Three Policies (Details)

The link is from the Wikipedia site.

1. [[[You can only write content that is "verifiable" by referring to reliable sources> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E6%A4%9C%E8%A8%BC%E5%8F%AF%E8%83%BD%E6%80%A7]]
2. Depictions from all points of view must be treated equally and written in line with a neutral point of view
3. Do not post information that has not been published in reliable media

summary

The system as a wiki uses MediaWiki, is in the environment of the Internet environment, and (basically) anyone can edit if they understand the wiki syntax.

However, because there was vandalism such as "false or unconfirmed information description" and "unpublished information", it cannot be edited anonymously (non-logged-in state), and user registration & login / administrator privileges are required (= only administrators can edit) There are also items (so-called semi-protected or full protection). In particular, articles related to living celebrities such as celebrities and politicians tend to be "semi-protected" or "fully protected" (which can only be edited by administrators) (defamation and invasion of privacy against living people are usually at risk of litigation, so if there is a problematic edit, it will be protected immediately). Also, in the event of an edit war between writing and reverting the same content, protection will be applied as a cooldown period.)

In addition, actions such as blocking posts may be taken for acts that are considered vandalism or slander against others. In particular, users who repeatedly post posts that have legal problems such as privacy infringement or unauthorized reproduction will be urgently blocked from posting in order to prevent the spread of damage (troublesome processing such as deleting past versions is required, which has a large impact).

If you are not logged in, you may be blocked from editing from a specific provider (remote host, IP address).

project

This website is operated by the "Wikimedia Foundation and has language versions.

Other projects of the organization include the dictionary version of Wiktionary (Wictionary, external link), and Wikiquote ([[wikiquote>https://en.wikiquote.org/]), a collection of free and open content quotes. ]) and so on.

Other language versions

The site is available in a variety of languages, as well as English (and Japanese).

The most articles by language are in the following order: English, Cebuano, Swedish, German, French, Dutch, Russian, Italian, Spanish, Polish, Walai, Vietnamese, Japanese, and Chinese.

The Japanese version used to be the third largest after English and German, but now it has dropped to 13th. The reason why there are so many minor Cebuano, Swedish, and Warai articles in the world is that a bot program has created a large number of articles, and for this reason, Wikipedia in these three languages has a large proportion of contentless articles that are treated as "runaway". The French, Polish, Italian, and Vietnamese Wikipedias also have quite a few articles written by bots.

Please note that this classification is divided by language, not by country.

In the case of "Japanese version, not Japan version (Note that it is not for Japan people. If you can read, write, and type Japanese, even foreigners can edit.) The same is true for the "English" version, and it is not used for a specific country (national) like the "United Kingdom" and "United States" versions. Naturally, since Japanese users also live outside of Japan, it is considered undesirable to write on the assumption that the viewer is in Japan. For example, phrases such as "overseas" and "Japan" are corrected to "outside Japan~" and "Japan", respectively.

What is required of an author?

pixiv encyclopedia articles can generally be written from the editor's subjectivity and are tolerant of personal opinions, feelings and jokes (as long as they are not obvious factual errors or slander). However, this kind of sloppy writing attitude does not work on Wikipedia.

Without fear of misunderstanding, it would not be wrong to assume that the line required for the editor on this site is more of a "Guide to Relevant Literature with an Overview" than a encyclopedia.

Therefore, it is necessary to write " only verifiable content " in the three policies. In addition, fictionworks articles such as manga, anime, and light novels are written with "spoiler premise" after the official announcement date (official release date), so be careful when browsing.

In the case of TV anime, where the number and organization of terrestrial broadcasting are completely different depending on the region, it is possible to edit including spoilers even immediately after the fastest broadcast on terrestrial key, TOKYOMX, AT-X, etc., so be careful until you can watch it on "national broadcasting by BS" or official distribution on the Internet).

The previously "spoiler-in-a-bound" CautionTemplate is now Deprecated.

neutrality

For better or worse, pixiv encyclopedias are full of freedom descriptions, while Wikipedia requires a strictly "neutral point of view" description.

For example, in a multilateral dispute such as territorial dispute, it is not possible to write "******○ Island is the territory of XX country, but △△ country is currently illegally occupying or claiming territory ****". " ○ ○ country and △△ country claim territorial territory, and △△ country is currently effectively occupying ".

And it is mandatory to specify source. For example, even if you know something as knowledge or have confirmed it with your own eyes, you must not write it without a source, and common sense is no exception if there is no source.

If you write without a source, it will be considered "original research".

