Wikipedia policy
"Wikipedia:Editing" redirects here. For basic information about how to edit Wikipedia, see
Help:Editing
.
| This page documents an English Wikipedia
policy
.
It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should
normally
follow. Changes made to it should reflect
consensus
.
|
|
| 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).
|
Wikipedia
is the product of millions of
editors' 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 the
best articles
should 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
Wikipedia
summarizes
accepted knowledge. As a rule, the more accepted knowledge it contains, the better. Please
be bold
and add content summarizing accepted knowledge, but be particularly cautious about removing sourced content. Information in Wikipedia must be
verifiable
and cannot be
original research
. Show that content is verifiable by citing
reliable sources
. Because a lack of content is better than misleading or false content, unsourced content may be challenged and
removed
. To avoid such challenges, the best practice is to provide an
inline citation
when adding content (see:
WP:Citing sources
for instructions on how to do this, or ask for help at the
Help desk
).
Wikipedia respects others' copyright. Although content must be backed by reliable sources,
avoid copying
or
closely paraphrasing
a copyrighted source. You should read the source, understand it, and then express what it says
in 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 the
fair use doctrine
which 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.
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 into
excellent 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 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.
Neutrality in articles of living or recently deceased persons
Although
perfection 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 a
neutral manner
without
undue weight
, or be removed immediately, without waiting for discussion.
Try to fix problems
"WP:PRESERVE" redirects here. For the Manual of Style section on preserving formatting, see
MOS:RETAIN
.
Great Wikipedia articles come from a succession of editors' efforts. Rather than remove imperfect content outright,
fix problems if you can,
tag
or excise them if you can't
.
As explained
above
, Wikipedia is a work in progress and perfection is not required. Any facts or ideas that
would belong
in the "finished" article
should be retained
if they meet the three
core content policies
:
Neutral point of view
(which does not mean no point of view),
Verifiability
, and
No original research
.
If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially,
go ahead and do so
, but it is best to
leave a comment
about why you made the changes on the
article's talk page
.
Instead of removing content from an article or reverting a new contribution, consider:
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 it
might
be more appropriate to remove information from an article rather than preserve it.
- Verifiability
discusses handling unsourced and contentious material
- No original research
discusses the need to remove original research
- What Wikipedia is not
describes material that is fundamentally inappropriate for Wikipedia
- Undue weight
discusses 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 the
lead
, which is meant to be a summary of the entire article, and so is intentionally duplicative).
Libel
,
nonsense
, and
vandalism
should be completely removed, as should material that
violates copyright
and material for which no reliable source that supports it has ever been
published
.
Special care needs to be taken with
biographies 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 for
minor changes
, fixing problems, and changes that you believe are
unlikely 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 first
make a proposal on the talk page
. Bold editing does not excuse edits against
existing consensus
, edits in violation of core policies, such as
Neutral point of view
and
Verifiability
, or edits designed to create a
fait 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 options
and 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 about
why
you made the change. Try to use an appropriate
edit 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 the
article's talk page
as well. Remember too that notes on the talk page are more visible, make misunderstandings less likely, and encourage discussion rather than
edit warring
.
Be cautious with major changes: discuss
Be cautious about making a major change to an article.
Prevent
edit warring
by discussing such edits first on the
article'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 to
be 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 a
subpage of your own user page
and 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 at
Wikipedia:Etiquette
.
If you need help
The
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
processes 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
|
---|
|
Content?
| |
---|
Conduct?
| |
---|
Deletion?
| |
---|
Enforcement?
| |
---|
Editing?
| |
---|
Project content?
| |
---|
WMF
(?)
| |
---|
|