Wikipedia talk:Trifecta

Evaluation

Hmm, while having a triumvirate (I mean trifecta) of policies to guide us is very nice in theory, I'm not sure it delivers what it promises.

Original research could very tentatively be described as following from NPOV, for example, but deletion explicitly does not deal with neutrality of topics (POV forks are the rare exception, as this are indeed blatant violations of NPOV); most of what goes on as deletion has nothing to do with being neutral, but with making sense, or respecting copyright. Similarly, style advice on neutral writing obviously follows from NPOV, but the rest is just rules we've picked because we've found them to work in most cases—this has little or nothing to do with NPOV. Claiming that all of this follows is not very enlightening. Wikipedia is an NPOV encyclopedia—some things follow from the "encyclopedia" part, not the NPOV part. Britannica does not claim NPOV (though it would love to be seen as "objective", of course, whatever that's supposed to be), but it arguably has style and verifiability and all that jazz. Encarta... no, let's not lower our standards like that.

Likewise, implying that consensus follows from everyone not acting like dicks (as opposed to voting) seems to require a very strenuous line of reasoning. You'd have to turn "don't be a dick" into "don't put your own interests ahead of the encyclopedia". In this form, you could conceivably claim this as the root of all social policy, although it's worth pointing out that the individual rules (stay cool, assume good faith, no personal attacks) are individual inventions: they prop up the policy, but do not follow from it—rather they follow from things observed in practice to work better than their alternatives (edit warring does not improve articles more than staying cool; assuming bad faith does not match reality; being rude is less likely to keep discussion open than being polite).

Ignore all rules, finally, is the most special rule we have, because it emphasizes the fact that, in spite of all trappings of order and regularity, this is still a wiki, and everyone is fundamentally free to act as they see fit (notwithstanding that every action has consequences). Does "be bold" follow? Not quite. IAR does imply you should be bold rather than do nothing for fear of disturbing an imagined balance or breaking rules you haven't yet seen applied, but it does not encourage you to edit outright. "Be bold" does. Without "be bold", people could talk endlessly over changes without ever implementing them, rules or not (and they do!)—IAR says nothing about that. IAR is the speed boost you need to get over hurdles; BB is what gets you moving in the first place.

Am I overanalyzing it? Of course! I don't suggest you start seriously thinking about it now—that this page presents exactly three cardinal principles from which to have everything follow is the appeal, not that everything lines up just right. JRM · Talk 21:53, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Yeah, JRM, you're way overanalyzing things. Notice that these are only suggestions, and the first two should be interpreted in light of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. The whole idea is that Wikipedia policy is far too complicated, and, by gosh, wouldn't things be a lot better if everyone just understood a few basic ideas and was nice to each other for a change. That's also why these aren't policy suggestions. It's a rough philosophical framework. Wikipedia is a state of mind.-- Seth Ilys 05:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure. I just compared it to mine and wrote down the differences. If it works for others, then it works for others. You can even adopt it as policy for all I care—I disagree with the structure, but of course the individual suggestions are fine. Then again, I'm not in the audience; I have no problem working with a lot of rules in the background, nor with determining when not to apply them strictly. JRM · Talk 10:43, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

Additional note: While NPOV doesn't follow from us being an encyclopedia (although our style conventions sorta do), it is a basic stylistic policy. "Don't be a dick" doesn't necessarily follow from us being a community; there are plenty of marginally functional communities where people are dicks to each other all the time. But we think that these are generally good ideas, and we take them seriously, but not too seriously... so if you're not enjoying yourself most of the time on Wikipedia, you probably shouldn't be here, and if you don't follow these rules, you don't have to. (Adopting WP:IAR recognizes other people's right to do the same.) - Seth Ilys 05:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IAR is a paradoxical rule because you cannot apply it without understanding why you would need to apply it, and if you can do that, you don't need IAR as a rule in the first place. Which is probably why it's so appealing. JRM · Talk 10:43, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

From above and from below

This is an independent observation and shouldn't be on this talk page, but since I got it while writing the above, I'm going to stick it in just to prove I can ignore all rules and hijack talk pages for my own personal drivel whenever I want.

