Wikipedia Of Essays

This page in a nutshell: Before writing a new essay, check to make sure that the topic hasn't already been covered.

Although there is no guideline or policy that explicitly prohibits it, writing redundant essays and information pages is discouraged. New pages should offer new perspectives or fresh insight on editing Wikipedia, and not reiterate arguments or information that has already been covered in previous policies, guidelines, or other essays and informative pages. Editors should browse the directory or use the search tool that are available to avoid unintended repetition. Elaborating on a subtopic briefly covered in an existing essay, or offering a new perspective on an argument made by another essay, are acceptable.

Essays and information pages covering the same topic should be merged. If an essay is short and new enough that there is nothing to merge, then consider redirecting the page to a larger or more popular essay, userfying the essay if the author has a desire to keep it, or utilizing the deletion process.

Why you shouldn't write redundant essays[edit]

See also: Wikipedia:Project namespace § Creating new project pages

  1. Essay quality. It reduces overall essay quality. Multiple essays on the same topic spreads the work that could have been done on one page across several pages, leading to repetition and lack of depth. It's better to have one longer, high quality essay than many short essays.
  2. Detracts from expansion. Writing redundant essays diverts time and resources away from improving on existing essays. Instead of writing a new essay, consider expanding an essay that covers a related topic.
  3. New users. It confuses new editors. There are already enough policies and guidelines contributing to Wikipedia's steep learning curve. Hundreds of user-written essays, that may or may not represent community consensus, doesn't help matters.
  4. Vandalism. Although vandalism in the project space is rarer than in the article space, it does occur. Having multiple essays on the same topic makes vandalism harder to detect, because there are more pages to watch.

How to avoid writing redundant essays[edit]

How to deal with redundant essays[edit]

  • Propose a merger with a larger or more popular essay.
  • Or redirect the page if there's no content to merge.
  • Remember to politelydiscuss the issue before making any substantial changes, either on the talk page of the essay or the talk page of the author.
  • Userfy the essay if the author, or another editor, desires the essay.

See also[edit]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Essay directory


Note:Essays and information pages represent the opinion(s) of an individual or group of editors and are intended to supplement or clarify a process while sometimes offering advice. Essays and information pages are not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, thus have no official status within the community. Following the instructions or guidance given in an essay or information page is optional, as they may be written and edited by anyone without overall community oversight.

List of Wikipedia essays[edit]

About essays[edit]

About Wikipedia[edit]

  • About Wikipedia - a general introduction for visitors to Wikipedia.
  • Administration - discuses both the non-human administrative structure of Wikipedia, as well as its human components.
  • Academic use - describes how citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.
  • Editing environment - describes how Wikipedia is governed? What happens when content disputes 'boil over' into accusations of bad conduct?
  • Editorial oversight and control - discusses the various processes and structures by which Wikipedia articles and their editing are editorially controlled, and the processes which are built into that model to ensure quality of article content.
  • Evaluating Wikipedia as an encyclopedia - discusses Wikipedia's success or failure as an encyclopedia, using the standard accepted criteria for all encyclopedias.
  • Five pillars - describes the fundamental principles of Wikipedia
  • Formal organization - discusses who does what on Wikipedia? What does Wikipedia say itself about its own formal organizational structure?
  • Gender Bias and Editing on Wikipedia - discusses the gender gap that exists on Wikipedia in terms of editors and editing practice.
  • Processes - describes the technical, methodical, and semi-formal means of accomplishing goals and resolving disputes.
  • Product, process, policy - describes how process and policy are generated in order to improve Wikipedia.
  • Purpose - describes Wikipedia's motive for being.
  • Quality control - describes how the very wiki-nature of Wikipedia enables instant and continuous quality control, by allowing anyone and everyone to participate in improving articles and the encyclopedia as a whole.
  • Replies to common objections - answers a number of common criticisms of the Wikipedia project as outlined in publications (see WP:Criticisms for a list of quotations from critics).
  • Researching with Wikipedia - discusses how Wikipedia can be a great tool for learning and researching information. However, as with all reference works, not everything in Wikipedia is accurate, comprehensive, or unbiased.
  • Role of Jimmy Wales - discusses how Jimmy Wales holds a special role in the governance of the English Wikipedia, because of the central and vital stake he had in its founding.
  • Sexual content - discusses how Wikipedia contains sexual content.
  • The essence of Wikipedia - describes how Wikipedia is the harnessing of the collective intelligence and collaborative efforts of editors who hold opposing points of view, in an attempt to preserve all serious contributions which are reliably sourced. The aim is the progressive building of more and better NPOV content.
  • The role of policies in collaborative anarchy - describes how policies produce a quality encyclopaedia.
  • The rules are principles - describes how policies and guidelines exist only as rough approximations of their underlying principles.
  • Trifecta - describes the foundation principles of our policies and guidelines.
  • Why Wikipedia is so great - discusses what accounts for Wikipedia's enormous growth and success.
  • Why Wikipedia is not so great - discusses many drawbacks of Wikipedia'
  • Who writes Wikipedia? - discusses how anyone (EVEN YOU!) can edit existing articles or create new ones, and that volunteers do not need to have any formal training to contribute.
  • Wikipedia may or may not be failing - discusses what is going on? And why should we care?
  • Wikipedia in brief - describes the very basics principals about contributing.
  • Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia - describes how what is considered "mainstream" for Wikipedia may be the minority view in society.
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - describes some norms of the Wikipedia community.
  • Wikipedia is a community - describes how there is nothing wrong with occasionally doing other things than writing the encyclopedia, and that community spirit is a positive thing.
  • Wikipedia is failing- describes ways in which Wikipedia is not fulfilling its aim.
  • Wikipedia is a tertiary source - describes how Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such Wikipedia is a tertiary source.
  • Wikipedia is a work in progress - discusses how Wikipedia is constantly being improved and expanded, and it will never be finished.
  • Wikipedia is succeeding - presents arguments to show that the Wikipedia is succeeding in the goal of becoming a reputable and reliable encyclopedia.
  • You don't own Wikipedia - discusses how the Wikimedia Foundation outranks the community.

