Editing Encyclopedia:What it thinks it is

{{historical}}


This article describes:

* How to track '''self claims''', '''self-references''', and '''self-links''' in Wikipedia articles
* Guidelines on adding self-claims, etc, to Wikipedia articles
* Links to some attempts to compile lists of self-claims, etc

There are wider philosophical question of whether [[artificial intelligence|Wikipedia can think]], and whether the Wikipedia community can be said to comprise a [[group mind]]. They are quietly swept under the carpet here... mind the bump.

== Self-references on Wikipedia ==

It is easy to track what wikipedia contributors think wikipedia is using this [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=site:www.wikipedia.org+%22Wikipedia+is%22 Google Search]. You can track what the wider world thinks wikipedia is using [http://www.googlism.com/index.htm?ism=Wikipedia&type=2 Googlism].
Using Wikipedia itself, one can view the [[Wikipedia]] article to see what the writers of that article think it is. One can also see all the articles that [http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Wikipedia link to] the Wikipedia article.

The official Wikipedia policy on what wikipedia is and is not can be found at [[Wikipedia:About]] and [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]]. If this policy is inaccurate, then the policy could be changed, or Wikipedia could be changed - this can be discussed at the appropriate talk page.

== Guidelines on adding self-references ==

[[Wikipedia:Mention of Wikipedia in articles]] contains some guidelines for those considering adding self-references to Wikipedia articles, or correcting or deleting those that already exist in an article.

We have to exercise care when adding references to Wikipedia to Wikipedia articles, as they effect [[Wikipedia:itself]] and our aim of becoming an [[encyclopedia]]. The same applies to mentions of the Wiki process, mentions of Wikipedians, or mentions of events on Wikipedia. There are various concerns:

# Is the reference pro-Wikipedia? It may not be [[wikipedia:neutral point of view|neutral]], and Wikipedians may have a [[meta:systemic bias|systemic bias]].
# Is the reference anti-Wikipedia? If you have a grudge against Wikipedia, that's fine, but better taken elsewhere - to your personal website, for example.
# Is the reference the result of Wikipedia-obsession?  Say, by a [[Wikipedia:Wikipediholic]]?  Excessive mentions of Wikipedia may give an over-inflated mention of Wikipedia's importance - again, not neutral.

These are basically not problems in the Wikipedia, user, and talk namespaces, though of course [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox|Wikipedia is not a soapbox]], even there.

== Examples of Wikipedia self-claims ==

Wikipedia might be a [[World Brain|World Brain]] prototype as well as a [[WikiWiki|WikiWiki]] process relying on [[consensus]]. For some, it is a [[Homepage|Homepage]] where users fall victims of [[computer addiction|computer addiction]] and become [[Wikipedia:Are You a Wikipediholic Test|Wikipediholic]]s. It could be seen as being a collection of [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia commentary/Best debates|A body of debates]] about itself, a whole set of [[Wikipedia:Brilliant prose|Wikipedia:Brilliant prose]], but also as a continuous [[flame war]] and always a bit of [[Talk:VANDALISM IN PROGRESS|vandalism]] at any given time (due to [[Talk:Plagiarism|Plagiarism]] which we should discourage, or [[copyright]]s issues). There is always a [[Wikipedia:The dark side of Wikipedia|dark side]] in any success, and Wikipedia might be a real [[cluster fuck]]. But some people believe that's probably what explains why the [[Wikipedia:Statistics|Statistics]] show Wikipedia is just getting [[Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia|Bigger and bigger]]!

Incredibly, Wikipedia is [[Internet censorship in China|censored in China]] ! Some think this is rather curious, since is not only an [[encyclopedia]], or a [[Cyberspace|Cyberspace]] for librarians, or a [[Idiom dictionary|idiom dictionary]], or [[List of timelines|Lists]] on just about everything, but also an incredible [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Encyclopedic Network|Encyclopedic Network]] in many [[List of encyclopedias|languages]], a [[cultural diversity|melting pot]] of very diverse [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|authors]]. Many discussions go on on [[Wikipedia:Mailing lists|Mailing lists]] or in the [[Wikipedia:Embassy|Embassies]] or naturally on [[Meta-Wikipedia|Meta-Wikipedia]] where many [[decision making|decisions]] are taken.

== How can I help Wikipedia think about itself? ==

Please update our collaboratively compiled list of Wikipedia self-references on [[Wikipedia:meta-Wikipedia|meta-Wikipedia]] at [[meta:What wikipedia thinks it is|What wikipedia thinks it is]] ([http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=What_wikipedia_thinks_it_is&action=edit edit this page]). 

You can see the French take on this subject in the other languages link above. Other languages may have similar pages.

''See also:''
* [[Wikipedia:Mention of Wikipedia in articles]]
* [[Wikipedia:Mention of wiki in articles]]
* [[Wikipedia:itself]]
* [[meta:What Wikipedia is]]
* [[meta:What wikipedia thinks it is]]
* [[meta:Wikipedia:Mention of wiki in articles]]
* [[meta:What Wikipedia claims to be]]
* [[meta:Wikipedia:Mention of Wikipedia in articles]]


------

May 2003
* Wikipedia thinks it is not [[Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion|censored]]
* Wikipedia thinks it is [[Wikipedia talk:Censorship|censored]].