Therefore, without a proper source, it is possible to avoid writing things that seem self-evident. For example, the model and name of Ctula may be derived from Cthulhu. The argument that "I don't need a source because it's obvious" is often countered as follows. "If it were a matter of course, it should be easy to find a source that describes it, and if it is not there, isn't it your assumption that it is 'natural'?"

The Pik 100 articles are extremely unreliable because they are basically unsourced, there is no notation to specify references, opinions and facts are jumbled, and the biased articles are unchecked. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is sufficient as a personal reference due to its strict requirement for sources, but it should not be used for academic research, and it is important to note that Wikipedia is only the tip of the iceberg.

Examples of acceptable sources

• publication
  • Newspapers (national and local newspapers)
  • Specialized magazines (anime for anime, Famitsu for [games]], etc.)
  • Publication of the work: Comics (Weekly Shonen Jump, Jump Comics in the case of ONE PIECE, etc.)
    • However, in the case of serialized works in "manga magazines", the pictures and dialogues may be modified when they are recorded in the "tankobon", so in the case of manga, the "tankobon" is required to be used as the source.

In the case of publications, out of print or banned can still be used as a source.

• Website operated by Manufacturer and other Copyright

However, the official website cannot be used directly as an evaluation of the manufacturer. Even if the movie introduction says " No. 1 hit in the U.S.," it will not be allowed to be used as a source unless there is an objective criterion for what kind of criteria it is "No. 1 in the U.S." *. In addition, the use of exaggerated expressions in propaganda should be avoided from the viewpoint of neutrality.

• NetDistributionArticle News

However, since the link is likely to be broken after the news article display period of the newspaper or TV station distribution has passed, it is desirable to archive using Internet Archive Service before the link is broken (there is also an archive item in the source template). If it cannot be archived, it is prudent to use a news source article or a newspaper article of the same type.

Examples that are not accepted as sources

The main examples include "copyright infringement (or suspected copyright infringement)", "suspicious document where the writer is scandalous", and "originality cannot be guaranteed because edit is possible".

• Sources of information by individuals who are not particularly celebrities or experts
  • The kind of "criticism has been made on the Internet" is not accepted as a source, even if it is true. If it becomes an "article" in a newspaper or magazine that deals with "criticism on the Internet, etc.", it can be used as a source.
  • Personal blogs and YouTube videos that summarize news articles cannot be used as sources because news articles can be easily fabricated.
• SNS posts by the author or related parties, which have not appeared in the work or have not been published.
  • The so-called back setting, which is something like "this is how it was in the film, but I actually wanted to do it this way". It can also be interpreted as "it is a legitimate source because the person concerned says this", but it is limited to what matches the content of the official media, and it should not be treated as a source if it is not guaranteed.
  • Incidentally, as for the interpretation of the official media, for example, if it is serialized individually on a free site such as Pixiv or Kakuyom, and then published after modification or correction through an authorized publisher, the publication of the published content will be treated as official media, and the content of the free site before the modification or correction will not be official media. In addition, even if it is modified by anime or live-action drama, it will be broadcast on TV or if it is an authorized distribution media, it will be the official media as an anime or live-action drama.
• Gossip articles such as love and infidelity reported in sports newspapers and weekly magazines
  • It is not allowed unless the activities have been affected by the press or are widely recognized by the public, or unless there is an official announcement or comment from the office or the person concerned.
• Doujinshi that are not sold to the general public
  • Due to the difficulty of verification. Of course, circle published by circle who is not a celebrity, but doujinshi published by professional manga artists and others in Comiket, etc., should also be handled with care.
  • This is the same as a statement that has not been reported, and even if the content of the doujinshi is worthy of description, it can be seen that it cannot be used as a source unless the content is introduced on the author's website or various media.
• Contents of TV and radio broadcasts
  • Due to the difficulty of verification. If the article is posted on the website of the originator, it can be described on the basis.
• Yahoo! and Google
  • Even if you put "You can find out by googling" as a source, the search results fluctuate over time, and in some cases it may be Google, and the search engine does not screen the falsehood of the content, so it is not accepted as a source. Excludes cases where the search results are published in newspapers, etc.
• pixiv encyclopedia, Wikipedia, other languages, etc.Wiki, formatencyclopedia sites
  • Basically, the "Terms of Use" and "Help" of these items, which are clearly stated by Operation, can be used as sources.
  • However, articles posted on sites like this "anyone who obtains an ID can freely create and edit articles" are "When is the source of the article?" In addition, there is a possibility of impression manipulation by self-made, so this cannot be used as a basis.
  • Also, Wikipedia and other language versions are not originally available as sources. If you can use a foreign language, you can fabricate, self-produce, and circulate as much as you want. Perhaps due to confusion with the fact that it is possible to translate from other languages, there is a deep-rooted misunderstanding that "it is okay to use other language versions as a source", and there are many articles that use them as sources, but now they are corrected as soon as they are found.
• Log of Electronic Bulletin Board such as 4channel
  • Probably the least trusted source on Wikipedia. If you allow this, you can write as much as you want. There are many local topics related to 4channel, but most of them have no source, and even if there are, they are either 4chan threads or summary wikis. However, it is also true that some Wikipedia editors are users of the above sites, and some editors write in threads about Wikipedia.
• Primary sources that do not meet the criteria for "examples accepted as sources". (In short, in the case of ancient documents, for example, those that exist but whose contents are difficult for an unspecified number of people to confirm and verify should not be used as a source, and if it is absolutely necessary to use them, secondary sources that are derived from the primary source such as a paper on the ancient document and whose contents can be confirmed and verified by an unspecified number of people must be used as a source.) In the field of natural sciences, the source must be the paper, not the laboratory notebook that records the experimental data on which the academic paper is based.)

