Wikipedia:Editing policy

Wikipedia is the product of thousands of editors' contributions. Each has brought something different to the table: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess, tidbits of information, or, most importantly, a willingness to help. Even the best article should not be considered complete; each new editor offers new insights about how to further enhance our content.

Adding information to Wikipedia

Editors are encouraged to add information to Wikipedia, either by creating new articles or by adding information to existing articles. However, it is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and must not be original research. We demonstrate that information is verifiable and not original research through citation to reliable sources. Editors need to be aware that unsourced information may be challenged and removed (WP:BURDEN), because within Wikipeida no information is better than misleading or false information—Wikipedia's reputation as a trusted encyclopaedia depends on the information within articles being accurate. Depending on the degree of its suspected inaccuracy or negative impact, the information may be removed either immediately or after sources have been requested and none has been provided for some time. To avoid such challenges, the best practice is to provide an "inline citation" at the time the information is added (see: WP:Citing sources for instructions on how to do this, or ask for assistance on the article talk page).

Another way editors can add information to an article is by finding a source for existing unsourced material. This is especially true if you come across statements that are potentially controversial. You do not need to be the person who added the information to add a source and citation for it.

Dealing with problems

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.

Try to fix problems: preserve information

Preserve information: fix problems if you can, flag them if you can't. Try to preserve information. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing tagged if necessary, or cleaned up on the spot. If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do it, but preserve content you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Do not remove information just because it is poorly presented. The editing process tends to guide articles through ever-higher levels of quality over time. Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors building upon each others' efforts.

Instead of removing text, consider:

• rephrasing
• correcting the inaccuracy while keeping the content
• moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new)
• adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced
• requesting a citation by adding the {{fact}} tag
• adding appropriate cleanup tags to problematic sections

In biographies of living people, there may be good reasons to disregard the imperative to preserve information, particularly when it may be harmful. The principle of burden of proof needs to be given particular weight in such cases.

Preserving information does not necessarily mean preserving subjects or topics. If an article's subject is not notable, then encyclopedic information from that article may be best preserved by moving it to another article, so that the original article can be deleted or turned into a redirect.

Handling problematic material

Though many problems can be fixed without removal, in certain cases you may remove problematic material, at least temporarily. For example, material that contradicts our content policies of verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view may be removed. Questionable material about living people in any article should be removed immediately, pending subsequent discussion. At times material that has some potential value is so poorly written that it is unlikely to be improved any time soon; in such cases, you can transfer the material to the article's talk page, where it can be improved at leisure. Note, however, that editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to fix the problem first. If there is a dispute, do not repeatedly revert each other (that is, do not edit war), but discuss the problem on the article talk page and try to reach consensus.

Examples include:

• original research
• Duplicated, irrelevant, or redundant content
• patent nonsense or vandalism
• copyright violations
• prohibited or inappropriate external links
• factual claims that cannot be verified, particularly unsourced or poorly-sourced contentious material about living persons

Talking and editing

Be bold: edit

Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes – nobody owns articles. If you see a problem that you can fix, do so. Discussion is, however, called for if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by raising an issue on the talk page or by reverting your edit). A BOLD, revert, discuss cycle can sometimes help move forward an unproductive discussion. However, boldness should not mean trying to impose edits against existing consensus or in violation of core policies, such as Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Please do not edit war over changes.

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. For smaller changes, use an appropriate edit summary. For larger or more significant changes, the edit summary may not give you enough space to explain the edit – in this case leave a note on the article's talk page. Remember too that notes on the talk page are more visible, make misunderstandings less likely and encourage discussion rather than edit warring.

If you think a page simply needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, you can just go ahead and do that. Preserve any old contents you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. (For larger changes, it may be more convenient to use the page history to find the URL of the old version before your changes, and provide a link to this on the article talk page.) Even if you delete something that's just plain false, odds are that it got there because someone believed it was true, so noting that you removed this and saying why will make it less likely that the mistake will be made again in the future.

Be cautious with major changes: discuss

Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first. With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, to prevent edit warring and disillusioning either other editors or yourself (if your hard work is rejected by others). One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work "destroyed" without prior notice. If you choose to be very bold, take extra care to justify your changes in detail on the article talk page. This will make it less likely that editors will end up reverting the article back and forth between their preferred versions. To facilitate discussion of a substantial change without filling up the talk page, you can create the new draft in your own userspace (eg User:Example/Lipsum) and link to it on the article discussion page.

But: Wikipedia is not a discussion forum

Main page: WP:NOTFORUM

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. Wikipedia can be a very energetic place, and it is best for the project as a whole if we concentrate our energies on improving articles rather than defending our pet theories, ideologies, religions, etc. This is discussed further at Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Editing and refactoring talk pages

For guidance on how to edit talk pages see:

• Wikipedia:Talk page
• Wikipedia:Archiving talk pages
• Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages

Editing policies and guidelines

Main page: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines § Content changes

Policies and guidelines are supposed to state what most Wikipedians agree upon, and should be phrased to reflect the present consensus on a subject. In general, more caution should be exercised in editing policies and guidelines than in editing articles. Minor edits to existing pages, such as formatting changes, grammatical improvement and uncontentious clarification, may be made by any editor at any time. However, changes that would alter the substance of policy or guidelines should normally be announced on the appropriate talk page first. The change may be implemented if no objection is made to it or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change. Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general, as should proposals for new policy pages (see also Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Proposals).

See also

• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress – some historical background and perspective
• Wikipedia:There is no deadline