Back to contents

Privacy and security[edit]

  • Advice for parents - offers a brief introduction to Wikipedia for parents and legal guardians.
  • Guidance for younger editors - advice for young editors about what they should be aware of.
  • How to not get outed on Wikipedia - discusses how some editors of Wikipedia, having their "real life" identity discovered can be a major problem, threatening their well-being, careers, or even personal safety. There are a variety of steps you can take to help protect yourself from this happening.
  • IP edits are not anonymous - discusses how editing Wikipedia with an IP address as your identifier is often less anonymous than editing with a normal account.
  • On privacy, confidentiality and discretion - discusses how all should be careful about revealing and handling personal and/or private information, as your rights to privacy may not extend as far as you believe.
  • Personal security practices - intended as a guideline for user security concerns and practices on Wikipedia. It adapts some information from the Wikimedia foundation's privacy policy to address some personal security concerns that may arise in the course of editing Wikipedia.
  • Protecting children's privacy - discusses how all users, including children, are permitted to edit anonymously without submitting identifying information. Reasonable efforts to discourage children from disclosing identifying personal information are appropriate.
  • Responding to threats of harm - discusses how anyone who observes potentially suicidal or violent behavior should notify Wikipedia administrators quickly. (Editors may not provide counselling services or professional referrals).
  • Strong passwords - discusses how a strong password is a password used that is hard for a vandal, or anyone, to crack.
  • User account security - discusses how editors should use a strong password to avoid being blocked for bad edits by someone who guesses or "cracks" other editors' passwords.
  • Why create an account - discusses how you don't need to be registered to edit, however it does provide additional features and privacy.
  • Wikipedia is a volunteer service - discusses how editors on Wikipedia are mainly volunteers. Editors can contribute as much as they want, and however long they desire.
  • Wikipedia is anonymous - discusses how Wikipedia can be anonymous. But there are various ways your identity can be revealed.
  • Wikipedia is in the real world - discusses how your activity here has real consequences, because Wikipedia is in the real world.

Back to contents

About editors[edit]