There is a big difference between NPOV and not putting yourself ahead of the encyclopedia (or not being a dick, if you prefer). The former is a given, imposed from above. Right or wrong, this is how Wikipedia works; if you don't like it, you're free to fork, but Wikipedia itself won't budge. The latter is not imposed, but trickles up from below. We codify this in policy to avoid making the same mistakes over and over again. There were times when each of these was not policy, and Wikipedia worked—but as it grew, so did the opportunities for engaging in unproductive behavior with others, and it needed to curtail some of it to prevent efficiency from dropping off too far. Again: I stress that without such policies, Wikipedia would still work (this is important, because you'll often hear people claim that Wikipedia would explode without additional rules—this is not true, IMO; Wikipedia will work without them as long as everyone is still convinced it should be an NPOV encyclopedia). Productivity would just go way down without these basic rules, but it wouldn't drop off to zero.

And now, by Jimbo, I have to go edit some damn articles, because if I gaze at my navel any longer I'll go blind. JRM · Talk 21:53, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Quick thoughts

Nice idea. I agree that the first two principles are fundamental to how Wikipedia works, but not convinced about the "bedrock" nature of the third. I'm also not at all clear about a couple of the corollaries: how are style conventions (for example) meant to flow from NPOV? — Matt Crypto 01:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Matt: They don't strongly follow, because we've ignored all rules in drawing corollaries, except of couse for common sense, which is a corollary of WP:DICK, which is one of the rules we aren't ignoring because ignore all rules tells us that we have to ignore that rule too, so there have to be at least some rules we don't ignore. Are you seeing how this works yet? Besides which, the third is only a suggest policy for personal action, rather than being foundational. We must have freedom to act as we see fit, after all. -- Seth Ilys 05:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

UC's changes

Uninvited Company's changes have greatly improved this page, IMO. But now shouldn't User:Seth_Ilys/Trifecta be updated to include these changes? I am reluctant to do it because it is in someone's userspace, though. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 23:38, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted the change replacing WP:IAR with WP:BOLD. BOLD is not a substitute for IAR, and IAR more clearly describes the attitude that Seth, myself, and others who subscribe to the Trifecta believe in than does BOLD. (For example, WP:BOLD doesn't describe our common dislike of instruction creep as well.) After a discussion on IRC, I've decided to leave the replacement of "don't be a dick" alone; while I still like that formulation better, it does break WP:BEANS and it is taken the wrong way by many people. "Be civil" isn't quite as catchy, but it'll have to do. Kelly Martin 15:36, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I prefer Don't be a dick - it is fundamentally true, and gets the point across. Looking through the comments above it's clear the original three choices were very popular. Dbad also survived the meta RfD, by the way. Dan100 (Talk) 14:58, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

WP:DBAD

Collecting short-rule essays

@Ron Ritzman @Fences and windows @Seth Ilys: I noticed WP:8, WP:10SR, and WP:TRI cover a lot of the same ground, and all try to do the same thing (condense Wikipedia's rules down to just a handful). @Pigsonthewing suggested merging WP:8 with WP:10SR, which I agree with, and I think we could hit the trifecta by combining them with, well, WP:Trifecta.

I've written an attempt that I've stored under WP:Trifecta/Simple rules draft, which merges all three of WP:8, WP:10SR, and WP:TRI, while adding one rule to trifecta that I think is too important to ignore ("resolve disputes by consensus and discussion"). This version moves IAR into "rule 0". Any comments or suggestions? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

