![]() | This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
A to-do list or broad overview for newbies. This is my penance for biting noobs. Want a nutshell? Invest time in becoming familiar with policies, all else follows.
Hi there! You're new to wikipedia I assume, or why are you reading this? Welcome to wikipedia! Wikipedia is a very large, very interesting, sometimes fun and sometimes confusing place. We're all working together to try to improve pages, fight vandals, add information and generally make wikipedia a useful place to look for information on just about anything. We're always happy to have a new contributor, and we hope you stick around. [1]
As a newbie, you're at a severe disadvantage compared to experienced editors, for a variety of reasons. This essay is an attempt to explain that:
Indeed, I'm sure you are very clever, and indeed, every editor (even the admins) is on equal footing per policy. Except Jimbo, he can pretty much do whatever he wants. It's only through his sufferance that we're allowed to sully his pristine creation with our unworthy efforts. Praise to Jimbo and his fantastic beard.
Let me reiterate my point - you have just as much right and ability to edit as any other editor. Even administrators, who some people see as somehow more worthy or better than mere plebeian editors, are not really that different. Being an admin is not a big deal. They can do some extra stuff, but they are still bound by policy, subject to arbitration and expected to be nice, play fair and work by consensus. The only advantages that admins have are a) experience and b) some extra tools.
Now an important qualification - though admins are indeed still subject to all the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, just like everyone else, they got to be admins by being very good at following, interpreting and knowing those policies and guidelines. They stay admins by being very good at enforcing those guidelines without abusing them. So while it's not a big deal to be an admin, adminship is a form of recognition from the community that the editor in question is trusted, respected and knowledgeable. In other words, though they're not always right, they usually are just because they know what they're doing. If you're going to disagree with one, I recommend a) being polite b) asking questions rather than demanding answers and c) brushing up on the relevant policies. You'll probably learn something you didn't know. I usually do.
Plus, admins can block you, your IP address and your friend's IP address, delete pages you create, rollback your changes and generally make your life difficult. They're unlikely to do these things because they're pissed off at you personally, but you never know. And having an admin charitably disposed to your questions or ideas is always helpful. And chances are they're pissed at you because you did something wrong.
Exactly! With enough experience, anyone can be a good wikipedia editor, but it does take time. Two weeks is a bit of a stretch, but who knows? You might be the first. I know a user who went from editor to admin in less than three months. I bet you can do better! Initially, attitude counts more than knowledge - be willing to listen, admit that you're wrong, ask for help and fix your mistakes. If you're willing to listen to those who disagree with you, you've got 90% of what's required to be a good, long-term editor.
Yup. I'm one of them. I bite newbies far more than I should. Wanna know why? Most newbies make the same mistakes. Here's some:
But, for every one of these well-intentioned edits, policy says no. [2] Other (experienced) editors will revert (or modify, source or tag) your contribution, and may rap you on the knuckles. Permit me to demonstrate:
Indeed, you could see it that way. It does take time to become familiar and handy with wikipedia's core policies (known as the five pillars), but they don't limit us too much. Think of it this way - the policies limit what you can add to the page, but they also limit what people you disagree with can add also. Imagine a wikipedia where a specific point of view was assumed and enforced, by blocking non-Christians, ignoring scientists, basing contributions on how funny they were, or letting anyone do anything. How much could you trust the source? Wikipedia's rules and policies exist in an effort to bring articles up to, and keep them at, a specific standard. It's generally not an onerous standard, it still allows for lots of sources to be cited and pages to be created, and it means you're slightly more likely to find the information accurate and trustworthy.
Policies let you know what you can say, who you can trust, what you can include, and what to do if you disagree with information you find. Citing sources isn't particularly hard, often a simple google search will be very helpful. Even better, there are a variety of tools that assist you in editing (see the page on tools for more information). Examples include:
Yup. It seems overwhelming, but there's a basic progression you might find useful. By starting with dabbling, you can soon be diving, and won't get hammered with multiple warnings on your user page, blocks for violating the three revert rule or end up in arbitration - basically avoid all the painful mistakes I made.
Here's my recommendation for how to edit wikipedia. It's just my version, so there's no guarantee it's foolproof or representative. Still, I think there's merit in it, and you might learn something. And I might be funny along the way.
Quick searches on google, and in particular google scholar, google books and pubmed have a wonderful way of shortening arguments, shutting down disputes and saving people time. Wikipedia is about summarizing what is believed by mainstream experts on the topics discussed. This is done by finding and citing reliable sources. If you can't find a source to substantiate a point, it probably shouldn't be here. Medical articles are even better because the bar is higher.
