Ikwipedia:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions

From Ikwipedia
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:


==General style==
==General style==
Despite having slightly different aims,our style guidelines are mostly based off of [[wikipedia::Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Wikipedia's Manual of Style]] and [[wikipedia::Wikipedia:Citing Sources|Wikipedia's guidelines for citing sources]]. Similar to Wikipedia, information from sources that might be contested should be caveated and should include explanations as to how, for example, [[Ikwipedia:Testimonial account|human sources]] learned the information they alleged.
Despite having slightly different aims, our style guidelines are mostly based off of [[wikipedia::Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Wikipedia's Manual of Style]] and [[wikipedia::Wikipedia:Citing Sources|Wikipedia's guidelines for citing sources]]. Similar to Wikipedia, information from sources that might be contested should be caveated and should include explanations as to how, for example, [[Ikwipedia:Testimonial account|human sources]] learned the information they alleged.


==Structure of articles with multiple theories ==
==Structure of articles with multiple theories ==
If competing theories can be reconciled, they should be presented as a single narrative rather than juxtaposed. For example, an article on an event or biography might use a roughly chronological narrative for articles. For every time interval in the narrative, the claims pertaining to that time interval — and the [[Ikwipedia:Acceptable sources|ultimate source]] of each claim, whether [[Ikwipedia:Testimonial accounts|witness testimony]] or other [[Ikwipedia:Evidence|evidence]] — should ideally all be described in the section for that time interval. This is unless competing narratives are so drastically different and lacking in shared elements that it would be substantially more confusing to try to meld the theories into one than to present them separately.
If competing theories can be reconciled, they should be presented as a single narrative rather than juxtaposed. For example, an article on an event or biography might use a roughly chronological narrative for articles. For every time interval in the narrative, the claims pertaining to that time interval — and the [[Ikwipedia:Acceptable sources|ultimate source]] of each claim, whether [[Ikwipedia:Testimonial accounts|witness testimony]] or other [[Ikwipedia:Evidence|evidence]] — should ideally all be described in the section for that time interval. This is unless competing narratives are so drastically different and lacking in shared elements that it would be substantially more confusing to try to meld the theories into one than to present them separately.

Revision as of 17:36, 17 March 2025

Ikwipedia is a research project that aims to compile evidence and explain concepts, events, theories, etc. in a way that is accessible to someone who is unfamiliar with a given subject. Presenting information from all [[Ikwipedia:acceptable sources|] invites readers and editors to critically evaluate the available evidence and theories to gain a thorough understanding about a subject. Articles should attempt to present any alleged and undisputed information and evidence within a single narrative that accounts for all of the information (including information that is not from reliable sources) and is, ideally, supported by published investigators.

General style

Despite having slightly different aims, our style guidelines are mostly based off of Wikipedia's Manual of Style and Wikipedia's guidelines for citing sources. Similar to Wikipedia, information from sources that might be contested should be caveated and should include explanations as to how, for example, human sources learned the information they alleged.

Structure of articles with multiple theories

If competing theories can be reconciled, they should be presented as a single narrative rather than juxtaposed. For example, an article on an event or biography might use a roughly chronological narrative for articles. For every time interval in the narrative, the claims pertaining to that time interval — and the ultimate source of each claim, whether witness testimony or other evidence — should ideally all be described in the section for that time interval. This is unless competing narratives are so drastically different and lacking in shared elements that it would be substantially more confusing to try to meld the theories into one than to present them separately.