Wikipedia:Etiquette

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

✔ This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.
Shortcuts:
WP:EQ
WP:ETIQ
WP:WQT
Wikipedia guidelines
Content
Article Inclusion
Notability
Classification
Editing
Discussion
Behavior
Style
Manual of Style
See also policies

This page offers some principles of etiquette or "Wikiquette", on how to work with others on Wikipedia. You can read about more basic conventions at the policies and guidelines page.

Wikipedia's contributors come from many different countries and cultures. We have many different views, perspectives, opinions, and backgrounds, sometimes varying widely. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an international online encyclopedia.

Contents

[edit] Principles of Wikipedia etiquette

  • Assume good faith. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles.
  • Remember the Golden Rule: Treat others as you would have them treat you – even if they are new. We were all new once...
  • Be polite, please!
    • Keep in mind that raw text is ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you. Irony isn't always obvious - text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection or body language. Be careful of the words you choose – what you intended might not be what others perceive, and what you read might not be what the author intended.
  • Sign and date your posts to talk pages (not articles!), unless you have some excellent reasons not to do so.
  • If you have not registered yourself, do not construct a signature that might make it appear that you have.
  • Work towards agreement.
  • Argue facts, not personalities.
  • Don't ignore questions.
    • If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.
  • Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.
  • Be civil.
    • Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if other editors are not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than they are, not less. That way at least you're not spiraling down to open conflict and name-calling by your own accord; you're actively doing something about it: taking a hit and refraining from hitting back – everybody appreciates that (or at least they should).
    • However, don't hesitate to let the other party know that you're not comfortable with their tone in a neutral way – otherwise they might think you're too dense to understand their "subtlety", and you'll involuntarily encourage them (e.g. "I know you've been sarcastic above, but I don't think that's helping us resolve the issue. However, I don't think your argument stands because...").
  • Be prepared to apologize. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we hadn't. Say so.
  • Forgive and forget.
  • Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.
  • Give praise when due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise. Drop a friendly note on users' talk pages.
  • Remove or summarize resolved disputes that you initiated.
  • Help mediate disagreements between others.
  • If you're arguing, take a break. If you're mediating, recommend a break.
    • Take it slowly. If you're angry, take time out instead of posting or editing. Come back in a day or a week. You might find that someone else has made the desired change or comment for you. If no one is mediating, and you think mediation is needed, enlist someone.
    • Walk away or find another Wikipedia article to distract yourself – there are 2,410,300 articles in English on Wikipedia! Take up a Wikiproject or WikiReader, or lend your much-needed services at pages needing attention and Cleanup. Or write a new article.
    • Nominate yourself for a list of other articles to work on, provided by SuggestBot.
  • Remember what Wikipedia is not.
  • Review the list of faux pas.
  • Avoid reverts whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism. Explain reversions in the edit summary box.
  • Remind yourself that these are people you're dealing with. They are individuals with feelings and probably have other people in the world who love them. Try to treat others with dignity. The world is a big place, with different cultures and conventions. Do not use jargon that others might not understand. Use acronyms carefully and clarify if there is the possibility of any doubt.
  • When reverting other people's edits, be sure to give a rationale for the revert (on the article's talk page if necessary), and be prepared to enter into an extended discussion over the edits in question. Calmly explaining your thinking to others can often result in their agreeing with you; being dogmatic or uncommunicative evokes the same behavior in others, and gets you embroiled in an edit war.

[edit] How to avoid abuse of talk pages

  • Most people take pride in their work and in their point of view. Egos can easily get hurt in editing, but talk pages are not a place for striking back. They're a good place to comfort or undo damage to egos, but most of all they're for forging agreements that are best for the articles they're attached to. If someone disagrees with you, try to understand why, and in your discussion on the talk pages take the time to provide good reasons why you think your way is better.
  • Like science, the improvement process employed by Wikipedia is iterative and the critical analysis of prior work is a necessary part of that process. If you are not prepared to have your work thoroughly scrutinized, analyzed and criticized, or if your ego is easily damaged, then Wikipedia is probably not the place for you.
  • Don't label or personally attack people or their edits.
    • Terms like "racist", "sexist" or even "poorly written" make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively. If you have to criticize, you must do it in a polite and constructive manner.
  • Always make clear what point you are addressing, especially in replies.
    • In responding, make it clear what idea you are responding to. Quoting a post is O.K., but paraphrasing it or stating how you interpreted it is better. Furthermore, qualify your interpretation with a remark such as "as you seem to be saying" or "as I understand you" to acknowledge that you are making an interpretation. Before proceeding to say that someone is wrong, concede you might have misinterpreted him or her.
    • However, don't forget to put the original signature on every parts of the splitted comments, if you have to interweave rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments. Neglecting of this will disrupt the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to the two of you, but it's virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow.

[edit] Working towards a neutral point of view

When dealing with suspected violations of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

  1. Inquire politely on the article's talk page about aspects of the article you consider non-NPOV (unless they are really egregious), and suggest replacements.
  2. If no reply comes, make the substitutions. (Use your watchlist to keep track of what you want to do.)
  3. If a reply comes, try to agree about the wording to be used.

That way, when an agreement is reached, an edit war is very unlikely. The disadvantage is that the article stays in an unsatisfying state for a longer period of time, but an article that changes frequently doesn't create a good impression with other Wikipedians or of the project as a whole.

[edit] A few things to bear in mind

  • Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views (more at NPOV), instead of supporting one over another, even if you believe something strongly. Talk (discussion) pages are not a place to debate value judgments about which of those views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis. Use article talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article, not as a soapbox for advocacy.
  • If someone disagrees with you, this does not necessarily mean that the person hates you, that the person thinks you're stupid, that the person themself is stupid, or that the person is mean. When people post opinions without practical implications for the article, it's best to just leave them be. What you think is not necessarily right or necessarily wrong – a common example of this is religion. Before you think about insulting someone's views, think about what would happen if they insulted your religion. Also, always remember that anything that is written on Wikipedia is kept permanently, even if it is not visible.
  • Wikipedia invites you to be bold. Before initiating discussion, ask yourself: is this really necessary to discuss? Could I provide a summary with my edit and wait for others to quibble if they like?
  • You can always take a discussion to e-mail or to your user page if it's not essential to the article.
  • If you know you don't get along with someone, don't interact with them more than you need to. Unnecessary conflict distracts everyone from the task of making a good encyclopedia, and is just unpleasant. Actually following someone you dislike around Wikipedia is sometimes considered stalking, and is frowned on because it can be disruptive. If you don't get along with someone, try to become more friendly. If that doesn't help the situation then it is probably best to avoid them.
  • Though editing articles is acceptable (and, in fact, encouraged), editing the signed words of another editor on a talk page or other discussion page is generally not acceptable, as it can alter the intent or message of the original comment and misrepresent the original editor's thoughts. Try to avoid editing another editor's comments unless absolutely necessary.

[edit] Other words of advice

Parting words of advice from Larry Sanger:

  • Be open and warmly welcoming, not insular,
  • Be focused singlemindedly on writing an encyclopedia, not on Usenet-style debate,
  • Recognize and praise the best work, work that is detailed, factual, well-informed, and well-referenced,
  • Work to understand what neutrality requires and why it is so essential to and good for this project,
  • Treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Wikipedia with respect and good will,
  • Attract and honor good people who know a lot and can write about it well, and
  • Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here.

A troll's helpful hint for newcomers: Before interpreting Sanger's parting advice as permission from the current community of participants to engage in personal attacks, harassment or stalking after labeling people with whom you disagree, it would be wise to read and understand the policy or guideline regarding personal attacks and the ad hominem fallacy identified by ancient Greek philosophers.

An outline for a Wikicovenant from Kingturtle:

  • Make others feel welcome (even longtime participants; even those you dislike),
  • Create and continue a friendly environment,
  • Turn the other cheek (which includes walking away from potential edit wars),
  • Give praise, especially to those you don't know (most people like to know they are wanted and appreciated), and
  • Forgive!

[edit] What to do in case of problems