  • Competence is required - discusses how not every person belongs at Wikipedia, because some people are not sufficiently competent.
  • Disruptive user- discusses examples that would make someone a disruptive user.
  • Editorial discretion - discusses how common sense and Wikipedia policy dictates that editors must practice discretion regarding the proper inclusion of relevant and well-sourced content.
  • Editor integrity discusses how editors have a responsibility to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia and respect intellectual property rights of the sources they draw upon when they create and improve encyclopedia pages.
  • Editors matter - discusses how Wikipedia's most important resource is its contributors.
  • Editors will sometimes be wrong - discusses how individual editors, and even groups of editors, are sometimes wrong.
  • Expert editors - discusses how expert editors are important to Wikipedia.
  • Ghostwriting- discusses organizations and individuals bypassing the conflict-of-interest guideline by supplying approved drafts of articles about themselves.
  • Here to build an encyclopedia - describes the distinguish constructive and non-constructive behaviour of editors.
  • Honor system - describes how editors are trusted to obey all the rules and do the right thing. There is no central authority and no police force, just the assumption of good faith.
  • IP users - discusses guest users or unregistered users are users who edit Wikipedia without registering for an account
  • IP addresses are not people - discusses how with some exceptions, unregistered users can edit articles and participate on talk pages in the same way as registered users.
  • Levels of competence- discusses how all editors go through a series of levels in their understanding of Wikipedia.
  • New account- discusses how a new account is a registered user which has too few contributions to obtain a definite reputation, or is registered too recently for it.
  • Newbies aren't always clueless - discuses how just because someone is new, does not mean they have no idea what they are doing.
  • No editor is indispensable - discusses how no editor is so important that the project would collapse without them.
  • Paid editing (essay) - discusses how some editors (usually for money) creating or editing a Wikipedia article for an individual or entity.
  • Retiring - discusses how sometimes active users decide to retire from, or leave, Wikipedia and may return at any point.
  • Single-purpose account - discuses how many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favoured point of view.
  • User rights are not a golden ticket - discusses how user rights, as they appear in the log, do not denote a hierarchy of Wikipedians. Rollback, sysop, checkuser, oversight etc. are not special groups. While we call these privileges, they are not a measure of status.
  • What administrators do - discusses how administrators are regular unpaid editors who have access to tools which give them the ability to protect pages, delete pages, and block users.
  • Wikipedians - discusses the volunteers who write and edit Wikipedia's articles, unlike readers who simply read them.
  • You are not irreplaceable - describes how every good-faith editor is important to the overall success of Wikipedia.

Back to contents

Contributing to Wikipedia[edit]

Back to contents

Philosophy[edit]

  • Articles must be written - describes how articles should be created before linked in articles.
  • Avoid vague introductions - describes how the lead of articles should summarize the contents of the article.
  • Be a reliable source - describes the best way you can be a good source by strictly adhere to the guidelines pertaining to them.
  • Best practices for editors with close associations - describes suggestions for how to edit successfully, if you have a close association or involvement with the topic you are editing.
  • Cohesion - describes how text and other information is organized and structured within an articles.
  • Concede lost arguments - describes how making explicit concessions when an argument is lost is good.
  • Don't lie - describes how editors should refrain from lying at all times.
  • Explanationism - describes the concept of Wikipedia's purpose as being to some degree based in explanations.
  • Every edit must stand on its own feet - describes how small changes are good, but each change must improve the article and preserve its integrity.
  • Honesty - describes how honesty is expected in all processes of Wikipedia, including content discussion, the dispute process and all other functions of the community.
  • Gender-neutral language - describes how gender-neutral language should be used where this can be done with clarity and precision
  • Introduction to structurism - describes an editing philosophy emphasizing interconnection, organization, and uniformity as the best way to improve the usefulness of content across all Wikimedia projects.
  • Most ideas are bad - describes how most proposals are bad and how to handle that point.
  • News policy abuse - discusses how breaking news should not be covered by a new Wikipedia article.
  • Not editing because of Wikipedia restriction - describes how some articles should not be written although we'd like to write it.
  • Oversimplification - describes how not to oversimplify material in the effort to make it more understandable.
  • Paradoxes - describes the major conceptual contradictions within our project
  • Paraphrasing - describes how editors should generally summarize source material in their own words.
  • Readers first- describes how whenever we write something, we should always put our readers first.
  • Responsible tagging - discusses how the best care should be taken to only add the most relevant and specific tags, and leave an explanation on the talk page so that others can understand what the problem was/is.
  • Student assignments - discusses how students that edit Wikipedia as part of an assignment should improve Wikipedia – without any serious violations of content norms.
  • Snowball clause - discusses how you should use common sense and don't follow a process for the sake of it; But, if in doubt, then allow discussions to take place.
  • Tagging pages for problems - discusses how "Tags" (Template messages) should be used to clearly identify problems with Wikipedia pages to indicate to other editors that improvements are needed.
  • Tendentious editing - describes how to recognize bad editing, how to avoid it, and how not to be accused of it.
  • Time management - discusses how your time reading and editing Wikipedia may be limited, thus you should focus your editing toward the most enjoyable and productive goals.
  • Too long; didn't read - describes the cause of excessive length, suggestions on how to reduce it, and a reminder to always exercise civility with other editors when paring.
  • What "Ignore all rules" means - describes how most rules are ultimately descriptive, not prescriptive; they describe existing current practice.
  • Words of wisdom - discusses how editors should remember that the goal is encyclopedic information and should attempt to set aside their egos while they are here at Wikipedia.
  • Writing about women - discusses the subtle and more obvious ways in which titles, language, images and linking practices on the English Wikipedia can discriminate against women.