Notability

This does not mean that you can write anything that has ever been listed as an acceptable source, and this is the next most common problem.

Basically, the minimum line of notability is "an existence that is mentioned by a verifiable source from a disinterested third party".

Since this is only the minimum line, it is ambiguous how much the actual line should be placed above it, taking into account the customs of each field and the circumstances of each item.

Articles about things that have been named in the source may be subject to deletion, even if they are famous on the Internet (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia "that exists on the Internet", not an encyclopedia "for Internet information", so notability is not preferential because it is famous on the Internet). The same citation and notability standards are required as general items).

For example, there was an article about Golden Roar in the past, but it was deleted due to incomplete citation and lack of notability.

Even if it is okay to write an article, it does not mean that you should write all the information about it, and you need to narrow it down to the point.

"Wikipedia is not a fountain of trivia" and digressions are avoided. (Related items should focus on items that are important for a better understanding of the subject of the article.) However, there is no shortage of cases where related items are used instead of trivia collections just because trivia is prohibited in the text.)

However, in recent years, with the development of online media and the addition of a certain number of readers, there has been an increase in the number of underground neighborhoods such as MAD and small trends in X. As a result, there are now articles about memes that would never have happened at one time. However, even though these articles meet the notability of these articles, they are often merely historical descriptions, and are not very credible in terms of quality.

Points to note in relation to Piku Hyaku

Reprinted from Wikipedia to Pic Hundred

Since it is a "free encyclopedia", Wikipedia text is often repurposed in this Pik 100 article. Note that even though Wikipedia text is free, it does not mean that copyright does not exist, and guidelines is indicated.

In particular, in the English version, there are many images such as manga, character of anime, package of game, etc. of Japan, but this does not mean that the copyright has been waived, and the concept of [fair use]] in Europe and the United States ("If the copyright holder can be clearly identified, it may be reprinted"). This is because the interpretation is widely pervasive. Please note that there is no fair use provision in Japan's copyright law, so using it in the English version of Nori will be a copyright infringement.

Reprinted from Pic Hundred to Wikipedia

Conversely, caution should be exercised when transposing a hundred sentences to Wikipedia. First of all, Wikipedia strictly prohibits copyright infringement as an act that undermines the credibility of the encyclopedia, and has adopted a policy of making all parts of the encyclopedia, including previous versions, inaccessible to non-administrators. It is fine if the text is written by the person who is diverting, but reprint that goes beyond the scope of citation is unauthorized reproduction and is subject to deletion or remand for copyright infringement. Wikipedia has a function to save past versions, and when a reprint occurs, the past version is also deleted, so if a reprint occurs, it will be a little uproar, including the exercise of administrator authority and a check by a third party, and the degree of annoyance is very large (let's recognize that it is not a simple story at the level of "send back and finish dealing with" for the time being). If you repeat the reprint, you will be immediately blocked as a problem user. If it is a reprint by the person who wrote it, there is no problem "legally", but in reality, there is no way for those around you to know whether you are the person who wrote the text, so be prepared to be suspected of plagiarism. And because of our strict policy against infringement, the takedown process begins at the "suspicion" stage. You will then explain that you are the one who wrote the reprint to clear your suspicions, but proving it will be a tedious task for you and the verifier. In other words, it is better to avoid reprinting the text as it is, even if it is written by yourself. Even if there is no problem legally, it will be troublesome to be suspicious and involve the people around you. If that's the case, it's faster to rewrite it, even if it's troublesome.

It is not permitted, for example, to reprint the description of this article verbatim in the Wikipedia entry "Pixiv" (see). However, if the information is posted on the official Pixiv website, which is not a place for anyone to edit freely, there is no problem in describing it within the citation range with a source.