Of course, there are exceptions. Nutjobs love wikipedia because it's a high-traffic site and most nutter topics have little written about them by real doctors, lawyers, engineers and scholars. This could make it hard for a dedicated editor who understands the laws of thermodynamics to argue with a Creationist, if it weren't for WP:PARITY.
Note, however, that if you are a nutter and are here to promote a theory that has already been investigated and proclaimed discredited, you should go away. Seriously. For all that wikipedia is a public, open encyclopedia, it is also a serious one. If Brittanica wouldn't be interested in your theory about the helical nature of time, the link between pyramids and alien landing pads, and the REALLY IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT HOW the X [7] link is being suppressed, chances are we would only want an article on it to either make fun of it, or use it as an example on how not to do something.
Easily the greatest service anyone can do for wikipedia is simply finding a reliable source and putting it between <ref>these tags</ref>.
Incidentally, [8] there is nothing more fun than your opponent in a POV-dispute shutting up because you've crammed a fact down their throat 'til it blocks their oesophagus.citation needed
So I hear. I've never done this myself. [9]
Ahem. [10]
Wikipedia's a collaborative process, so at some point you're going to have to talk to others. There's a few things to keep in mind:
Hey, this is neat. :Yes it is ::No it's not :::How does this help the article get better? {{outdent}}It does not.
Is rendered like this:
[11]
Hey, this is neat.
It does not.
So you've seen some basic policies. Great! Now here's some more. Intersperse your editing with reading of core and useful policies. Though the five pillars of Wikipedia are indeed critical, there are many other policies which are also vital (and a bunch of short forms you should probably get used to seeing).
So you saw the "WP:" a lot in that last section. You may be asking, what's up with that? Wikipedia (and wikipedians) use shortcuts, basically redirects, on talk pages and during discussion to refer to policies, guidelines and pages that are frequently accessed. Because let's face it, WP:ATA and WP:SANDWICH are a lot shorter than Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and Wikipedia:You should not spread your fetish across Wikipedia like mustard on a delicious, delicious ham sandwich. You get used to them pretty quickly, and you will be assimilated. A comprehensive list can be found at WP:CUTS, and there's an essay at WP:WTF (with a very amusing full title of Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!) about why you shouldn't use them. I'm not saying I agree with it (because experienced wikipedians usually link their short forms, you recognize the common ones pretty quickly, and the readers of wikipedia who do not edit will almost never see them unless visiting the talk pages as well) but it makes a valid point.
Congratulations! What should you do next? I'd say the first is, decide if you find wikipedia tedious, or addictive! If you like adding content, but not that much, perhaps just edit anonymously or add bits of content and leave the thankless grunt work to poor suckers like me who know when to pluralize with a pipe versus an out-of-bracket 's'. There's a difference, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool and a liar. His Grace, Emperor of Free Knowledge and Iron-Fisted Dictator of Wikipedia (may he reign forever) Jimbo Wales Himself has spoken to me on this matter, and assured me I am right. Unfortunately it was at a cabal meeting, and well, we are not permitted to discuss the contents of said meetings with you 'normals' (as we call you). Ask me about how we keep the electric car down! Actually, it's better if you don't. The Servers Have Ears. Soylent Green is definitely NOT people.
If editing wikipedia is fun, here's some of the next things you might want to do:
Wikipedia has many templates and they do a variety of things. Mostly they're a quick way of adding large amounts of standardized texts to pages. It's a form of mechanization, but fortunately is not driving us all out of business. Templates are used to point out basic errors or flaws in pages, leave comments, warnings and advice on talk pages, create standard boxes containing links to articles and various other things. Most can be modified to a certain extent, generally through the use of the pipe. Templates are always enclosed in two curly brackets like so: {{}}, and can be searched for using Template:Templatename in the search box. To link to a template without placing the template on the page itself, use the characters tl| within the template brackets. {{tl|Transformers}} produces {{ Transformers}}. How'd I get the tl| to show up? The <nowiki></nowiki> tags, accessed by typing them out, or the red-circled 'W' on the tool bar above the edit window.
Your favourite band just released an article in a third tier regional magazine, but they have no wikipedia page. Sure, it's not a good interview, it's not Time, Blender or even Accordian Enthusiasts' Yearly Review, but it scrapes by as a reliable source, and a whole article means extensive coverage! Way to go, your favourite band just sailed past notability for music, you can now reference the interview the fill the page with fancruft. [12] But how?
