Tardis:We're Wikipedia's evil twin

Point of view In-universe perspective → Out-of-universe perspective → Neutral point of view → We're Wikipedia's evil twin

Just like the bearded Spock, we're an evil twin — but our opposite number is the Doctor Who project at Wikipedia. We have radically different goals and constraints than our "older brother".

Shortcut:

T:EVIL TWIN

The Wikipedia Doctor Who project is probably the oldest Doctor Who wiki presence on the web. Many of our original users are members of that project. You yourself may have come to our wiki because of a link at Wikipedia. But it's important to note that we are the polar opposite of that project in many important ways. Here are some of the more important ways in which we differ.

Them		Us
They're just a small part of a much larger encyclopaedia. Consequently, they have to write to an audience that may never have heard of Doctor Who. They often start articles out by explaining basic concepts, like "Liz Shaw is a character in the British science fiction television programme, Doctor Who."		We're an encyclopaedia entirely focused on the DWU. we assume, therefore, that if you've made it here, you know that Doctor Who is a British television programme, as well as some other very basic details.
At least historically, WP:WHO have given television stories pride of place in their project. Stories in other genres have, in the past, borne disclaimers that their "canonicity is in dispute".		Our position is that there is no canon, and therefore all stories, with a few exceptions noted at T:VS, are of equal weight, regardless of medium.
The Wikipedia group is bound by Wikipedia's notability guidelines, meaning that their subjects must meet a minimum standard of notability. As a result, many minor-to-medium-importance characters and objects are not covered at Wikipedia.		Generally, we believe that any noun mentioned in a narrative we cover is fair game for an article here. Thus, we have many articles which are about genuine Doctor Who minutiae. Since our inception, we've consistently proclaimed that no subject is "too small" for an article. That being said, note that subjects that go against common-sense decency are not fair game. For example, real-world slurs such as the N-word should most definitely not get a page, nor be quoted uncensored on the Wiki — even if they're mentioned verbatim in a DWU source. Neither should there be pages existing to intentionally sexualise actors, actresses, or the characters they play.
An in-universe perspective is completely forbidden. Hence, wikipedia:Eleventh Doctor speaks of its subject like a fictional character, and is therefore free to use the present tense with greater frequency.		An in-universe perspective is required. Eleventh Doctor treats the subject like a real person who actually existed, so our article is written entirely in the past tense.
Present tense is generally preferred in leads, a mixture of tenses is allowed in article bodies. Hence, you'll encounter phrases like, "'42' is the seventh episode of the third series of British science fiction television series Doctor Who.		Past tense is absolutely required throughout in-universe articles and preferred on real world articles. We would typically start our story articles with something like "42 was the seventh episode of the third series of Doctor Who."
All articles written from an out-of-universe perspective. The article wikipedia:Sarah Jane Smith is written from the same perspective as wikipedia:Elisabeth Sladen.		We have dual perspectives. Articles about narrative elements are written from an in-universe perspective, while articles about behind-the scenes elements are written like Wikipedia articles. There's a significant tonal difference between Sarah Jane Smith and Elisabeth Sladen on this wiki.
Because they're trying to follow rules against original research they use reference books as valid sources. Many Wikipedians consider it to be original research, and therefore "bad", to simply report on the contents of an episode, as this may involve an unacceptable level of interpretation. So they'll actively prefer getting the opinions of, say, Gary Russell in Doctor Who: The Encyclopedia to that of a Wikipedian watching the show.		For us, the narrative is the primary source for in-universe articles, and reference books are entirely invalid, except in "behind the scenes" sections. We believe we're capable of factually reporting the contents of stories, and that we don't need someone like Gary Russell telling us what we saw.
Uses standard italicisation rules. This means that they italicise the names of serials but put in quotation marks the names of episodes. So it's The Face of Evil, but "Silence in the Library".		We use a simpler approach of italicising everything except for Hartnell episodes. So it's The Face of Evil, but Silence in the Library.