Differences in the nature of dictionaries in the first place

Originally, Piku 100 articles do not require sources such as magazines or newspapers (although it would be better if they could also cite the source so as not to be suspected of copyright infringement), and even if they are not, text without any source at all is Terms of Use. as a Violation of the Terms and subject to Deletion. Since it is not possible to describe only "it was published in an Internet encyclopedia" as a source, it is recommended not to refer to Pic Hundred when writing on Wikipedia.

For example, if you say that "XX of celebrities is posting a work on Pixiv" and you want to describe it in the Wikipedia entry XX △△△, you can state that fact on your official[blog]], website, or SNS, or if the fact is reported, you are allowed to add an article. If you write only based on the description of the profile link (https://www.pixiv.net/member.php?id = ○○) of Pixiv or the similarity of the illustrations, it will be considered " no legitimate source" and will be remanded. This is because spoofing is easy to do.

In this case, since the posted picture is clearly the same as other works of ○○, the logic that "it cannot be said to be fake because it cannot be proven to be an impersonation, so it is genuine. As stated in the Wikipedia rules, it cannot be described unless it is proven to be authentic by a legitimate source. In other words, the source is a statement on ○○'s official blog, website and SNS, or a news article that says "○○ is posting on Pixiv".

I found a similar description on Wikipedia and want to remove it from the pixiv encyclopedia.

As mentioned above, the two dictionaries are completely different dictionaries with different editorial policies. Also, the pixiv encyclopedia is not a supplementary dictionary to Wikipedia (reference: [[[Official] What is the Pixiv Encyclopedia]]). The fact that it is listed on Wikipedia is not a reason for deletion in the pixiv encyclopedia.

Problems

Wikipedia is a useful way to get a general idea of what you want to know, but there are some problems. However, many of these problems are derived from the nature of the Internet Encyclopedia and are not specific to Wikipedia.

To give a concrete example, it is not recommended for university students to refer to Wikipedia when writing a report, except in special cases such as "the subject of the report is 'Essays on Wikipedia itself'".

If you refer only to articles with "excellent articles" (gold stars) or "good articles" (blue stars), you may be allowed to **** in some cases, but you should check with your instructor whether it is okay to refer to Wikipedia for "reports written by university students as part of the educational process" and, if so, to what extent.

At the very least, it is better to limit the use of Wikipedia to "search for references" for research that requires the same quality as "reports written by university students as part of the educational process".

Biased content

There is a perception that "it must be correct because it is written on Wikipedia", but the fact that anyone can edit it naturally means that biased or incorrect information is often mixed in, and editors with poor reading comprehension and judgment tend to delete the explanation even if they prepare a source with the motive of "it does not exist in the cited literature", even though they do not understand the explanation in a good way. In addition to being aware of descriptions that can be understood by amateurs, it is recommended to refer to the history and the attached "Notes". For example, in the Japanese version, the article A certain comedian was regarded as a problem because of the number of slanderous descriptions, and Twitter said that "The original neutral position is not protected" and "If you want to write such a story, you can write it on NAVER" (Incidentally, pixiv Encyclopedia at one point It seems that it was even worse than that).

Although Wikipedia has 800,000 articles, it is sometimes said that the majority of the "Japan editions in particular are related to local stories such as place names and entertainment such as railways, comics, anime, sports (sex). In addition, there are problems such as "Translation is good, but History items that exist in foreign language versions are not translated" as in Detroit, and "Warship names appear, but although there are multiple of them, they do not make sense because the important items are not translated".

Wikipedia states that "the article should be based on a credible third-party source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," but it lacks specificity. As you can see from the Wikipedia bibliography, there are only a few descriptions based on articles published in authoritative peer-reviewed journals. Publications that are generally considered to be reputable may also be denounced as left-wing publishers by certain conservative demographics. On the other hand, it is sometimes accused by leftists of being a "right-wing biased publisher" who publishes publications for the conservative demographic, and as "right-leaning".

"Credible third-party sources" in Wikipedia should be understood as "credible third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" such as publishers that are sold in general bookstores and have a certain circulation, broadcasters that are permitted by law (but there are no radio station broadcast records), and newspapers with large circulations.

A "neutral point of view" cannot be established in the true sense of the word unless both the "writer" and the "reader" of the article confirm the basic principle claims of the "third-party sources", that is, the company has left-leaning or right-leaning claims, and recognize the degree to which they are biased by checking the principles. However, at least on Wikipedia, even neutral points of view are handled on the basis of the aforementioned "take good faith".

