Wikipedia:Vague introductions

Technopedia Center

Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science
S1 Informatics S1 Information Systems S1 Information Technology S1 Computer Engineering S1 Electrical Engineering S1 Civil Engineering

faculty of Economics and Business
S1 Management S1 Accountancy

Faculty of Letters and Educational Sciences
S1 English literature S1 English language education S1 Mathematics education S1 Sports Education

Wikipedia:Vague introductions - Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Wikipedia:NONCE)

This is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcuts

This page in a nutshell: Explain the subject of the article concisely in the lead. The lead should summarize the contents of the article.

The mist obscuring this picture makes a pretty image, but Wikipedia introductions should not resemble this photo.

A vague introduction is an article lead (WP:LEAD) that begins with non-definitive or otherwise equivocal language, such that only reveals and discusses a concept's ambiguities or peculiarities, rather than its actual substance.

Examples of the wording in such introductions often resemble the form:

"There is no clear definition of [subject]..."
"There is no one agreed upon definition of [subject]."
"Experts do not all agree upon a definition of [subject]..."
"[Subject] has many definitions"

Philosophy articles are particularly susceptible to such vague language for several reasons:

Editors in philosophical subjects may be too polarized to find an agreeable definition
The concepts are typically designed to be abstract and therefore are too often misunderstood to begin with.
Editors in philosophical subjects seek to preserve or amplify known ambiguities rather than attempt to resolve them

The solution may require having separate leads for each major meaning assigned to the topic, rather than using a Cuisinart and blending all the concepts into one paragraph. The most dominant meaning should be given the first paragraph, but no significant usage should be completely omitted from the new lead.

(Almost) content-free leads

A variant of the "vague lead" is a lead in which editors have removed all examples from the lead, so that the lead describes the topic in such a generalized way that the reader gains little information about the topic and gets no information about the most important thinkers, bands, or organizations that are associated with the topic. Sometimes this is done to avoid edit wars and accusations of giving "undue weight" to specific thinkers or organizations associated with the topic.

In this first example below, which is a "vague lead" or an almost "content-free lead", the editors of the article on the "Foo subculture", a fictional punk subculture, have avoided giving any specific information about the "Foo subculture". While this does ensure that the lead does not give undue weight to any examples, it also fails to help the reader get a good understanding of the Foo subculture–what do the members look like? What are their political views? What are the leading bands in the Foo subculture?):

N Foo subculture is a subculture that is part of the hardcore punk subculture. Individuals in the Foo subculture dress with distinctive styles of clothing, hair and adornment. The Foo subculture is associated with various political alignments. The Foo subculture has a unique philosophy. There are a number of bands that are associated with the Foo subculture. Foo subculture members have differing views on recreational drug use.

This version below is arguably better, because it gives the reader more specific information about how Foo subculture members dress, the bands they listen to, their political views, philosophies and views on drug use (all references are fictional, for the sake of giving an example):

Y Foo subculture is a youth subculture in North America and parts of Europe that is part of the hardcore punk subculture. The Foo subculture emerged in the early 1980s. Individuals in the Foo subculture dress with distinctive styles of clothing and hair and adornment, which often include brightly colored hair, mohawks and, especially since the 1990s, very closely cropped hair; ripped jeans, combat pants or cargo shorts; PVC boots or canvas sneakers and faux leather jackets. Members of the Foo subculture generally avoid wearing leather boots, belts or jackets, because animal rights is a view that has been associated with the subculture since the 1980s^[1]. Foo subculture members have various political alignments, with most members adhering to pacifism or anarchism; protesting and demonstrating about these causes is an important activity for members of the scene.^[2] The Foo subculture is based around the philosophy of authenticity; members of the Foo scene who are deemed not to understand the scene's philosophies of pacifism and animal rights may be labelled as poseurs (fakes). There are a number of bands that are associated with the Foo subculture, with the most important bands being Discharge and Crass^[3]. Foo subculture members have divergent views on recreational drug use; most Foo scene members believe in straight edge living–avoiding the use of alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs; a minority, called "Hard Foos" avoid most drugs but believe that marijuana is a spiritual substance that enhances consciousness.^[4]

Philosophy	Article content Articles must be written All Five Pillars are equally important Avoid vague introductions Be a reliable source Civil POV pushing Cohesion Competence is required Concede lost arguments Dissent is not disloyalty Don't lie Don't search for objections Editing Wikipedia is like visiting a foreign country Editors will sometimes be wrong Eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia Explanationism External criticism of Wikipedia Here to build an encyclopedia Leave it to the experienced Levels of competence Levels of consensus Most ideas are bad Need Neutrality of sources Not broken is ugly Not editing because of Wikipedia restriction The one question Oversimplification Paradoxes Paraphrasing POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields Process is important Product, process, policy Purpose Reasonability rule Systemic bias There is no seniority Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia Tendentious editing The role of policies in collaborative anarchy The rules are principles Trifecta We are absolutely here to right great wrongs Wikipedia in brief Wikipedia is an encyclopedia Wikipedia is a community Wikipedia is not RationalWiki
Article construction	100K featured articles Abandoned stubs Acronym overkill Adding images improves the encyclopedia Advanced article editing Advanced text formatting Akin's Laws of Article Writing Alternatives to the "Expand" template Amnesia test A navbox on every page An unfinished house is a real problem Articles have a half-life Autosizing images Avoid mission statements Be neutral in form Beef up that first revision Blind men and an elephant BOLD, revert, discuss cycle Build content to endure Cherrypicking Chesterton's fence Children's lit, adult new readers, & large-print books Citation overkill Citation underkill Common-style fallacy Concept cloud Creating controversial content Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability Deprecated sources Dictionaries as sources Don't demolish the house while it's still being built Don't get hung up on minor details Don't hope the house will build itself Don't panic Don't "teach the controversy" Editing on mobile devices Editors are not mindreaders Encourage the newcomers Endorsements (commercial) Featured articles may have problems Formatting bilateral relations articles Formatting bilateral relations templates Fruit of the poisonous tree Give an article a chance How to write a featured article Identifying and using independent sources History sources Law sources Primary sources Science sources Style guides Tertiary sources Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats Inaccuracy Introduction to structurism Mine a source Merge Test Minors and persons judged incompetent "Murder of" articles Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography Not everything needs a navbox Not everything needs a template Nothing is in stone Obtain peer review comments Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area Permastub Potential, not just current state Presentism Principle of Some Astonishment The problem with elegant variation Pro and con lists Printability Pruning article revisions Publicists Put a little effort into it Restoring part of a reverted edit Robotic editing Sham consensus Source your plot summaries Specialized-style fallacy Stub Makers Run an edit-a-thon Temporary versions of articles Tertiary-source fallacy There are no shortcuts to neutrality There is no deadline There is a deadline The deadline is now Try not to leave it a stub What is a reliable source Understanding Wikipedia's content standards Walled garden What an article should not include Wikipedia is a work in progress Wikipedia is not a reliable source Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion The world will not end tomorrow Write the article first Writing better articles
Writing article content	Avoid thread mode Copyediting reception sections Coup Don't throw more litter onto the pile Gender-neutral language Myth vs fiction Proseline Use our own words We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions Write the article first Writing about women Writing better articles
Removing or deleting content	Adjectives in your recommendations AfD is not a war zone Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions Arguments to make in deletion discussions Avoid repeated arguments Before commenting in a deletion discussion But there must be sources! Confusing arguments mean nothing Content removal Counting and sorting are not original research Delete or merge Delete the junk Deletion is not cleanup Does deletion help? Don't attack the nominator Don't confuse stub status with non-notability Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument Emptying categories out of process Follow the leader How the presumption of notability works How to save an article proposed for deletion I just don't like it Identifying blatant advertising Identifying test edits Immunity Keep it concise Liar liar pants on fire Nothing Nothing is clear Overzealous deletion Relisting can be abusive Relist bias The Heymann Standard Unopposed AFD discussion Wikipedia is not Whack-A-Mole Why was the page I created deleted? What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork No Encyclopedic Use