First, find out what the options are for names. Potatoheads (band)? Fingers in the Blender (rock group)? The Sad Clowns? Review the policy on naming conventions to pick an appropriate name. Type it into the search box. Already taken? Add a qualifier and look up guide to hatnotes and page disambiguation. Type in the qualifier, then find the red "Create this page" text. Alternatively, if you are sure you will be adding the link to another page, create the wikilink there, and edit the redlink. Click, and start editing. If a box shows up to say you are re-creating a deleted page, perhaps notify the deleting admin and leave a note on the talk page that you are aware of the re-creation, but now it passes because of your abysmally low-quality (but still reliable!) source. Be sure to include your reference. Sometimes the page is protected against re-creation due to repeated deletions (referred to as 'salting the earth'). Check out your favourite low-notability pornstar, chances are it's happened at least once. You'll have to get an admin to unprotect it - show them the reference, or draft the article on a sub-page, it'll probably be a good editorial review anyway. Now, to avoid the dreaded {{ orphan}} tag, try to find other articles to link it to. Which may be difficult if they aren't particularly notable.
It's so cute the way they grow up right in front of you! You've had your first argument with another user! Excellent. Here is an opportunity to practice your civility and assume good faith. Try to reach a consensus. As always, be very polite. Assume misunderstanding rather than malice. The absolute best way to settle any dispute is through an analysis of the reliable sources that support either side. If possible, present both sides of the argument. Agreeing to disagree is great, particularly if this is represented through an even-handed discussion of both sides of the issue. An escalating array of options for resolving disputes are presented:
So you're a stubborn bastard like me, and REFUSE to let The Wrong Version remain up for even a minute, consider edit warring. Violating the three revert rule is the absolute best way to take an enforced wikibreak and shows your dedication to The Right Version. It also shows up as a permanent record of you being an idiot.
If you are edit warring, stop. Voice your issues on the talk page. Leave messages on the other editor's talk page. Generally go through all the steps to dispute resolution and drink a big glass of patience.
Now, none of this applies if it's blatant vandalism.
So you've just spend days discussing a page, and now you're exhausted. You've got a version you're happy with, but oh no! The talk page is a 260K monster! You may think, I'll just erase it, to make things simpler. Go ahead, see what happens. Say "hi" to ClueBot for me. Have some lotion, it'll take away the sting.
Long talk pages are difficult to navigate and not particularly helpful, but the discussion is often very useful. It's saved anyway, in the history (nothing on wikipedia is ever erased, not even deleted pages). But it's nice not to have to troll through revisions. Instead of erasing, we archive the page, leaving a nice box at the top telling people where to go for previous discussion.
For your user talk page, you are permitted to simply delete content. Key word is "permitted". It's not generally looked well upon. If you're a lazy, lazy editor, there's always MiszaBot. Your talk page is your "warts and all" record of you as an editor. Be proud of your blocks, they're evidence of your learning. Unless you keep accumulating them. In which case, you're an idiot. I'm an idiot, I've got three. Do as I say, not as I do.
There are many things that vandalism is not. Make sure it's vandalism before you do vandal-fighting stuff. Vandalism can be a subtle beast. Here's my advice on vandalism and vandals:
My fingers are exhausted, my wrists are cramping. By the time you've gotten to this point in the essay, you should be pretty much fine. The next couple sections are short, and if you grok until this point, the rest shall follow.
Where else am I going to put it? An
edit count is the sum of all the edits a person has made to wikipedia. It's a somewhat useful rule-of-thumb for another editor's experience. If it's in the thousands, they probably know what they're doing. If it's in the tens of thousands, I'd be very surprised if they didn't. There's a quasi-official
bragging list. I'm on it, number 943 557, huzzah! As pointed out in
the essay on edit counts, it's a very rough measure, and in no way indicates the quality of the quantity. Some people spam a lot, some just engage on talk pages, some just do redirect corrections, none of which takes any appreciable understanding of wikipedia overall. But still, it's there and it's used. It's 'cause we're all secret elitists. Sad but true.
Merges, moves and splits take chunks of text and move them to a new article. If you think an article is redundant, consider merging it to the more appropriate one. There are tags to be placed ({{ mergeto}} and {{ mergefrom}}), discussions to be had, and consensus to be reached, but there's also boldness to be being-ed. Merge when there's two articles for the same thing (use a redirect), move when there's one article but it's got the wrong name (review the manual of style guide for capital letters, the most frequent reason why I move stuff), and split when there's enough text in one section for its own article. Become thee familiar with the {{ main}} template.