Essentially, the Wikipedia guidelines state that "you should write based on a credible third-party source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," but it is self-evident that this is not an equal "neutral point of view." It is necessary to be careful because it may be taken by the good intentions of the impostor from time to time. In addition, there are those who argue that "the writing should be based on reliable third-party sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," but not a few of them do not have a proper understanding of what credible third-party information is.

There have also been criticisms of the dissemination of fake news, the use of state intelligence agencies and their influences as a tool to disseminate information (including false information) that is convenient for their own interests, and the openly describing biased content that leans toward feminism.

Nature of the article

There are many articles that seem to be written for the purpose of simply satisfying the desire for self-revelation and showing off one's knowledge, rather than articles that are useful or useful for everyone. There are also cases where editors make edits that do not take into account other items.

Negative articles

It is necessary to look at the evaluation of artist and work objectively, but if only negative opinions are covered in the media, it can only be written negatively. Although it is plausible in terms of rules, the problem is that as a result of emphasizing reliability, it may become impression manipulation. This is especially the case with Internet incidents and celebrities with a lot of anti.

Also, except in cases where a crime has been committed, the description is often based on the notion of "which is evil and which is righteous", and if it is a controversial opinion, it often leads to an edit war with users who want to delete the opposite opinion.

The description is not always correct

There are few professional researchers among Wikipedia users. For example, it may be a practicing doctor or a scholar who specializes in the disease, but professional doctors and scholars are too busy to be involved in writing. In addition, there may be people with detailed knowledge of each field, but not all articles are related to such authors. In addition, although the peer review system exists, it remains a personal category and is not mandatory, and there is no guarantee of the quality of articles by "persons with detailed knowledge of each field".

As a result, a citation from Wikipedia or someone else's site that reprinted it in paper or report may be fail on its own. That's why Jimmy Wales, the creator of Wikipedia, urges people to avoid citing it in academic research.

However, there is enough credibility to be copied by thoughtless students, and since anonymous and (most articles) can be written by anyone, like Mishandra and Japan's Three Great Evil Yokai, lies written on Wikipedia may be published as if they were facts. Conversely, an example of the formalization of an arbitrarily set description on Wikipedia is the Magella Attack" model number in Gundam Series. Also, regarding the name of Tailed Beast in Naruto, it is possible that the author has re-imported the Wikipedia entry.

Also, in the case of Wikipedia, a source is necessary, but there have been cases where sources of questionable reliability have been written that describe falsehoods or errors.

Damage caused by vandalism

Formally, anyone can edit, so vandalism may occur for the purpose of mischief, politics, religion, beliefs, or hostility to Wikipedia, editors, and administrators.

Perhaps the most famous of the "mischiefs" is the Bicolim War, which also made the news. This article was rated as a good article on Wikipedia.

In fact, there are usually users who have become problematic for falsifying sources, fabricating non-existent literature, and posting a large number of articles, and it is often a problem.

Naturally, the above behavior is subject to blocking on Wikipedia, and users who are doing it for a long time are subject to Wikipedia:Ongoing vandalism/Long-term.

Statement about evaluation

When describing evaluations of works such as manga and games, as described above, they must be accepted as sources, like general books and specialized magazines, but in recent years, with the spread of the Internet, the number of specialized magazines has decreased, and the evaluation of works is becoming less and less.

In other words, even if you write a review, it must be written from a publication such as a specialized journal or an official website as a source, and of course general online evaluations are not allowed to be described as unsourced, so evaluations of works are rarely described on Wikipedia.

Therefore, since it is reckless to look up the evaluation of works without objectivity on Wikipedia, it is recommended that you look up the content of the work evaluation on personal websites, homepages, blogs, specialized sites on the Internet, and electronic bulletin boards with the expectation of subjective descriptions and the existence of stemma.

On the other hand, there are marketing experts who teach that "if you want to create a page for yourself or your business, hire an editor online and let them create a page that blurs the line that meets your needs" (summary) (See）。 Such "article writing businesses" have become a major concern within the Wikipedia community as an infringement of neutral point of view, and rules have now been made prohibiting all paid article editing. Even if you make a work, the work will be found out anyway because it is "biased towards unnaturally praising content", and if one is caught, the other work will be found out from the editing history of the editor.

Editorial issues

(See also "Problems with admins, deletionists, etc." below)

Since multiple users are involved in editing, including the description of "biased items", even if the writing is objective, it may lead to an edit war due to differing opinions from each other.

Even if you write all of the sources just because they exist, they may be sent back for reasons such as "not being a trivia summary" as mentioned above (e.g., the subject was recognized by Guinness, so you put the "Guinness World Records" category, but it was later deleted because it was said to be "not important").