10 Simple Rules is a special case, because it derives from a publication in PLOS Computational Biology. I mirrored it on Wikipedia for reach into our community and so concepts could be wikilinked. I think it's best left unedited and as a standalone to reflect that, but I'm open to arguments otherwise. Fences&Windows 23:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing suggested in the merge discussion a transwiki of the original mirror to Wikisource, to be linked to from the merged essay. That's actually fine by me. Another simplification of the P&Gs is Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset. Maybe they should all be merged there, with trifecta as the lead? Fences&Windows 23:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I like that idea! (Although, as mentioned, I feel like discussion/consensus is too important to leave out. The problem is that if someone doesn't use talk, we can't teach them the subsidiary rules as they come up.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

publication in PLOS Computational Biology... best left unedited

[EC] As I said in the merge discussion, such works belong on Wikisource. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

"Ten rules" is now on Wikisource, so I have redirected that page to "Eight rules", where the former is linked as a "see also". I have also tagged "Eight rules" and this page for merging, as proposed above. I support that merge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that's the right thing to do. That changes this advice:

• Rule 1. Register an account
• Rule 2. Learn the five pillars
• Rule 3. Be bold, but not reckless
• Rule 4. Know your audience
• Rule 5. Do not infringe copyright
• Rule 6. Cite, cite, cite
• Rule 7. Avoid self-promotion (shameless or otherwise)
• Rule 8. Share your expertise, but don't argue from authority
• Rule 9. Write neutrally and with due weight
• Rule 10. Ask for help

into this:

• 1 Be certain that you are here to build an encyclopedia
• 2 Assume good faith
• 3 Keep a neutral point of view
• 4 Don't be inconsiderate
• 5 Ignore all rules
• 6 Don't hurt your peers
• 7 Wikipedia is not a battleground
• 8 Be willing to discuss your edits with your fellow editors

This is not the same. The audience is different. At WPMED, we've sent subject-matter experts to 10SIMPLE for years, because it tells them things to cite everything and not to cite only their own papers. "Eight rules" doesn't mention WP:SELFCITE and mentions only two of the four times when an inline citation is mandatory.

I think this merge should be undone.

I also don't think that either of them should be merged into WP:TRIFECTA. Having a variety of short summaries, each targeted at a different type of user or different need, is a fine thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, could we rename/rework some of these for the specific kind of user they're targeting? e.g. "10 simple rules for academics editing Wikipedia".

The point of merging 8R and Trifecta is to get a very short "generic" shortlist that most editors can be directed to—e.g. self-citation isn't really an issue most editors have to worry about. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no merge to undo. "10" has been migrated to Wikisource, because Wikipedia is not a repository for unchangeable copies of material published elsewhere. Had I not redirected the page to "8", it would have been - rightly - deleted.

You can still point your correspondents to "10"; it's just located elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

If you hadn't decided to WP:Blank and redirect it to a page that has significantly different content, it could have had – rightly – had this put on it:

s:Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia
This page is a soft redirect.

I think that would have been a better outcome. Why do you think that people should instead be redirected to a page that does not give them the intended information? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to address this "unchangeable" thing: 100+ editors have made 370 edits to 10SIMPLE over the years. That's a lot of edits for something that's supposedly "unchangeable". Personally, I don't want it to change very much, because the original has the content I need, but I feel the same about the Wikipedia:Five pillars, and nobody claims that's "unchangeable" and tries to kick that off Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the diff you linked, the edits seem to consist entirely of copyediting—none of the original text has been altered (except a sentence accidentally omitted in the first edit). It isn't open to changes—if I tried to replace one of the rules with a new, different rule, I'd probably get reverted.

I don't have any issues with a redirect to the Wikisource, especially if we add a hatnote to the top saying For an updated version, see WP:Trifecta. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Trifecta is not an updated version of 10SIMPLE. Trifecta is a significantly older (2005) page. (In fact, Trifecta was the inspiration for Wikipedia:Five pillars, which was created about a week later.)

More importantly, if you're being sent to 10SIMPLE, then TRI likely isn't relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Closed Limelike Curves to be honest, if you boldly tried to replace 10% or one of the original author's set of key points in any essay, and especially an aged one, you'd "probably get reverted". -- Colin°^Talk 08:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)