User:Esquivalience/Introduction to Wikipedia policies and guidelines
The goal of Wikipedia is to provide an accurate, comprehensive, and high-quality encyclopedia for free. In order to reach that goal faster, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone.
However, there needs to be a set of policies and guidelines in order to maintain the quality of Wikipedia content. To start off, Wikipedia operates on five principles, and you should have a firm knowledge of those principles before editing.
Note that Wikipedia has no firm rules. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia, and you are sure your edit improves or helps maintain the encyclopedia, ignore it!
| If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. |
Principles
Be bold
Be bold. That means that you should go for it when editing Wikipedia. Don't hesitate to make an edit, if you see anything that can be improved in an article, by all means, improve it.
But be careful; don't be reckless or disruptive in editing. If you are going to make a significant change to an article on a controversial subject, it's best to gain consensus on the article's talk page before performing the edit.
Ignore all rules
By all means break the rules, and break them beautifully, deliberately and well. That is one of the ends for which they exist.
If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. If, while editing, you notice that your edit breaks the the rule, but you're sure that the edit is one that improves or maintains the encyclopedia, you should ignore it. Basically, the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule.
When questioned, you should be able to explain why your (normally) rule-breaking edit improves or maintains Wikipedia when questioned. If a rule-breaking edit that you believe improves or maintains the encyclopedia may be contentious, it's best to gain consensus before performing the edit.
Ignore all rules diagram
Content
Wikipedia's goal is to provide an accurate, comprehensive, and high-quality encyclopedia for free, however, how do we keep it that way? The content policies were created to keep articles high-quality.
Neutral point of view
All content must be written from a neutral point of view. That basically means that you should not take a side in editing; instead you should explain the sides without bias. Articles should fairly, proportionately, and without bias, explain all of the significant views as published by reliable sources.
The neutral point of view policy not only requires a neutral viewpoint, it also requires discriminate inclusion and description of viewpoints. Articles should not provide undue weight to viewpoints. Minor viewpoints should not be given a more through explanation or advantageous placement as a majority or significant viewpoint, and usually should not be included at all. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
A rule of thumb about viewpoint inclusion is below.
- If a viewpoint is held by the majority, or a highly significant minority, it should be substaniated with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
- If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, name and cite prominent adherents.
- Viewpoints held by minorities should generally not be included at all.
This policy is to help prevent articles from favouring a specific viewpoint, which may cause contributors to put undue weight on one viewpoint, or to lower the quality of articles. This also prevents promotional content and propaganda from appearing in articles.
Verifiability
Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. However, couldn't bad-faith contributors add false information and get away with it?
Because Wikipedia is vulnerable to the addition of false information, all content whose accuracy or verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable source. This is so readers can verify the accuracy of the content and see if the content comes from a reliable source.
What makes a source reliable?
There are three related meanings of a "source" on Wikipedia:
- The actual work itself (e.g. New York Times article, Oxford English Dictionary).
- The author/creator of the work (e.g. Dean Baquet, John Simpson).
- The publisher of a work (e.g. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., Oxford University Press).
Any of the three can affect a source's reliability. For example, if the work is published by a reputable publisher, with a history of reliability, then the actual work is most likely reliable.
Articles should be based on reliable and published sources independent of the subject. Works that are self-published are not considered reliable, and self-published sources supporting article content should be replaced with a published and reliable source.
Peer-reviewed and academic publications are usually the most reliable sources (and should be used if available), however reliable, non-academic sources can also be used.
What is usually not considered reliable
Most published sources available are usually considered reliable. However, not all published sources are reliable. The following types of sources are usually not considered reliable:
- Tabloid journalism, such as the Daily Mail and The Sun. Tabloid publications usually do not have sufficient fact-checking or heavily lean articles towards one viewpoint.
- Blogs, with the exception of blogs published in reliable news sources. Blogs are self-published sources, which mean that anyone can publish a blog, without any fact-checking or proofreading process.
- News blogs (blogs published in reliable news sources such as the New York Times) are an usual exception. However, note that articles in news blogs may not go through the publisher's usual fact-checking process, or even not at all.