In addition, articles may be created that lead to impression manipulation by detailing negative elements that are not enough to dare to write about the fact that they are good things (e.g., writing that "there are many errors" or "it is unknown who applied for the work" for the work selected by Guinness).

Treated as a source

There are many problems with sources, and the most famous ones are "citation needed" and "original research".

This is because there is no source (source) to support a statement, or it is incomplete (e.g., a book with no pages, is out of print), so it is a template that is used by a third party to request a source, but in some cases it is full of "citation needed" without any source at all. There are a lot of articles that have been written (and most of them are either left untouched or have a growing number of citations).

This is because the person who is most detailed about the description and can be easily corroborated is narrowed down to "the person who wrote the description". Therefore, a third party must have a deep knowledge of the relevant article or a person who can research to indicate the source, and pretend not to see it.

So what if I delete the article? In many cases, this doesn't work. The logic is that "it doesn't look like they have properly investigated whether there is a source", and there is no end to the cases where a deletion request is issued without thinking and is dismissed. In some cases, the act of removing only the part where the citation needed template is left unattended will also be blocked from posting (Note that if the citation required content itself is deleted, some people will decide that "that information has not been added yet" and add it again, and if you add a citation needed, →you may fall into a loop of an edit war of deleting citation needed items, but commenting out usually gets by).

However, even if there is a source, most of the roundabout sentences and witty descriptions are deleted, and they are likely to be considered "citation invalid" (in this case, there is a problem with the poor application of the editor to delete them, but if the link is broken, it is legitimate).

However, the Cyber Dragon article describes several ways to use it in conjunction with other cards, some of which are unsourced and should be included in dedicated wikis such as the Yu-Gi-Oh Wiki as soon as possible.

Perhaps because of these problems, there are some people on Wikipedia who call for the abolition of "citation needed", "citation invalid", and "original research" templates.

In addition, information sources published only in specific media, such as academic journals, are not visible to a limited number of people, and the content cannot be confirmed. There are many cases where information that was not originally written in the source is brought as a source, and for a long time, no one is aware that the source is a fabrication, and the description is left unattended. Furthermore, there are cases where the information was posted as incorrect because the source posted "misinformation". It is the limit of Wikipedia when reliable sources are mistaken and unnoticed.

Fake "sources"

As mentioned above, there are cases where the books and literature cited as sources in the article themselves are fabricated and cannot be proven to exist.

In addition to the Bikorim War, the source of the text that was supposed to be the etymology of 女衒 (see Note: 女衒), and the publisher of a book on non-existent dog breeds "Ōhatasha" (Listed in Wikipedia's bibliography but whose existence cannot be confirmed), a fictitious mine "卡申銀礦" (维基encyclopedia:2022年古羅斯相關條目偽事) and plural.

Also. Articles that may be fake news, such as "noodle harassment," contain sources that only describe personal complaints, and the source itself is not necessarily decent in the first place.

Troubles between users

In this way, various troubles occur on sites where bona fide third parties are involved in editing. There are problems with the editor itself, and there are also problems with the system. Among them, there are many misunderstandings.

See also: Wikipedian

Unscrupulous editors

• Privatize Wikipedia, which is a publicly open site, and use it as a place to disseminate your principles and denounce them.
• Writing slander or lies, using falsehoods or using pixiv encyclopedias as sources as mentioned above.
• Do not listen to people's opinions on editing and article creation (rejecting dialogue on notes, etc.)
• Act on the assumption that only your own opinion and text are better, and revert it even if corrections are made.
• Prioritize your own ideas over established rules and are willing to use provocative or threatening words and actions at times.
• Even though you have been blocked for not being an editor, you create an account for further editing and act in the same way as you were blocked.

These editors are subject to blocking for "vandalism" and "degrading the project", but there are always people who do this on wiki-style sites.

• A person who repeatedly acts inappropriately in his or her position as a manager. For example, a 14-year-old administrator was harassing academic blogs by scholars (because they were used as Wikipedia indexes by regular authors) →see）。 This is an extreme example, but even in the Japanese version, administrators who show a casual attitude such as thoroughly disrespecting non-logged-in users are regarded as a problem.

Problems with "administrators", "deletionists", "people who want to be in charge", etc.

(See also "Editorial issues" above.)

