The tulpa wiki project differs from most other information projects within the tulpa community, in that it aims to primarily provide as encyclopaedic knowledge about the tulpa phenomenon as possible. In other words, we aim to be the Wikipedia of tulpas. This means that information on non-guide pages needs to live up to certain standards of quality of information, that are outlined on this page.
Because there are so many different viewpoints on tulpas, lots of which are lacking in empirical evidence, extraordinary care needs to be taken to approach subjects neutrally. As such, the most important thing to do prior to editing non-guide pages on this wiki, is to read through and understand at least the summary of the Wikipedia NPOV policy.
Why we aren't on Wikipedia
Due to the colloquial nature of the tulpa phenomenon, we cannot strictly maintain Wikipedia policies such as "Verifiability" and "No original research"; there simply isn't enough verifiable information available to be condensed into a "real" encyclopaedia. Despite this, we strive toward being able to live up to these policies in the future, and a sourced claim is always preferred over an un-sourced one.
The one policy we do strictly maintain, is that all pages posted outside of the Guides category must be edited from a neutral point of view (NPOV). A practical summary can be found in Wikipedia's policy pages:
Sourcing claims, and quality of sources
Lacking source quality is the single biggest problem faced by the tulpa wiki project today, and the reason why original research is allowed. The major sources for information about tulpas are Internet forums, where involved people with varying degrees of experience and knowledge gather and share their personal experiences about the phenomenon.
Needless to say, the notability of such sources varies greatly, and it is the responsibility of the editor to judge whether or not a source is notable. If you are uncertain about whether or not a sourced claim should be presented on a page, the best course of action is to make a discussion on the relevant page's talk page, or contact a wiki administrator.
Allowable source policy is very relaxed on the tulpa wiki project. Allowable sources include (but are not limited to):
- Internet forum posts (Date of access must be specified)
- Screencaps of Internet discussions (IRC, chans, etc.)
- Text dumps (Pastebins, etc.. Date of access must be specified)
- Audio recordings
- Video recordings
Notability of sources
If a source is going to be posted, it's good if the source has a serious look to it; quoting a post that looks as if it was written by a child might decrease an article's apparent credibility rather than increase it. If the statements of the source are notable, they should be easy to find reiterated in a more credible manner. The meaning of notability is subjective, but some examples of what to think about when judging the notability of a forum post are:
- Did the post receive criticism?
- Can the statements of the post be found elsewhere? (Should those sources also be included? (Most likely, the answer is yes!))
- Is the post's author credible? Does the author appear to have knowledge or experience in their field?
- Did it spawn a debate? If so, did the author revoke his claim?
- Have other posters posted similar things; does the post appear to concur with community census?
These are only a few things to keep in mind while sourcing text, and there is no rule of thumb for choosing sources. The final decision of whether or not a source is notable, is up to the editor - and ultimately up to the entire wiki userbase - to decide.
In the strictest sense, a vast majority of the material on this wiki is improperly sourced, original research, in essence making this wiki a primary source for lots of material. This is acceptable and encouraged in order to saturate the site with material that might be hard to source credibly, but only if material can't, or hasn't yet been sourced.
At the time of writing these guidelines, this wiki is still in its cradle, containing lots of unsourced claims, half-finished pages and original research. Even if a considerable amount of material available is unsourced, it does not mean that editors shouldn't strive toward sourcing their claims. If you're considering editing a page by adding unsourced information, or editing pre-existing, unsourced information, consider making a discussion on the article's talk page, or notifying staff before editing. An article consisting entirely of original research runs a high risk of appearing as an opinion piece (i.e, not providing a neutral point of view), and is likely to be either flagged or deleted until such time that the author can provide a neutral article, or source their claims.
- Main article: Guide posting guidelines
Guides are opinion pieces, portraying only the views of their author. While higher quality writing is always preferable, they are except from the general editing guidelines, and only have to follow the guide posting guidelines.
If you are unfamiliar with the Wikia editor, instructions can be found on Community Central. It is recommended that you create a user account on Wikia, in order to keep better track of your edits.
When editing encyclopaedic pages, emphasis should be put on clear, unbiased and official language; not only should a spell checker always be used, but care should be taken to construct proper sentences, paragraphs and headings. If you're unfamiliar with writing officially, consider familiarising yourself with the Wikipedia Manual of Style (it's not as intimidating as it looks). Just skimming through the list of words to watch, and editing accordingly, can greatly improve the quality of a page.
When making edits, be sure to always include an edit summary - even with minor edits. This will make managing of a page's history much easier, and help prevent vandalism.
Direct any questions or critiques, to your unforgiving and merciless (but sometimes reasonable) dictator, User:FF_CCSa1F!