Wikipedia:Editing policy
 |
 | This page in a nutshell:Improve pages wherever you can, and do not worry about leaving them imperfect. Preserve the value that others add, even if they "did it wrong" (try to fix it rather than remove it). |
Wikipediais the product of millions ofeditors' contributions,each one bringing something different to the table, whether it be: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess or tidbits of information, but most importantly, a willingness to help. Even thebest articlesshould not be considered complete, as each new editor can offer new insights on how to enhance and improve the content in it at any time.
Adding information to Wikipedia
Wikipediasummarizesaccepted knowledge. As a rule, the more accepted knowledge it contains, the better. Pleasebe boldand add content summarizing accepted knowledge, but be particularly cautious about removing sourced content. Information in Wikipedia must beverifiableand cannot beoriginal research.Show that content is verifiable by citingreliable sources.Because a lack of content is better than misleading or false content, unsourced content may be challenged andremoved.To avoid such challenges, the best practice is to provide aninline citationwhen adding content (see:WP:Citing sourcesfor instructions on how to do this, or ask for help at theHelp desk).
Wikipedia respects others' copyright. Although content must be backed by reliable sources,avoid copyingorclosely paraphrasinga copyrighted source. You should read the source, understand it, and then express what it saysin your own words.An exception exists for the often necessary use of short quotations; they must be enclosed in quotations marks, accompanied by an inline reference to the source, and usually attributed to the author. (See thefair use doctrinewhich allows limited quoting without permission.)
Another way you can improve an article is by finding a source for existing unsourced content. This is especially true if you come across statements that are potentially controversial. You do not need to be the person who added the content to add a source and citation for it.
Creating articles
The guidelineWikipedia:Notabilitydescribes what is needed to support the creation of a new article.
Mass page creation
Any large-scale automated or semi-automated content page creation task must be approved by the community.[1][2]Community input may be solicited atWP:Village pump (proposals)and the talk pages of any relevant WikiProjects. Creators must ensure that all creations are strictly within the terms of their approval. All mass-created articles (except those not required to meetWP:GNG) must cite at least one source which would plausibly contribute to GNG, that is, which constitutes significant coverage in an independent, reliable, secondary source.[3]
Alternatives to simply creating mass quantities of content pages include creating the pages in small batches or creating the content pages as subpages of a relevant WikiProject to be individuallymovedto public-facing space after each has been reviewed by human editors. While use of these alternatives does not remove the need for approval, it may garner more support from the community at large.
Mass creation by automated means may additionally require approval as specified byWikipedia:Bot policy.Approval of a bot for mass creation does not override the need for community consensus for the creation itself, nor does community consensus for a creation override the need for approval of the bot itself.
Note that while creation ofnon-content pages (such as redirects from systematic names, or maintenance categories) is not covered by this mass creation policy, other policies, such asWikipedia:Bot policy,still apply.
Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required
Perfection is not required:Wikipedia is a work in progress.Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time intoexcellent articles.Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. 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 betterbalanceto the views represented in the article and perform fact-checking andsourcingto existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.
Neutrality in articles of living or recently deceased persons
Althoughperfection is not required,extra care should be taken on articles that mention living persons. Contentious material about living or recently deceased persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should either be verified immediately, with one or more reliable sources and presented in aneutral mannerwithoutundue weight,or be removed immediately, without waiting for discussion.
Try to fix problems
Great Wikipedia articles come from a succession of editors' efforts. Rather than remove imperfect content outright,fix problems if you can,tagor excise them if you can't.
As explainedabove,Wikipedia is a work in progress and perfection is not required. Any facts or ideas thatwould belongin the "finished" articleshould be retainedif they meet the threecore content policies:Neutral point of view(which does not mean no point of view),Verifiability,andNo original research.
If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially,go ahead and do so,but it is best toleave a commentabout why you made the changes on thearticle's talk page.