• "Wikipedia depends not on whether it is true or not, but on whether it is verifiable or not" and whether the existence of the text is acceptable. ”
• "Even if it's just one letter, you may not like it and it will be reverted. There are some Wikiholics who pretend to be "Lord" and are unlucky enough to come across a description they don't like, no matter how useful it may be. ”
  • If you are reverted many times, it is possible that "only the person who writes it thinks it is useful" or "you are violating the rules without knowing it", so it is necessary to discuss it in a notebook. A revert battle is vandalism for any reason. However, there are cases where you are hostile to users who are simply unlucky and have a strong voice (it can be said that they are users who have a higher level of trust from the administrator), and if you edit by IP address, your opinion may be one-sidedly disregarded. In that case, if you don't want to give up, you should create an account or log in and continue the dialogue steadily, but be careful because if you get emotional when the discussion heats up, your mental image will be bad when you ask for a judgment from a third party.
• "Wikipedia has a culture of hostility and strife rather than goodwill and cooperation." Even the most experienced Wikipedians may not be able to sense the good intentions of others. ”
• "If Wikipedia is going to follow in the footsteps of other "communities" on the net, then small groups will have the power to exclude others. Academics, experts, and geeks and 5chan nerds are in charge of the place. ”
• "The "Administrator" privilege is built into the system and will not be checked or checked unless an enthusiastic participant takes the time to observe it closely. There is not even a system to monitor the actions of administrators. ”

(From Wikipedia "Why Wikipedia Isn't Great")

("The Five Pillars of Evil", "Abuse of the Rules", "Ignore the Rules All". It's up to you to find it helpful.)

Remand based on "personal judgment"

• There is no shortage of Wikipedians who basically emphasize "old entries" and revert Wikipedians based on "personal judgment" even if they come from new sources that are useful. Prohibited by the rules is okay (see >https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E4%BA%95%E6%88%B8%E7%AB%AF/subj/%E4%BB%95%E5%88%87%E3%82%8A%E3%81%9F%E3%81%8C%E3%82%8A%E5%B1%8B%E3%81%8C%E5%A4%9A%E3%81%84%E3%81%93%E3%81%A8%E3%81%AB%E3%81%A4%E3%81%84%E3%81%A6%E3%80%82wiki%E3%81%AE%E7%A7%81%E7%89%A9%E5%8C%96）.
• "Foreign language sources are not allowed" and "Just because a foreign language Wikipedia is listed does not mean that it is necessary for Japanese Wikipedia".
  • If you are fluent in multiple languages, you can "self-perform", but even if you do, it is basically checked by other users of other language versions, so unless it is difficult to check the source, it is more likely that the description left after a certain amount of time will have some credibility.

Even if it is difficult to confirm the source of the ---, it is often tagged as "verification required" or temporarily hidden by commenting out. In addition, even if the same information is immediately added to the Japanese version after the information is described in another language version, it is also a fact that in recent years the number of readers who "read the English version using the translation function because the Japanese version has a conspicuous lack of information" has increased significantly, and the number of articles that "recommend translation in other languages" has increased significantly, so it is also a problem to treat it as "self-performance" easily.

• Wikipedia itself acknowledges that there are policy inconsistencies, and also mentions the problem of deleting content "because it is unliked" or "because it is written by a user who does not like it" (see）。
• For this reason, "When the initiator of an article on Wikipedia tried to enrich the content, it was reverted for reasons such as "reprinting from the official website" (there is no way to know if the editor is the copyright holder of the official website, so if the same text is reprinted, it will have to be deleted) or " The person who writes about me on Wikipedia has written misinformation and tried to fix it, but if it is reverted, it will be blocked and the problem description will be left unattended."
  • If you force an edit without explaining the circumstances, it may be mistaken for deletion vandalism, or the article may be protected by violating the rules to prevent revert wars. If there is a problem, it should be explained and dialogue in the form of a note instead of being forcibly deleted.
  • A certain foreign celebrity was sent back even if he wanted to correct a lie in an article about him, so he went out of his way to appear on the radio to clear the reference source and have a third party write for him.
• Jimmy Wales himself has had his article deleted after 22 minutes (see）。
• A comment on the blog of the academics who were harassed by the 14-year-old administrator above reads, "There is no greater waste of effort and time than for an amateur to try to defend and fight a description on Wikipedia, where a professional can destroy something that has taken time to build in an instant."

These problems are also mentioned on its sister site, Wikia (although these problems can be seen as necessary evils as a side effect of the strict policy enforcement necessary to maintain order on mega projects, given that all Wikipedia-like sites founded in response to these problems have fallen into chaos and failed).

Other Discussions

• There is a rule that machine translation is not allowed, but in specialized fields, it is common to see Japanese articles that do not make sense as if they were just pasted with machine translations in another language, and inflated articles with a large number of red links and links to other languages left unattended. This is because in areas with small populations, there tend to be fewer people to correct poor translations.
• The so-called "citation needed-needed vandalism", which is also mentioned in the "Handling of sources" section, is an endorsement of vandalism if you add a source, and accelerates the act. Dealing with this type of vandalism is nearly impossible due to the obstacles of the site's description policies and systems themselves.