Deletions are one of the more interesting, challenging and fun areas of wikipedia, in my opinion. Acrimony, dissent, bitterness and head-splitting policy discussions can be found here. Anyone can engage in deletion discussions. It's not limited to admins. But you will get a better reception if you adhere to, and refer to, policy.
Basically it's like this - if you think that a page doesn't belong on wikipedia, you can try to have it deleted. Speedy deletion is for pages that obviously don't belong (like I, Jimbo Wales, Created This Page, So You Better Not Delete It) and use short codes for classification. Proposed deletions are for deletions that aren't quite speedy, but don't really merit a full deletion discussion. If a prod tag stays on a page for five days without contest, it's deleted. Articles for Deletion is the longest and most formal process, in which there is a formal discussion of the article and endorsements for different actions - Keep (leave alone), Delete (duh), Merge (move content to other article). Everyone gets one endorsement in the form of a bullet, bold word and rationale:
Don't play with the formatting, and don't just vote - provide a reasoning related to policy, read the reasoning of others. Theoretically it's not a vote, in my experience it's somewhere between a vote and a discussion with more weight going to experienced contributors ( here's what admins think) and apparently there is such a thing as inherent notability (much to my surprise). It's an ugly truth, but wikipedia is somewhat elitist. Key policies [13] include:
If an article you create is nominated for deletion, the absolute best thing to do is to find some sources that justify passing WP:N. A single link to a newspaper story on the entity may be sufficient (particularly if it is long, in-depth, in a major national or international newspaper, and ideally there are at least two of them) and spares much time wasting. Could even result in a speedy close if unequivocally convincing of notability, in which case you should ask yourself why you didn't put it in the article in the first place. If you nominated the page for deletion or previously argued for deletion, feel free to change your opinion by striking through your previous entry using the <s></s> tags if a good reference crops up or if you are convinced by another contributor's argument. Also feel free to point out that you were not convinced that another contributor's arguments and why, REFERRING TO POLICY. Sometimes in response to a Delete - unsourced, the page creator will pop up a blog entry "sourcing" something. The correct response to this is Comment - blogs are not considered
reliable sources.
[14] Pointing out the errors in other's deletion discussion arguments is allowed, but
don't be a dick about it
[15] - everyone makes mistakes and there is a difference between a gentle correction and beating someone about the head with a policy.
During deletion discussions, people may use the term !vote. Apparently the ! is a modifier in math or formal logic or some such, and it's used here to indicate that while the discussion is not a simple vote, sometimes you have nothing to say. !vote means, informally, "I've ready X, Y and Z's discussions and I find them convincing." Similar to !voting "Delete - per nom" or "Keep - per WLU", sometimes you have nothing to add but it's valuable to say that the discussion has been reviewed and it's good enough for you.
There are some policies which require a degree of familiarity with conventional policy before they can be truly grokked.
That's been my experience with wikipedia in a nutshell. The linked policies and essays contain the details.
One final point - no-one is anyone else's bitch. You are not obligated to edit because someone else wants you to. We're all volunteers, and over the long-term we either do it for fun, or profit. The former remain and become dedicated contributors. The latter often get blocked. If you point out a flaw in a page it's polite to try to correct it, but if you lack the time, knowledge or inclination, you aren't obligated to. This is another reason to be polite - if for some reason you are not allowed to edit a page, people will be more inclined to help you out if you're considerate, honest, open and do what you can to assist others.
Final, final point. For real this time. If you read this essay and at some point thought, "I can say it better than that" or "That's not the right wikilink", you may be ideal for this place. If you actually corrected the wikilink or edited to a better wording, put in your WP:RFA now. At its heart, wikipedia is about meddling. [16]
Wikipedia can be great. But it can also be ugly, frustrating, elitist, populist, and a host of other nasty things. Unconsciously, I've tried to make this about what wikipedia (and myself as an editor) should aspire to be. The reality is wikipedia is 3 million+ pages of pretty raw information that is cobbled together by many, many people, with a wide variety of reasons for contributing to the project. Including greed, self-importance, grinding axes, some sort of bizarre power fetishism and occasionally, the pursuit of the noble ideal of truth (but I already mentioned self-importance, didn't I?) So don't be surprised if you get bit, blocked and belittled. If you can pull a Jesus and turn the other cheek, kudos to you sir/madam, you are better than many here. Certainly better than I. WLU ( talk) 21:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
A to-do list or broad overview for newbies. This is my penance for biting noobs. Want a nutshell? Invest time in becoming familiar with policies, all else follows.