Essays on civility

The basics	Accepting other users Apology Contributing to complicated discussions Divisiveness Don't retaliate Editors' pronouns Edit at your own pace Encouraging the newcomers Enjoy yourself Expect no thanks High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors How to be civil Maintaining a friendly space Negotiation Obsessive–compulsive disorder editors Please say please Relationships with academic editors Thank you Too long; didn't read Truce Unblock perspectives We are all Wikipedians here You have a right to remain silent
Philosophy	A thank you never hurts A weak personal attack is still wrong Advice for hotheads An uncivil environment is a poor environment Be the glue Beware of the tigers! Civility warnings Deletion as revenge Failure Forgive and forget It's not the end of the world Nobody cares Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals Old-fashioned Wikipedian values Profanity, civility, and discussions Revert notification opt-out Shadowless Fists of Death! Staying cool when the editing gets hot The grey zone The last word There is no Divine Right of Editors Most ideas are bad Nothing is clear Reader The rules of polite discourse There is no common sense Two wrongs don't make a right Wikipedia clichés Wikipedia is not about winning Wikipedia should not be a monopoly Writing for the opponent
Dos	Assume good faith Assume the assumption of good faith Assume no clue Avoid personal remarks Avoid the word "vandal" Be excellent to one another Be pragmatic Beyond civility Call a spade a spade Candor Deny recognition Desist Discussing cruft Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Encourage full discussions Get over it How to lose Imagine others complexly Just drop it Keep it concise Keep it down to earth Mind your own business Say "MOBY" Mutual withdrawal Read before commenting Settle the process first
Don'ts	ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI Wikipedia:Because I can Civil POV pushing Cyberbullying Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack Don't be a fanatic Don't be a jerk Don't be an ostrich Don't be ashamed Don't be a WikiBigot Don't be high-maintenance Don't be inconsiderate Don't be obnoxious Don't be prejudiced Don't be rude Don't be the Fun Police Don't bludgeon the process Don't call a spade a spade Don't call people by their real name Don't call the kettle black Don't call things cruft Don't come down like a ton of bricks Don't cry COI Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid Don't eat the troll's food Don't fight fire with fire Don't give a fuck Don't help too much Don't ignore community consensus Don't knit beside the guillotine Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your signature Don't remind others of past misdeeds Don't shout Don't spite your face Don't take the bait Don't template the regulars Don't throw your toys out of the pram Do not insult the vandals Griefing Hate is disruptive Nationalist editing No angry mastodons just madmen No Nazis No racists No Confederates No queerphobia No, you can't have a pony Passive aggression POV railroad Superhatting There are no oracles There's no need to guess someone's preferred pronouns You can't squeeze blood from a turnip UPPERCASE
WikiRelations	WikiBullying WikiCrime WikiHarassment WikiHate WikiLawyering WikiLove WikiPeace

Essays on notability

Humorous essays

About essays

About essays	Essay guide Value of essays Difference between policies, guidelines and essays Don't cite essays as if they were policy Avoid writing redundant essays Finding an essay Quote your own essay
Policies and guidelines	About policies and guidelines Policies Guidelines How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance Policy writing is hard

References

^ Jones, Xshosa. Animal rights and the Foo subculture. Acme Publishing, 2014
^ Smith, Sue. Political views of the Foo subculture. Acme Publishing, 2015.
^ Clarke, Janice. Top bands of the Foo subculture. Acme Publishing, 1989.
^ Jones, Malika. Foos and drug use: a history, 1980-2000. Acme College Press, 2004

Categories:

(Almost) content-free leads

See also

References