelines, so to glibly brand them as "only an essay" or "only a proposal" may be misleading. It also essentially suggests that the opinion of the person citing the page (as well as those of the people who originally wrote the page) is invalid when it may not be. There are many reasons why some arguments presented in discussions are invalid, based around the substance of the argument or the logic employed in reaching it. "The page you linked to is an essay or proposal" is not one of them.

• Guidelines do indeed have exceptions; however, it is unhelpful to suggest "WP:EXAMPLE is only a guideline, we do not have to follow it". We have policies which tell us what to do and why to do it, and guidelines to help us with how to do it. Rather than using a page's "guideline" designation as an excuse to make an exception, suggest reasons why an exception should be made.

사람 대하기

인신공격의 오류

• A content discussion is about the content in question itself. Though the suitability of related content may be mentioned during the discussion, and some discussions are bundled together, the debate is not about the author or any other editors of the article. Content is to be judged on its own merits and not those of its editors or detractors. Even well-respected editors sometimes make edits that others feel should be reverted, and likewise, newbies and those who have created lots of poor content still have the potential to contribute good content in the future.

• There is no shame in having one's good-faith efforts opposed by the majority. Wikipedia is not a club of winners and losers. If a user is disrupting the encyclopedia by continually adding information that gets deleted or removing good content from articles, an investigation may be called for into their behavior; this is an independent issue and its result one way or the other should not influence content discussions. Remember, when you comment, personal attacks and accusations of bad faith never help.

• Edits by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block may be reverted entirely. This criterion does not apply to edits made before the ban or block, or to pages of topics unrelated to the topic of the ban (unless it is a complete site ban).

문서 소유권 주장

• On Wikipedia, pages are not owned, even if created by that user. Once created, it is open for anyone to edit, and once substantially edited by another user, cannot even be deleted at the request of the creator.

평판

• 위키백과는 광고 공간이 아닙니다. 주목할만한 상업 기업에 대한 콘텐츠는 허용되지만 중립적인 관점으로 작성되어야 하며 여기에는 회사를 설명하기 위한 것이지 홍보하거나 비난하기 위한 것이 아닙니다. 자신에 관한 글도 그 사람의 소유가 아닙니다. 다른 편집자는 위키피디아 지침 내에서 소스 정보를 추가하고 수정할 수 있습니다. 기사가 누군가에 대해 부정적인 내용을 언급하더라도 신뢰할 수 있는 출처에서 나온 것이라면 그 기사는 완벽하게 받아들여집니다(자신에 대한 기사는 자랑스러워할 만한 것이 아닙니다). 이런 일이 발생했다면 부정적인 정보는 이미 뉴스에 나왔기 때문에 대중은 이미 알고 있을 것입니다. 중요한 것은 이러한 모든 콘텐츠가 생존자 전기에 명시된 엄격한 정책을 준수해야 합니다.