Hi there! You're new to wikipedia I assume, or why are you reading this? Welcome to wikipedia! Wikipedia is a very large, very interesting, sometimes fun and sometimes confusing place. We're all working together to try to improve pages, fight vandals, add information and generally make wikipedia a useful place to look for information on just about anything. We're always happy to have a new contributor, and we hope you stick around. [1]
As a newbie, you're at a severe disadvantage compared to experienced editors, for a variety of reasons. This essay is an attempt to explain that:
Indeed, I'm sure you are very clever, and indeed, every editor (even the admins) is on equal footing per policy. Except Jimbo, he can pretty much do whatever he wants. It's only through his sufferance that we're allowed to sully his pristine creation with our unworthy efforts. Praise to Jimbo and his fantastic beard.
Let me reiterate my point - you have just as much right and ability to edit as any other editor. Even administrators, who some people see as somehow more worthy or better than mere plebeian editors, are not really that different. Being an admin is not a big deal. They can do some extra stuff, but they are still bound by policy, subject to arbitration and expected to be nice, play fair and work by consensus. The only advantages that admins have are a) experience and b) some extra tools.
Now an important qualification - though admins are indeed still subject to all the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, just like everyone else, they got to be admins by being very good at following, interpreting and knowing those policies and guidelines. They stay admins by being very good at enforcing those guidelines without abusing them. So while it's not a big deal to be an admin, adminship is a form of recognition from the community that the editor in question is trusted, respected and knowledgeable. In other words, though they're not always right, they usually are just because they know what they're doing. If you're going to disagree with one, I recommend a) being polite b) asking questions rather than demanding answers and c) brushing up on the relevant policies. You'll probably learn something you didn't know. I usually do.
Plus, admins can block you, your IP address and your friend's IP address, delete pages you create, rollback your changes and generally make your life difficult. They're unlikely to do these things because they're pissed off at you personally, but you never know. And having an admin charitably disposed to your questions or ideas is always helpful. And chances are they're pissed at you because you did something wrong.
Exactly! With enough experience, anyone can be a good wikipedia editor, but it does take time. Two weeks is a bit of a stretch, but who knows? You might be the first. I know a user who went from editor to admin in less than three months. I bet you can do better! Initially, attitude counts more than knowledge - be willing to listen, admit that you're wrong, ask for help and fix your mistakes. If you're willing to listen to those who disagree with you, you've got 90% of what's required to be a good, long-term editor.
Yup. I'm one of them. I bite newbies far more than I should. Wanna know why? Most newbies make the same mistakes. Here's some:
But, for every one of these well-intentioned edits, policy says no. [2] Other (experienced) editors will revert (or modify, source or tag) your contribution, and may rap you on the knuckles. Permit me to demonstrate:
Indeed, you could see it that way. It does take time to become familiar and handy with wikipedia's core policies (known as the five pillars), but they don't limit us too much. Think of it this way - the policies limit what you can add to the page, but they also limit what people you disagree with can add also. Imagine a wikipedia where a specific point of view was assumed and enforced, by blocking non-Christians, ignoring scientists, basing contributions on how funny they were, or letting anyone do anything. How much could you trust the source? Wikipedia's rules and policies exist in an effort to bring articles up to, and keep them at, a specific standard. It's generally not an onerous standard, it still allows for lots of sources to be cited and pages to be created, and it means you're slightly more likely to find the information accurate and trustworthy.
Policies let you know what you can say, who you can trust, what you can include, and what to do if you disagree with information you find. Citing sources isn't particularly hard, often a simple google search will be very helpful. Even better, there are a variety of tools that assist you in editing (see the page on tools for more information). Examples include:
Yup. It seems overwhelming, but there's a basic progression you might find useful. By starting with dabbling, you can soon be diving, and won't get hammered with multiple warnings on your user page, blocks for violating the three revert rule or end up in arbitration - basically avoid all the painful mistakes I made.
Here's my recommendation for how to edit wikipedia. It's just my version, so there's no guarantee it's foolproof or representative. Still, I think there's merit in it, and you might learn something. And I might be funny along the way.
Quick searches on google, and in particular google scholar, google books and pubmed have a wonderful way of shortening arguments, shutting down disputes and saving people time. Wikipedia is about summarizing what is believed by mainstream experts on the topics discussed. This is done by finding and citing reliable sources. If you can't find a source to substantiate a point, it probably shouldn't be here. Medical articles are even better because the bar is higher.
