 |
 | 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). |
| Conduct policies |
|---|
Wikipedia is the product of thecontributions of millions ofeditors, each one bringing something different to the table, whether it be researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess or tidbits of information, but all united by a willingness to help. Even thebest 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.
Wikipediasummarizes accepted knowledge. As a rule, the more accepted knowledge it contains, the better. Pleasebe bold and add content summarizing accepted knowledge, but be particularly cautious about removing sourced content. Information in Wikipedia must beverifiable and 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 citation when adding content (see:WP:Citing sources for 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 copying orclosely paraphrasing a 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 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.
The guidelineWikipedia:Notability describes what is needed to support the creation of a new article.
Any large-scale automated orsemi-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 individuallymoved to 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.
According to the oldaphorism,"Perfect is the enemy of good". Hence, perfection is not required, asWikipedia 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 betterbalance to the views represented in the article and perform fact-checking andsourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.
While 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 aneutral manner withoutundue weight, or be removed immediately, without waiting for discussion.
Fix problems if you can,tag or remove them if you can't.Preserve appropriate content. Retain facts or ideas thatwould belong in an encyclopedia.
Facts or ideas thatwould belong in the "finished" article should be kept if they meet the three core content policies:Neutral point of view (which does not meanno point of view),Verifiability, andNo original research.
Instead of removing content, consider cleaning up the writing,formatting or sourcing, ortagging as appropriate. If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially,go ahead, butleave a comment about why you made the changes on the article's talk page. Theediting process tends to guide articles through ever-higherlevels of quality over time. Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors' efforts.
Consider:
Otherwise, if the content could seed a new sub-article, or if you are unsure about removing it fromthe project entirely, consider copying the information to the article's talk page for further discussion. If the content might find a better home elsewhere, consider moving it to a talk page of any article you think might be more relevant, so that editors there can decide how it might be best included in our encyclopedia.
Several of our core policies discuss situations when itmight be more appropriate to remove information from an article rather than preserve it.Wikipedia:Verifiability discusses handling unsourced and contentious material;Wikipedia:No original research discusses the need to remove original research;What Wikipedia is not describes material that is fundamentally inappropriate for Wikipedia; andWP:UNDUE 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. Keep redundancy within an article to a minimum (except thelead, which is meant to be a summary of the entire article, and so is intentionally duplicative).
Remove libel, nonsense, and vandalism, material thatviolates copyright andoriginal research for which no reliable source that supports it has ever beenpublished.
Take special care with biographies of living people, especially when handling unsourced or poorly sourced claims about the subject. Editors working on such articles need to know and understand the extra restrictions that are laid out atWikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
Be bold in updating articles, especially forminor changes, fixing 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 view andVerifiability; or edits designed to create afait accompli, where actions are justified by the fact that 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 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 aboutwhy you 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 page as well. Remember too that notes on the talk page are more visible, make misunderstandings less likely, and encourage discussion rather thanedit warring.
Be cautious about making a major change to an article. Preventedit warring by 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 page and start a discussion that includes a link to it on the article's talk page.
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.
TheWikipedia:Dispute resolution processes are available if you need help reaching an agreement with other editors.
For guidance on how to edit talk pages see: