It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines govern howusers must edit.Policies tell users what they must do, andguidelines tell them how to handle situations. Editors haveduties to comply with these policies and guidelines, except in unusual circumstances, whereWikipedia:Ignore all rules would apply.Edit filters are in place to enforce these duties and to find patterns in harmful behavior.Kantian ethics dictate that duties come fromdeontological ethics, and following duties results in good behavior.[1][2] Duties also come fromreason.[3][4] If a user were to apply Kantian ethics, the policies and guidelines exist to facilitatebuilding an encyclopedia, and the edit filters exist because of the policies and guidelines.
In a legal sense,willfulness is "the voluntary,intentional violation of a known legal duty",[5] and it is "intentional, orknowing" instead of unintentional.[6] Wikipedia's policies, such as those involvingvandalism andsockpuppetry, show that these violations involve intent. In addition, the principle ofIgnorantia juris non excusat holds that nobody is excused from not knowing policies, and that policies guide behavior.[7] Policies and guidelines are available for people to read. This supports the principle ofconstructive knowledge, even if a user cannot prove that another user actually knew the policies and guidelines at hand. If a user makes adisruptive edit, another user typically reverts that edit and uses a warning template, such asTemplate:Uw-disruptive1, telling the user to look at the policies and guidelines, and to ask for help from the user who posted that message. The fact that this template and similar templates have these notes and links supports themaxim that users are presumed to know the policies and guidelines, and users who reasonably believe that other users posted disruptively can prove that those other users should have known the policies and guidelines, but chose not tosearch for them or read them.
Forcitingreliable sources, editors should try to citeacademic journals first, as they have the most rigorous review processes and cite many sources.[8]Template:Talk header lists examples of sites editors can look for academic journals on, such asGoogle Scholar andJSTOR.Extended confirmed users may have access tothe Wikipedia Library, provided their accounts are older than six months. Other reliable sources include academic books, trade sources, and periodical articles, such as those from magazines and newspapers.[9]
Users should not citebare URLs. Instead, they should take the time to fill out thecitation templates and insert as much information as they know. Doing so adds credibility to articles and allows readers to examine sources more thoroughly. They have basic templates available in the editing screen, or they can use tools such asProveIt orreFill, to add citation information. A list of citation tools is available atHelp:Citation tools.