Of course, there are exceptions. Nutjobs love wikipedia because it's a high-traffic site and most nutter topics have little written about them by real doctors, lawyers, engineers and scholars. This could make it hard for a dedicated editor who understands the laws of thermodynamics to argue with a Creationist, if it weren't for WP:PARITY.
Note, however, that if you are a nutter and are here to promote a theory that has already been investigated and proclaimed discredited, you should go away. Seriously. For all that wikipedia is a public, open encyclopedia, it is also a serious one. If Brittanica wouldn't be interested in your theory about the helical nature of time, the link between pyramids and alien landing pads, and the REALLY IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT HOW the X [7] link is being suppressed, chances are we would only want an article on it to either make fun of it, or use it as an example on how not to do something.
Easily the greatest service anyone can do for wikipedia is simply finding a reliable source and putting it between <ref>these tags</ref>.
Incidentally, [8] there is nothing more fun than your opponent in a POV-dispute shutting up because you've crammed a fact down their throat 'til it blocks their oesophagus.citation needed
So I hear. I've never done this myself. [9]
Ahem. [10]
Wikipedia's a collaborative process, so at some point you're going to have to talk to others. There's a few things to keep in mind:
Hey, this is neat. :Yes it is ::No it's not :::How does this help the article get better? {{outdent}}It does not.
Is rendered like this:
[11]
Hey, this is neat.
It does not.
So you've seen some basic policies. Great! Now here's some more. Intersperse your editing with reading of core and useful policies. Though the five pillars of Wikipedia are indeed critical, there are many other policies which are also vital (and a bunch of short forms you should probably get used to seeing).
So you saw the "WP:" a lot in that last section. You may be asking, what's up with that? Wikipedia (and wikipedians) use shortcuts, basically redirects, on talk pages and during discussion to refer to policies, guidelines and pages that are frequently accessed. Because let's face it, WP:ATA and WP:SANDWICH are a lot shorter than Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and Wikipedia:You should not spread your fetish across Wikipedia like mustard on a delicious, delicious ham sandwich. You get used to them pretty quickly, and you will be assimilated. A comprehensive list can be found at WP:CUTS, and there's an essay at WP:WTF (with a very amusing full title of Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!) about why you shouldn't use them. I'm not saying I agree with it (because experienced wikipedians usually link their short forms, you recognize the common ones pretty quickly, and the readers of wikipedia who do not edit will almost never see them unless visiting the talk pages as well) but it makes a valid point.
Congratulations! What should you do next? I'd say the first is, decide if you find wikipedia tedious, or addictive! If you like adding content, but not that much, perhaps just edit anonymously or add bits of content and leave the thankless grunt work to poor suckers like me who know when to pluralize with a pipe versus an out-of-bracket 's'. There's a difference, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool and a liar. His Grace, Emperor of Free Knowledge and Iron-Fisted Dictator of Wikipedia (may he reign forever) Jimbo Wales Himself has spoken to me on this matter, and assured me I am right. Unfortunately it was at a cabal meeting, and well, we are not permitted to discuss the contents of said meetings with you 'normals' (as we call you). Ask me about how we keep the electric car down! Actually, it's better if you don't. The Servers Have Ears. Soylent Green is definitely NOT people.
If editing wikipedia is fun, here's some of the next things you might want to do:
Wikipedia has many templates and they do a variety of things. Mostly they're a quick way of adding large amounts of standardized texts to pages. It's a form of mechanization, but fortunately is not driving us all out of business. Templates are used to point out basic errors or flaws in pages, leave comments, warnings and advice on talk pages, create standard boxes containing links to articles and various other things. Most can be modified to a certain extent, generally through the use of the pipe. Templates are always enclosed in two curly brackets like so: {{}}, and can be searched for using Template:Templatename in the search box. To link to a template without placing the template on the page itself, use the characters tl| within the template brackets. {{tl|Transformers}} produces {{ Transformers}}. How'd I get the tl| to show up? The <nowiki></nowiki> tags, accessed by typing them out, or the red-circled 'W' on the tool bar above the edit window.
Your favourite band just released an article in a third tier regional magazine, but they have no wikipedia page. Sure, it's not a good interview, it's not Time, Blender or even Accordian Enthusiasts' Yearly Review, but it scrapes by as a reliable source, and a whole article means extensive coverage! Way to go, your favourite band just sailed past notability for music, you can now reference the interview the fill the page with fancruft. [12] But how?