- Self-published or user generated sources, such as e-mails or Internet forum postings, which anyone can publish, are almost always not considered reliable.
Sources written by the subject
Any source written by the subject (whether a person, individual animal, corporation, or organization) may be considered reliable despite being self-published, providing that the source:
- is not unduly self-serving, i.e. unduly covering only ones own interests.
- does not involve claims about third-parties.
- does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
- there is no reasonable doubt that the source is written by the subject.
- the article does not primarily rely on such sources.
No original research
Wikipedia is a project to compile the sum of all human knowledge. However, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. Original research, in Wikipedia, is any previously unpublished argument, concept, data, or theory; or any new analysis or synthesis of existing research. Basically, articles may not contain any arguments, concepts, data, or theories that haven't been made before in a reliable source.
Biographies of living persons
Caution must be used when editing or writing an article on a living person. Biographies of living persons (often abbreviated to BLPs) are highly sensitive, and reckless editing or writing of such articles may harm the subject's reputation or even be considered libelous.
Tone
BLPs must be written cautiously, responsibly, and with regards to the neutral point of view policy. BLPs should cover anything published in reliable sources, including sources written by the subject in some cases.
Balance
BLPs should maintain a good balance of praise and criticism by reliable sources. Editors must pay special attention to the NPOV policy in BLPs.
Conduct
Wikipedia is edited by a large number of people. In order for Wikipedia to work, editors must get along and co-operate with each other.
Civility
Be civil when communicating with other editors. Be respectful and considerate, and don't be too blunt. Respect the opinions and arguments of others. And most importantly, stay calm.
This is important because incivility can deter editors, especially new ones, from the site. It can also lead to disputes that harm the encyclopedia, which usually include edit warring.
Edit warring
Edit warring is prohibited. Edit warring happens when two or more editors constantly revert each other on one article or even multiple articles, which leads to instability and incivility.
Edit warring usually starts after a dispute on an article between two or more editors. The editors can either civility discuss on the article's talk page, or just revert each other, which leads to edit warring.
Because edit warring is harmful (as it prompts incivility, it causes the atmosphere of the article to become a race, and it makes the article a battleground), all editors are limited to three reverts per article in a 24-hour period (three-revert rule). This rule does not apply to reversion of vandalism or yourself. Editors that violate the three-revert rule may be warned or temporarily blocked for edit warring. Editors may even be limited to one revert per article in a 24 hour period or even none for constant edit warring!
Editors may also be sanctioned even if they don't exceed three reverts per article in 24 hours, if there is clearly an edit war despite not exceeding three reverts.
Basically, if you have an editing dispute with an editor, discuss it on the talk page and try to come up with a solution.
No personal attacks
Do not make personal attacks on Wikipedia. Basically, do not insult or disparage another editor. To prevent your arguments from being perceived as a personal attack, comment on the content, not the contributor. Being slightly blunt when appropriate does not constitute a personal attack, however insults and derogatory remarks about another editor constitute a personal attack.
Personal attacks are harmful because they are damaging to the goal of building an encyclopedia. They slow down the progression of the encyclopedia (Wikipedia is built by reasoned debate), they discourage editors from contributing, and they are contrary to our goal of building an encyclopedia.
Harassment
Do not harass another editor. Harassment is any pattern of continuous offensive or uncivil behaviour that intentionally targets another editor or group of editors.
The most common forms of harassment on Wikipedia include threats of legal action, revealing another editor(s)'s personally identifiable information without the targeted editor(s) explicitly and voluntarily sharing it on Wikipedia, and intentionally singling out another editor(s) by repeatedly confronting the targeted editor(s)'s work with an intent to irritate the targeted editors.
This policy is in line with the civility and no personal attacks policies; basically, be civil and don't personally attack someone, and especially don't target a specific editor with incivility.
Vandalism
Vandalism is prohibited on Wikipedia. Vandalism is defined as any intentional, willful, and deliberate attempt to compromise the accuracy or integrity of Wikipedia. The most common form of vandalism is the addition of silly or humourous content to the encyclopedia, and "blanking" (i.e. removing parts of or all of an article's content without reason).