Instead of removing content from an article orrevertinga new contribution, consider:
- Rephrasingorcopy-editingto improve grammar or more accurately represent the sources
- Formatting or sourcing on the spot
- Taggingit as necessary
- Correctinginaccuracies,while keeping the rest of the content intact
- Mergingor moving the content to a more relevant existing article, orsplittingthe content toan entirely new article
- Adding another point of viewto the existing points of view to make the article more balanced
- Requesting a citation by adding the{{citation needed}}tag, or adding any otherappropriate cleanup tagsto content you cannot fix yourself
- Doing a quicksearch for sourcesand adding a citation yourself
- Repairing a dead linkif a newURLfor the page or anarchiveof the old one can be located
- Merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into aredirectas described atperforming a merge
- Fi xing errors inwikitextor formatting
Otherwise, if you think the content could provide the seed of a new sub-article, or if you are just unsure about removing it from the English Wikipedia entirely, consider copying the information to the article's talk page for further discussion. If you think the content might find a better home elsewhere, consider moving the content to a talk page of any article you think might be more relevant, so that editors there can decide how it might be properly included in our encyclopedia.
Problems that may justify removal
Several of our core policies discuss situations when itmightbe more appropriate to remove information from an article rather than preserve it.
- Verifiabilitydiscusses handling unsourced and contentious material
- No original researchdiscusses the need to remove original research
- What Wikipedia is notdescribes material that is fundamentally inappropriate for Wikipedia
- Undue weightdiscusses how to balance material that gives undue weight to a particular viewpoint, which might include removal of trivia, tiny minority viewpoints, or material that cannot be supported with high-quality sources
Also, redundancy within an article should be kept to a minimum (except in thelead,which is meant to be a summary of the entire article, and so is intentionally duplicative).
Libel,nonsense,andvandalismshould be completely removed, as should material thatviolates copyrightand material for which no reliable source that supports it has ever beenpublished.
Special care needs to be taken withbiographies of living people,especially when it comes to handling unsourced or poorly sourced claims about the subject. Such claims should generally be removed immediately.
Talking and editing
Be bold in updating articles,especially forminor changes,fi xing problems, and changes that you believe areunlikely to be controversial.Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes.Nobody owns articles,so if you see an improvement you can make, make it.
If you think the edit might be controversial, then a better course of action may be to firstmake a proposal on the talk page.Bold editing does not excuse edits againstexisting consensus,edits in violation of core policies, such asNeutral point of viewandVerifiability,or edits designed to create afait accompli,where actions are justified by the fact they have already been carried out.
If someone indicates disagreement with your bold edit by reverting it or contesting it in a talk page discussion,consider your optionsand respond appropriately.
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. Be sure to leave a comment aboutwhyyou made the change. Try to use an appropriateedit summary.For larger or more significant changes, the edit summary may not give you enough space to fully explain the edit; in this case, you may leave a note on thearticle's talk pageas well. Remember too that notes on the talk page are more visible, make misunderstandings less likely, and encourage discussion rather thanedit warring.
Be cautious with major changes: discuss
Be cautious about making a major change to an article.Preventedit warringby discussing such edits first on thearticle's talk page.An edit that one editor thinks is minor or clearly warranted might be seen as major or unwarranted by others. If you choose tobe bold,provide the rationale for any change in the edit summary or on the article talk page. If your change is lengthy or complex, consider first creating a new draft on asubpage of your own user pageand start a discussion that includes a link to it on the article's talk page.
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. It is best to concentrate our energies on improving articles rather than debating our personal ideas and beliefs. This is discussed further atWikipedia:Etiquette.
If you need help
TheWikipedia:Dispute resolutionprocesses are available if you need help reaching an agreement with other editors.
Editing and refactoring talk pages
For guidance on how to edit talk pages see:
See also
- Contributing to Wikipedia:how and where you can help Wikipedia
- Disruptive editing:how not to edit Wikipedia
- Edit conflicts:how to deal with an edit conflict
- There is no deadline:various points of view on what this lack of a deadline means
- Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates#Blanking/Removal of content(warning templates)
Notes
- ^This requirementinitially applied to articlesbut has since been expanded toinclude all "content pages",broadly meaningpages designed to be viewed byreadersthrough themainspace.These includearticles,most visiblecategories,fileshosted on Wikipedia, mainspaceeditnotices,andportals.
- ^While no specific definition of "large-scale" was decided, a suggestion of "anything more than 25 or 50"was not opposed.
- ^Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale/Closing statement § Question 2: Should we require (a) source(s) that plausibly contribute(s) to WP:GNG?