So, seriously, who are our readers?

Simple question, right? It seems so obvious that it hardly feels worth asking. Since we are an online encyclopedia, our readers are anyone with internet access, aren't they?

Yes, and no. It is true that we contribute to humanity by helping everyone to share in the sum of all knowledge, implying that our readers are the general public; at the same time, it is dangerous to consider everyone our readers when writing our articles and drafting our policies.

We should pay attention to the reasonable readers, that is, those who agree to our vision and code of conduct, the five pillars, policies and guidelines, and applicable consensuses. We strive for the best satisfaction of the reasonable readers; only then do we attempt to satisfy the general public to the greatest extent without compromising those core principles, and encourage them to join us as readers and editors.

What is our goal? Read it aloud: we're here to build an encyclopedia! Every one of us can recite this from memory. But to define our goal, we still have two pieces missing: What is an encyclopedia, and how should we build the encyclopedia?

It seems like few Wikipedians would pause to ask the above two questions, as we have always been used to doing things in our "Wikipedic" way. But that's exactly how movements run off the rails: when experienced participants, especially those participating in consensus-making processes, stop asking themselves "why" and "how" their actions align with the ultimate goal, it's the time when decisions start to drift away from the goal and fracture the community.

Anchoring our decisions and elaborations deep into our goals is crucial to making the right decision. We shall find the answers to the two core questions in our movement-wide vision and code of conduct, the five pillars, policies and guidelines, other consensus and norms, ordered by importance and precedence. Then, we shall remind ourselves of the above whenever we make a decision, whether it is a major one (like voting for or against a motion in an ArbCom case or even a U4C one) or a minor one (like commenting on whether something should be added to an article), on how to do things in the right way and end up having the right result.

It is obvious that Wikipedia is not a collection of everything on planet Earth (nor on Mars). As addressed above, we have a specific way of doing things that finds its root at our core values and various policies; following our goals sets up a defined scope on which we must focus our attention, often implying that we could not fulfill what's outside the scope.

Consider this analogy: You would not go to a library expecting someone to blast heavy metal music, nor would you go to a restaurant to refuel your car. Both institutions have a clear, defined purpose that conflicts with such requests: a library serves as a quiet reading place, while a restaurant feeds people, not automobiles. Likewise, our readers should not come to Wikipedia expecting unreferenced content and fancruft, as those fall strictly outside our mission.

Unfortunately, not all of our visitors expect the same thing as we do, and in those cases, we must disregard their out-of-scope demands. (If you really want to invite a heavy metal band into the library - you will get banned.) For instance, as an ACG lover, I sincerely understand how detailed character lists are important to fans and often the general public in understanding games, but when it contradicts how an encyclopedia works, we have no choice but to not include them. Likewise, we would like to introduce facts to our readers, though while some other institutions generate primary research, we summarize different verifiable, published points of views in due weight and opt not to rely on the conclusions made by one person or one team.

It is true that strictly following our goals may result in seemingly awkward outcomes. This is natural for any advocacy that seeks changing the world; we as Wikipedians and Wikimedians strive for a free-as-in-freedom, non-biased way of sharing knowledge, and that's not the norm. The general public (and hence, most our traffic) expect information in a way differing from our goals, and some of them unknowingly imposes their bias onto others. Therefore, it might sometimes feel counterintuitive to work strictly towards our goal, for example, when deleting a seemingly feature-rich article that is a soapbox in disguise.

"Our readers won't like it" is not a valid basis for an argument; "our reasonable readers won't like it" is. When giving an opinion based on reader reaction, first evaluate if the concerns raised by them are proper. A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised, and shall not take into account the improper ones.

When we encounter readers or editors making out-of-scope demands, politely decline while explaining our defined scope. If their demand is proper elsewhere, guide them to the correct sites - sometimes, the correct place is one of our sister projects. If they insists on their demand, blocks and bans should be the ways to go.

Wikipedia is far from perfect. Sometimes, a decision is made simply because it "looks good" rather than through sound, contextual reasoning. On the Chinese Wikipedia, my home wiki, some policies are adopted directly from the English Wikipedia without checking styling guidelines in local reliable sources, contradicting the principle of the Manual of Style [zh]. Clinging stubbornly to an obsolete status quo is disruptive; we should instead embrace changes that reflect the ever-changing consensus which, as mentioned before, takes into account the (newly-found) proper concerns.

Yet while sticking to an obsolete status quo is disruptive, it is equally disruptive to impose drastic changes overnight and watch the community erupt into chaos while struggling to adapt. As our values remind us, we must strive for measurable progress towards our goals rather than for perfection so that we can learn from failures. Listen to all feedback, even from those with misplaced expectations, to gauge how quickly changes should be implemented. Keep progress gradual and easy to adapt, but never stop working towards our goal.