First, find out what the options are for names. Potatoheads (band)? Fingers in the Blender (rock group)? The Sad Clowns? Review the policy on naming conventions to pick an appropriate name. Type it into the search box. Already taken? Add a qualifier and look up guide to hatnotes and page disambiguation. Type in the qualifier, then find the red "Create this page" text. Alternatively, if you are sure you will be adding the link to another page, create the wikilink there, and edit the redlink. Click, and start editing. If a box shows up to say you are re-creating a deleted page, perhaps notify the deleting admin and leave a note on the talk page that you are aware of the re-creation, but now it passes because of your abysmally low-quality (but still reliable!) source. Be sure to include your reference. Sometimes the page is protected against re-creation due to repeated deletions (referred to as 'salting the earth'). Check out your favourite low-notability pornstar, chances are it's happened at least once. You'll have to get an admin to unprotect it - show them the reference, or draft the article on a sub-page, it'll probably be a good editorial review anyway. Now, to avoid the dreaded {{ orphan}} tag, try to find other articles to link it to. Which may be difficult if they aren't particularly notable.
It's so cute the way they grow up right in front of you! You've had your first argument with another user! Excellent. Here is an opportunity to practice your civility and assume good faith. Try to reach a consensus. As always, be very polite. Assume misunderstanding rather than malice. The absolute best way to settle any dispute is through an analysis of the reliable sources that support either side. If possible, present both sides of the argument. Agreeing to disagree is great, particularly if this is represented through an even-handed discussion of both sides of the issue. An escalating array of options for resolving disputes are presented:
So you're a stubborn bastard like me, and REFUSE to let The Wrong Version remain up for even a minute, consider edit warring. Violating the three revert rule is the absolute best way to take an enforced wikibreak and shows your dedication to The Right Version. It also shows up as a permanent record of you being an idiot.
If you are edit warring, stop. Voice your issues on the talk page. Leave messages on the other editor's talk page. Generally go through all the steps to dispute resolution and drink a big glass of patience.
Now, none of this applies if it's blatant vandalism.
So you've just spend days discussing a page, and now you're exhausted. You've got a version you're happy with, but oh no! The talk page is a 260K monster! You may think, I'll just erase it, to make things simpler. Go ahead, see what happens. Say "hi" to ClueBot for me. Have some lotion, it'll take away the sting.
Long talk pages are difficult to navigate and not particularly helpful, but the discussion is often very useful. It's saved anyway, in the history (nothing on wikipedia is ever erased, not even deleted pages). But it's nice not to have to troll through revisions. Instead of erasing, we archive the page, leaving a nice box at the top telling people where to go for previous discussion.
For your user talk page, you are permitted to simply delete content. Key word is "permitted". It's not generally looked well upon. If you're a lazy, lazy editor, there's always MiszaBot. Your talk page is your "warts and all" record of you as an editor. Be proud of your blocks, they're evidence of your learning. Unless you keep accumulating them. In which case, you're an idiot. I'm an idiot, I've got three. Do as I say, not as I do.
There are many things that vandalism is not. Make sure it's vandalism before you do vandal-fighting stuff. Vandalism can be a subtle beast. Here's my advice on vandalism and vandals:
My fingers are exhausted, my wrists are cramping. By the time you've gotten to this point in the essay, you should be pretty much fine. The next couple sections are short, and if you grok until this point, the rest shall follow.
Where else am I going to put it? An
edit count is the sum of all the edits a person has made to wikipedia. It's a somewhat useful rule-of-thumb for another editor's experience. If it's in the thousands, they probably know what they're doing. If it's in the tens of thousands, I'd be very surprised if they didn't. There's a quasi-official
bragging list. I'm on it, number 943 557, huzzah! As pointed out in
the essay on edit counts, it's a very rough measure, and in no way indicates the quality of the quantity. Some people spam a lot, some just engage on talk pages, some just do redirect corrections, none of which takes any appreciable understanding of wikipedia overall. But still, it's there and it's used. It's 'cause we're all secret elitists. Sad but true.
Merges, moves and splits take chunks of text and move them to a new article. If you think an article is redundant, consider merging it to the more appropriate one. There are tags to be placed ({{ mergeto}} and {{ mergefrom}}), discussions to be had, and consensus to be reached, but there's also boldness to be being-ed. Merge when there's two articles for the same thing (use a redirect), move when there's one article but it's got the wrong name (review the manual of style guide for capital letters, the most frequent reason why I move stuff), and split when there's enough text in one section for its own article. Become thee familiar with the {{ main}} template.