There is little tolerance for vandalism of any kind. Administrators can and will block for vandalism, even on the first instance of vandalism if serious.
If you see an instance of vandalism, revert it, and warn the vandal. While there is little tolerance for vandalism, editors are encouraged to warn vandals about their edits and encourage them to make constructive edits to help the encyclopedia. Use a warning template to warn vandals.
Assume good faith
There are some people who are on Wikipedia just to vandalize it. But the majority of editors are genuinely here to help. Thus, assume good faith towards other editors. Unless there is evidence that a particular editor is here to vandalize, assume that an editor is here to help.
If an editor makes a mistake or edits in contravention in Wikipedia policy, that editor is most likely not trying to harm the encyclopedia. If you see such a mistake, civilly and politely inform the editor without being blunt.
If you accuse an editor for editing in bad faith, you must provide links to the editor's edits or conduct, else, it will likely be dismissed as not assuming good faith, and sometimes taken as a personal attack.
Conflict of interest
It is harder for any editor to edit an article whose subject they are closely connected with (conflict of interest) neutrally. Thus, you should avoid editing articles about subjects that you have a conflict of interest with. You can define a conflict of interest as:
- When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.
Editing with a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged. While minor grammatical fixes to articles whose subject you are closely connected with are acceptable, substantial edits to such articles should be discussed on the article's talk page. Conflict of interest editing can lead to an article being biased and unverifiable.
If you want to substantially edit an article whose subject you are closely connected with, be very careful. Make sure that you do not add promotional or biased content to the article(s) you are editing with a conflict of interest. When in doubt, discuss possibly biased or promotional content on the talk page of the article.
Paid editing and paid advocacy
If you are paid (with anything of monetary or intrinsic value) to edit an article on Wikipedia, under Wikimedia terms of use, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation with:Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
- a statement on your user page,
- a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
- a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.
Paid editing, while not prohibited, is strongly discouraged, as it may lead to non-neutral articles on the subject. Paid editors are encouraged to discuss all edits on the talk page of the article that he/she is paid to edit.
Sockpuppetry
Sockpuppetry is prohibited. Sockpuppetry is the abuse of multiple (alternate) accounts. If an editor uses alternate accounts to:
- sway consensus by giving an impression of more support for a position than actually exists
- avoid scrutiny by splitting your contribution history
- circumvent policies and guidelines (such as the three-revert rule)
- edit in a manner that gives an impression that the accounts are not related
- mislead otherwise
then he/she has just abused alternate accounts.
However, alternate accounts may be used if they are not used misleadingly, such as using one for public computers.
There is also a user right called CheckUser that allows an user to see alternate accounts of an editor using his/her IP address.
If you suspect that an editor is abusively using alternate accounts:
- In minor and obvious (where the editor has disclosed the accounts) cases, it is best to assume good faith and politely inform the editor.
- In more severe or unclear cases, report it to sockpuppet investigations immediately, or use this form (you must provide evidence):
How to open an investigation:
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
To open an investigation (or case), enter the user name of the oldest account (the "sockmaster"), or the previous case name, in the box below, then click "Submit". Note: Do not include "User:" or any other commentary. For example, if the case name is about User:John Doe or a prior case was at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Doe, then you should input John Doe in the box below. You will then be taken to another page containing a form which you must complete in order to open the investigation. The process for opening an investigation is the same for re-opening an old case (that is to say, if a case under that name already exists) as for creating a new case. Again, do not include "User:" in any of the sock or ip fields. If you also require a CheckUser to investigate, change |checkuser=no to |checkuser=yes in the edit box on the next page.
|
Deletion
While Wikipedia is a project to compile the sum of human knowledge, some articles or topics are not appropriate for Wikipedia.
Deletion policy
Wikipedia articles may be deleted for a multitude of reasons. The most common reasons for deletion are:
- The subject is not notable. A subject is generally notable if the subject has received significant, non-trivial coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject.
- The article or topic is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If the article or topic does not belong in an encyclopedia, it does not belong on Wikipedia. The What Wikipedia is not policy is useful for determining if an article is suitable or not in an encyclopedia.
