The Gold Standard - Reliable Sources
Conditions and Exceptions
Alternatives
WP:Verifiability (Essay: WP:TRUTH)
WP:Contentious labels
Non-constructive rants
Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism.(also, WP:AGF)
Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that disrupts progress toward improving an article.
Foremost, consensus through editing
"Stonewalling"
Editor 1 makes an edit, I revert it, Editor 2 re-adds it
Conclusion: If I revert a bold edit, and it is restored by another user, the new edit stands until discussion is held (unless it violates policy)
Editor 1 makes an edit, I edit their edit, Editor 2 reverts me
Conclusion: Similar to above - If I make a bold edit that still undoes some change another editor made, and there's no policy-based reason to revert the reversion, discussion must be taken to talk page.
^ Editor 2 in this scenario owns the change, and must back up their new opinion in discussion
Green for talk quotes
Example of a section title anchor: [1]
"Wikipedia should reflect the truth
" is a common misconception. Instead, Wikipedia collects information that is verifiable.
WP:V is a core policy of the project (similarly, see
WP:TRUTH).
You said "there is bias on Wikipedia
" - allow me to invite you to edit here and help to neutralize bias (in accordance with
WP:NPOV). But before you do so, please read up on the
policies and guidelines used around here.
If that's too much to read in one sitting, just start with these: Edit carefully, be polite, and if you violate policy and are told as much, don't take it personally - just take it to heart and continue to edit better.
The Gold Standard - Reliable Sources
Conditions and Exceptions
Alternatives
WP:Verifiability (Essay: WP:TRUTH)
WP:Contentious labels
Non-constructive rants
Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism.(also, WP:AGF)
Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that disrupts progress toward improving an article.
Foremost, consensus through editing
"Stonewalling"
Editor 1 makes an edit, I revert it, Editor 2 re-adds it
Conclusion: If I revert a bold edit, and it is restored by another user, the new edit stands until discussion is held (unless it violates policy)
Editor 1 makes an edit, I edit their edit, Editor 2 reverts me
Conclusion: Similar to above - If I make a bold edit that still undoes some change another editor made, and there's no policy-based reason to revert the reversion, discussion must be taken to talk page.
^ Editor 2 in this scenario owns the change, and must back up their new opinion in discussion
Green for talk quotes
Example of a section title anchor: [1]
"Wikipedia should reflect the truth
" is a common misconception. Instead, Wikipedia collects information that is verifiable.
WP:V is a core policy of the project (similarly, see
WP:TRUTH).
You said "there is bias on Wikipedia
" - allow me to invite you to edit here and help to neutralize bias (in accordance with
WP:NPOV). But before you do so, please read up on the
policies and guidelines used around here.
If that's too much to read in one sitting, just start with these: Edit carefully, be polite, and if you violate policy and are told as much, don't take it personally - just take it to heart and continue to edit better.