Wikipedia:Editing policy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that should normally be followed by all editors. Any edit to it should reflect consensus. Consider discussing potential changes on the talk page first. |
 |
This page in a nutshell: Improve pages wherever you can, and do not worry about leaving them imperfect. |
| Wikipedia policy |
|---|
| Behavioral standards |
| Bots Civility Editing policy No legal threats No personal attacks Ownership of articles Sock puppetry Three-revert rule User accounts Vandalism |
Wikipedia is the product of thousands of editors' contributions. Each has brought something different to the table: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess, tidbits of information, or, most importantly, a willingness to help. Even the best article should not be considered complete; each new editor offers new insights about how to further enhance our content.
Contents |
[edit] Dealing with problems
[edit] Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required
Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. It is wonderful when someone adds a comprehensive, well-researched, and well-written article to Wikipedia. However, one of the great advantages of wikis is that incomplete or poorly written first drafts of articles can, over time, evolve into masterpieces through collaborative editing. Wikipedia is a reference work, but it is also perpetually a work in progress. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcomed. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.
[edit] Try to fix problems: preserve information
Preserve information: fix problems if you can, flag them if you can't. Try to preserve information. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing tagged if necessary, or cleaned up on the spot. If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do it, but preserve content you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Do not remove information just because it is poorly presented. The editing process tends to guide articles through ever-higher levels of quality over time. Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors building upon each others' efforts, much as Newton "stood on the shoulders of giants."
Instead of removing text, consider:
- rephrasing
- correcting the inaccuracy while keeping the content
- moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new)
- adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced
- requesting a citation by adding the {{fact}} tag
- adding appropriate cleanup tags to problematic sections
[edit] Handling problematic material
Though many problems can be fixed without removal, in certain cases you may remove problematic material, at least temporarily. For example, material that contradicts our content policies of verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view may be removed. Questionable material about living people in any article should be removed immediately, pending subsequent discussion. At times material that has some potential value is so poorly written that it is unlikely to be improved any time soon; in such cases, you can transfer the material to the article's talk page, where it can be improved at leisure. Note, however, that editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to fix the problem first. If there is a dispute, do not repeatedly revert each other (that is, do not edit war), but discuss the problem on the article talk page and try to reach consensus.
Examples include:
- original research
- Duplicated, irrelevant, or redundant content
- patent nonsense or vandalism
- copyright violations
- prohibited or inappropriate external links
- factual claims that cannot be verified, particularly unsourced or poorly-sourced contentious material about living persons
[edit] Talking and editing
[edit] Be bold: edit
Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes - nobody owns articles. In fact, some Wikipedians think you should not wait at all—simply change an article immediately if you see a problem, rather than waiting to discuss changes that you believe need to be made. Discussion is only needed if someone voices disagreement. A different viewpoint is that dialogue should be respected, but at the same time, minor tweaks should be accepted. In this view, whether to edit radically or not will depend on the context. For example, some editors suggest a BOLD, revert, discuss cycle can sometimes help move forward an unproductive discussion; but such boldness should be aimed at improving discussion, not at imposing edits against existing consensus.
Remember that being bold doesn't mean ignoring the core Wikipedia content policies. Wikipedia must have a neutral point of view, which means that we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. And it means whenever possible citing sources which are verifiable and reliable.
[edit] Be helpful: explain
Be helpful: explain your changes. When you edit an article, the more radical or controversial the change, the greater the need to explain it. For smaller changes, use an appropriate edit summary. For larger or more significant changes, the edit summary may not give you enough space to explain the edit - in this case leave a note on the article's talk page. Remember too that notes on the talk page are more visible, make misunderstandings less likely and encourage discussion rather than edit warring.
If you think a page simply needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, you can just go ahead and do that. Preserve any old contents you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. (For larger changes, it may be more convenient to use the page history to find the URL of the old version before your changes, and provide a link to this on the article talk page.) Even if you delete something that's just plain false, odds are that it got there because someone believed it was true, so noting that you removed this and saying why will make it less likely that the mistake will be made again in the future.
[edit] Be cautious with major changes: discuss
Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first. With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, to prevent edit warring and disillusioning either other editors or yourself (if your hard work is rejected by others). One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work "destroyed" without prior notice. If you choose to be very bold, take extra care to justify your changes in detail on the article talk page. This will make it less likely that editors will end up reverting the article back and forth between their preferred versions. To facilitate discussion of a substantial change without filling up the talk page, you can create the new draft in your own userspace (eg User:Example/Lipsum) and link to it on the article discussion page.
[edit] But: Wikipedia is not a discussion forum
Whether you decide to edit very boldly or discuss carefully on the talk page first, please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Wikipedia can be a very energetic place, and it is best for the project as a whole if we concentrate our energies on improving articles rather than defending our pet theories, ideologies, religions, etc. This is discussed further at Wikipedia:Etiquette.
[edit] Editing and refactoring talk pages
For guidance on how to edit talk pages see:
[edit] Editing policies and guidelines
Policies and guidelines are supposed to state what most Wikipedians agree upon, and should be phrased to reflect the present consensus on a subject. In general, more caution should be exercised in editing policies and guidelines than in editing articles. Minor edits to existing pages, such as formatting changes, grammatical improvement and uncontentious clarification, may be made by any editor at any time. However, changes that would alter the substance of policy or guidelines should normally be announced on the appropriate talk page first. The change may be implemented if no objection is made to it or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change. Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general, as should proposals for new policy pages (Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Proposing guidelines and policies).
[edit] See also
- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress — some historical background and perspective
- Wikipedia:There is no deadline
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