- The article is very harmful in its current state, and there is no/very little encyclopedic content. For example, if the article contains advertising and spam (can be deleted immediately by any administrator), libel or unsourced, contentious content against biographies of living people, or vandalism (only applies to when there is no good revision of the article to revert to), and the article has no/very little actual encyclopedic content, it should be deleted. Harmful content does not include violations of Wikipedia content policies, as such violations are not very harmful and they can easily be fixed by bold edits.
There are other reasons for deletion, see here for other reasons.
Note that improvement or deletion of offending sections are almost always preferable to deleting an entire page. Deleting so that articles can be fixed is counterintuitive, because it prevents other editors from actually editing the article to fix it.
Notability
Notability on Wikipedia is usually shown by meeting the general notability guideline. The general notability guidelines requires significant, non-trivial coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Significant coverage is coverage that covers the subject in detail, so no original research is required to extract the content of the subject.
Note that subjects may also be notable if they meet the specific notability guideline for their topic (see the right box for links to the specific guidelines), even if the subject does not meet the general notability guideline. It is recommended that you assess a subject's notability based on the topic-specific notability guideline as it lists additional criteria and extends on the general guideline.
However, the general guideline usually takes precedence over the specific criteria; even if the subject does not meet the criteria for the notability guideline for the subject's topic, it is still suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia if it meets the general guideline, with some exceptions:
- Organization and corporation articles are required to have sources that target a wide-enough audience, that is, sources that target a regional or wider auidence. If an article on an company or organization only has coverage from local sources (cities and small regions), then it is probably not notable.
Note that a subject meeting the notability guideline is not a guarantee that an article is suitable for inclusion. If the article otherwise violates, for example, What Wikipedia is not, and it cannot be improved through editing (for example, the article is an indiscriminate list of information), then it is not suitable even if notable.
Articles for deletion
If a editor believes that an article is not appropriate for inclusion, he/she can nominate it for deletion at articles for deletion (commonly abbreviated to AfD), and give a reason on why the article should be deleted. In AfD, participants will discuss if the article is suitable for inclusion for 7 days and the action that will be taken on the article, and try to come up with a consensus. AfD discussions typically last for 7 days, although they may be relisted (discussed for another 7 days) if a consensus has not yet developed, or closed early if an overwhelming consensus develops.
In AfD discussions, participants propose an action to take with the article, and give the reason to take such action. Actions include:
- keeping the article.
- deleting the article.
- merging the article (combining the information in the article into another article).
- redirecting the article to another article.
- stubifying the article, if the article egregiously violates our content policies.
To nominate an article for AfD, follow the instructions here, or use this form:
If you do it the above way, remember to add {{subst:AFD|subpage name}} at the top of the article, as well as list the nomination at the top of the current AFD log page.
Autoconfirmed and confirmed users can also nominate articles for deletion with Twinkle. See here for instructions on how to nominate articles for deletion with Twinkle.
Proposed deletion
If an editor believes that an article should be deleted, and he/she believes that the deletion will be uncontroversial, then that editor can propose the article for deletion using the proposed deletion process (commonly abbreviated to PROD). The main difference between PROD and AfD is that PROD can only be used for uncontroversial deletions where no opposition will be expected.
Any editor in good-standing, even the article creator, can object to your proposed deletion. If there is opposition by one editor, then you will have to nominate the article at articles for deletion, and the article cannot be proposed for deletion again. Additionally, articles deleted under PROD may be reinstated under Requests for undeletion (a venue for requesting uncontroversial undeletions); in that case, it will also have to be nominated at AfD.
To propose an article for deletion, place {{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}} on an article's talk page, or use Twinkle if you are autoconfirmed or confirmed.
Speedy deletion
Articles may be deleted immediately upon the discretion of an administrator, without any discussion, if it meets the criteria for speedy deletion. There are many criteria for speedy deletion, they are listed here.
References
- ^ Bringhurst, Robert (2005). The Elements of Typographic Style (3.1 ed.). Hartley & Marks. p. 10. ISBN 0-88179-206-3.