Wikipedia:Terms of art on Wikipedia
 | 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. |
A term of art is a word that is used in a specific context or by a specific group, especially when the meaning is different from a general, more widely known meaning of the same word.
- In general use, a cookie is a type of snack, but on the Internet it has a different meaning. Most people today probably know about both definitions, but back when the Internet was just getting started, the second meaning was much more obscure: it was a term of art. A software developer, speaking to a layperson, would have to explain that they weren't talking about baking.
- The general meaning of "guardian" is a watcher or protector, but a guardian in law has a comprehensive definition which even varies in the specifics from country to country (law has a lot of terms of art, since everything needs to be defined precisely). Likewise, "force" in general use is different from a force in physics, "theory" in general use is different from a theory in science, and so on.
This is a common phenomenon in many academic and technical contexts, Wikipedia included. Many of the things we do are unique, but we need words to refer to them, so some level of jargon is inevitable. However, if a chosen word also has a more common definition, there will be a conflict. This causes problems when newcomers to Wikipedia find that words like "neutral" and "notable" are used in unfamiliar ways. It can be confusing, frustrating, or even both: people find out they weren't following the rules when they thought they were, or something that seemed clear turns out to be a byzantine labyrinth of complex terminology. Meanwhile, editors who are trying to help have to repeatedly address the same misunderstandings, spending time and energy, making the process unproductive for all involved.
The following table contains some of the most prominent examples. Note that the definitions are one-sentence approximations, and necessarily leave out a lot of detail. Furthermore, the definitions themselves contain terms with specific definitions. The full explanations can be found at the relevant pages.
| Term | Definitions |
|---|---|
| Neutral |
|
| Notable |
|
| Reliable |
|
| Consensus |
|
| Fringe |
|
The list is not exhaustive. It isn’t limited to the major policies and guidelines either, with more specialized examples including bold, protected, deprecated, biomedical, etc. There are also different terminology-related issues, like the proliferation of acronyms, that are not addressed here.
Why did this happen? Each time we needed a name for a specific concept, we picked the best word we could think of at the time. Over time, the meaning then gained additions, qualifications, nuances, and exceptions until it became the term we have today. Terms are often defined exhaustively: to try and cover every angle, to account for unforeseen circumstances, to stop people from endlessly arguing over the meaning, and so on. And when a new situation comes up, sometimes a change will be made to account for it, and the term gains yet another bit of complexity that isn't present in the widely understood meaning of the word.
Can the name be changed? In all likelihood, there just isn't any other option that editors can agree on. We would like the names to be descriptive, so we don't want to make up words, but most options would have the same issues to a greater or lesser degree. In addition, changing a name comes with its own costs: everyone already uses the current name, a lot of pages that use the name will have to be updated, and then there will be people who are confused by the name change itself. There have been dozens of proposals for name changes on these pages over the years, and none of them have been able to succeed. The history can be found in the archives of the relevant talk page. Of course, if you still think you have a better alternative, you are always welcome to ask for opinions on the relevant talk page.