How to resolve disputes

The basic rule is to have discussions in the Notes provided for articles, and if the issue spans multiple articles, it may be discussed on the user page or in a new discussion place.

Resolving this type of dispute takes time and is not always mutually exclusive. Arguments are based on seeking sources, and may be discussed on other than that, but basically we should not decide which is right or wrong. This is because it will cause the story to get messed up.

With the exception of "obvious typographical errors and omissions", "it is clear from another source that the source presented is incorrect and is accepted by the public", and "it was not possible to show a legitimate source for the statement", it is most preferable to include both pros and cons at the same time, but there are editors who do not accept it, which complicates the story.

criticism

Naturally, there are people and groups who are critical of Wikipedia.

These sites provide plausible reasons for criticizing Wikipedia, but in fact, many of them were established by users who have been vandalized on Wikipedia or blocked by malicious administrators as a personal grudge against another user or administrator who was previously the perpetrator of Wikipedia. Slander is often tolerated on these sites due to their founding intentions, and as a result, users who just want to slander others gather from all over the Internet and get out of control, and in order to settle it, administrators and founders often exercise their authority and go into decline.

As a result, most sites with critical sentiments toward Wikipedia have ironically been transformed into sites that are as restrictive as Wikipedia, if not more so.

In Uncyclopedia, it is called "hard-headed encyclopedia", perhaps because of the sarcasm, and it is no exaggeration to say that articles about Wikipedia are almost critical, and even the content of Jimmy Wales's article is [[[slanderous. >http:s//en.uncyclopedia.info/wiki/%E3%82%B8%E3%83%9F%E3%83%BC%E3%83%BB%E3%82%A6%E3%82%A7%E3%83%BC%E3%83%AB%E3%82%BA]]

However, Uncyclopedia gradually became a domineering administrator who exercised administrative privileges, deleting articles that users with administrative privileges deemed they did not like and thoroughly blocking users who made edits they did not like, and most of the articles that were left were only past humor articles and slanderous articles approved by administrators.

Unscrupulous business practices? Beyond (Toshihiro Yoshimoto), a maniacs administrator, rebelled against Wikipedia's editing policies because he was not allowed to edit, and founded Yourpedia.

However, perhaps because it was unable to deal with problems between users, it later installed an abuse filter and blocked many users, and Beyond began to neglect the management of Yourpedia, and the remaining administrators exercised their administrator privileges domineeringly like Uncyclopedia and regulated articles and users they did not like.

Ironically, I ended up creating an encyclopedia that I couldn't write freely.

In addition to this, encyclopedias have been created by people who opposed Wikipedia's editorial policy, etc., and Wikitruth (discontinued) in the United States, and Empedia in addition to Urpedia in Japan. Perhaps because Slander is basically prohibited in Empedia, the site still exists today.

Related Tags

Internet Encyclopedia Wikimedia Foundation citation needed

Wikipedia Wikipetan Encyclopedia Wikipedian Wiki

Other WEB Encyclopedias

• Uncyclopedia: A parody site on Wikipedia.
• pixiv Encyclopedia:P can be edited by anyone with an IXIV account. Pixiv illustrations can be embed. For better or worse, freedom descriptions are conspicuous, but false information is prohibited.
• Nico Nico Encyclopedia: A paid membership-based encyclopedia site operated by Dwango (only available to Nico Nico Nico Premium members). Free members cannot edit, but can view articles and post to bulletin board.
• Basic knowledge of communication terms: An encyclopedia site operated by circles. As the antithesis of Wikipedia, it takes the position that "no source is specified" and "there is no such thing as a neutral point of view".
• Chakuwiki: A wiki site that collects and shares personal subjectivity and rumors, focusing on local stories. It has elements intermediate between an encyclopedia and a bulletin board.
• Yourpedia: An encyclopedia site created by editors who oppose Wikipedia's editorial policies.
• Empedia: An encyclopedia site with a policy of allowing you to write information that is likely to be deleted or deleted on other sites, or information that is not allowed to be posted on Wikipedia.
• fandom - wiki hosting service powered by MediaWiki. Dealing with information about entertainment such as games, movies, and television. It is also a sister site to Wikipedia.

Related External Links

• Wikipedia (
  • Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia - Citation guidelines
  • Wikipedia:Copyright - Guidelines for reprinting or modifying more than the scope of the citation
  • Wikipedia - Wikipedia articles on Wikipedia
• What is Wikipedia - Nico Nico Encyclopedia
• Wikipedia - Uncyclopedia

Why do some people update Wikipedia when they work for free?] (President Online)