Deletions are one of the more interesting, challenging and fun areas of wikipedia, in my opinion. Acrimony, dissent, bitterness and head-splitting policy discussions can be found here. Anyone can engage in deletion discussions. It's not limited to admins. But you will get a better reception if you adhere to, and refer to, policy.
Basically it's like this - if you think that a page doesn't belong on wikipedia, you can try to have it deleted. Speedy deletion is for pages that obviously don't belong (like I, Jimbo Wales, Created This Page, So You Better Not Delete It) and use short codes for classification. Proposed deletions are for deletions that aren't quite speedy, but don't really merit a full deletion discussion. If a prod tag stays on a page for five days without contest, it's deleted. Articles for Deletion is the longest and most formal process, in which there is a formal discussion of the article and endorsements for different actions - Keep (leave alone), Delete (duh), Merge (move content to other article). Everyone gets one endorsement in the form of a bullet, bold word and rationale:
Don't play with the formatting, and don't just vote - provide a reasoning related to policy, read the reasoning of others. Theoretically it's not a vote, in my experience it's somewhere between a vote and a discussion with more weight going to experienced contributors ( here's what admins think) and apparently there is such a thing as inherent notability (much to my surprise). It's an ugly truth, but wikipedia is somewhat elitist. Key policies [13] include:
If an article you create is nominated for deletion, the absolute best thing to do is to find some sources that justify passing WP:N. A single link to a newspaper story on the entity may be sufficient (particularly if it is long, in-depth, in a major national or international newspaper, and ideally there are at least two of them) and spares much time wasting. Could even result in a speedy close if unequivocally convincing of notability, in which case you should ask yourself why you didn't put it in the article in the first place. If you nominated the page for deletion or previously argued for deletion, feel free to change your opinion by striking through your previous entry using the <s></s> tags if a good reference crops up or if you are convinced by another contributor's argument. Also feel free to point out that you were not convinced that another contributor's arguments and why, REFERRING TO POLICY. Sometimes in response to a Delete - unsourced, the page creator will pop up a blog entry "sourcing" something. The correct response to this is Comment - blogs are not considered
reliable sources.
[14] Pointing out the errors in other's deletion discussion arguments is allowed, but
don't be a dick about it
[15] - everyone makes mistakes and there is a difference between a gentle correction and beating someone about the head with a policy.
During deletion discussions, people may use the term !vote. Apparently the ! is a modifier in math or formal logic or some such, and it's used here to indicate that while the discussion is not a simple vote, sometimes you have nothing to say. !vote means, informally, "I've ready X, Y and Z's discussions and I find them convincing." Similar to !voting "Delete - per nom" or "Keep - per WLU", sometimes you have nothing to add but it's valuable to say that the discussion has been reviewed and it's good enough for you.
There are some policies which require a degree of familiarity with conventional policy before they can be truly grokked.
That's been my experience with wikipedia in a nutshell. The linked policies and essays contain the details.
One final point - no-one is anyone else's bitch. You are not obligated to edit because someone else wants you to. We're all volunteers, and over the long-term we either do it for fun, or profit. The former remain and become dedicated contributors. The latter often get blocked. If you point out a flaw in a page it's polite to try to correct it, but if you lack the time, knowledge or inclination, you aren't obligated to. This is another reason to be polite - if for some reason you are not allowed to edit a page, people will be more inclined to help you out if you're considerate, honest, open and do what you can to assist others.
Final, final point. For real this time. If you read this essay and at some point thought, "I can say it better than that" or "That's not the right wikilink", you may be ideal for this place. If you actually corrected the wikilink or edited to a better wording, put in your WP:RFA now. At its heart, wikipedia is about meddling. [16]
Wikipedia can be great. But it can also be ugly, frustrating, elitist, populist, and a host of other nasty things. Unconsciously, I've tried to make this about what wikipedia (and myself as an editor) should aspire to be. The reality is wikipedia is 3 million+ pages of pretty raw information that is cobbled together by many, many people, with a wide variety of reasons for contributing to the project. Including greed, self-importance, grinding axes, some sort of bizarre power fetishism and occasionally, the pursuit of the noble ideal of truth (but I already mentioned self-importance, didn't I?) So don't be surprised if you get bit, blocked and belittled. If you can pull a Jesus and turn the other cheek, kudos to you sir/madam, you are better than many here. Certainly better than I. WLU ( talk) 21:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)