Back to contents

Discussions and consensus[edit]
  • Adjectives in your recommendations - discusses how editors choose to put adjectives in their recommendations (sometimes described as votes or !votes); there is disagreement on if this is a good practice or not
  • Avoiding talk-page disruption - describes how best to use clear, expository, and even-handed responses in clashes over a new contribution.
  • Arguments to avoid on discussion pages - discusses how while involved in a discussion, there are arguments that can make or break a case.
  • Arguments to avoid in edit wars - discusses how when an edit war takes place, arguments should be productive and should be aimed at reaching an agreement, and not about acting superior, having it one's way, or otherwise discounting the other(s) involved.
  • BOLD, revert, discuss cycle- discusses how making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus.
  • BRD misuse - discusses two types of editors exhibiting behaviors that misuse the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.
  • Confusing arguments mean nothing- discusses how a confusing argument has little to no meaning and can be ignored in Wikipedia discussions.
  • Closing discussions - discusses how and when discussions should be closed.
  • Discussing cruft - discusses how many Wikipedians use cruft as a shorthand term to describe content that is inappropriate for Wikipedia.
  • Don't bludgeon the process - discusses how it is not necessary or desirable to reply to every comment in a discussion.
  • Don't restore removed comments - discusses how users may remove comments from their own talk page. There is no need for others to replace those comments.
  • Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" - describes how if the only thing you have to say about a contribution to the encyclopedia is that it lacks consensus, it's best not to revert it.
  • Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid - discusses how speaking out against consensus and policy is not disruptive if it is done with civility.
  • Editors can change their minds - describes how if an editor changes position during Wikipedia discussions, all it means is the discussion process is working.
  • Follow the leader - discusses how it is not necessary to agree with the nominator or the first editor to comment. Do not be ashamed to be in the minority.
  • Do not use edit history to escalate the conflict - discusses how if the user has already removed one's uncivil comment, pulling it from edit history "for open discussion" may just escalate the conflict.
  • I just don't like it - discusses how expressing a like or dislike for the issue in question is not a helpful or useful argument in a discussion.
  • IPs are human too - discusses how unregistered users can edit articles and participate on talk pages in the same way as registered users. Their input is just as important in building consensus.
  • Method for consensus building - discusses the basic recommended consensus decision-making process.
  • Nothing - discusses how editors who use the "everything" argument are urged to provide more detail of their argument.
  • Notification - discusses how if you begin a discussion of another user on a common notice board, it is expected that you will notify the subject user by posting a message on their talk page.
  • Polling is not a substitute for discussion - describes how some decisions on Wikipedia are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions to achieve consensus. Polling is only meant to facilitate discussion, and should be used with care.
  • Provide diffs - discusses how editors making claims about the conduct of other editors, should make sure to provide diffs as evidence during discussions.
  • Shadowless Fists of Death! - discusses how its best not to mindlessly quote policy or guideline titles at other editors in arguments. It's obnoxious and counter productive. Explain thyself.
  • Sham consensus - discusses how a consensus may not be relied on, because it violates a policy, a guideline, or an ArbCom decision.
  • Silence and consensus - describes how consensus is assumed when there's no evidence of disagreement.
  • Supervote - discusses several varieties of supervote, most of them are problematic.
  • Tag team- discusses how using meatpuppetry to coordinate the actions of multiple editors to circumvent the normal process of consensus is inappropriate.
  • What is consensus? - discusses how disputes on Wikipedia are settled by editing and discussion, not voting.
  • What "no consensus" means - discusses how a "no consensus" result means differs depending on the nature of the discussion.
  • Wikipedia is not Whack-A-Mole - discusses how editors should not rush in to a discussion pointing at lots of policies without expanding on why you're doing so.

Back to contents

Development of Wikipedia[edit]

  • 100K featured articles - discusses the challenge of accomplishing the goal of 100,000 more Feature-quality articles.
  • A navbox on every page - discusses how Navbox templates can be useful as a tool for navigation.
  • Acronym Overkill - discusses how articles should reflect acronym use in the 3rd party sources.
  • Adding images improves the encyclopedia discusses how adding images to articles and essays is an easy way to improve the encyclopedia.
  • Alternatives to the "Expand" template - describes better ways to say "this article needs more information" than using a template.
  • Amnesia test - discusses how you should forget everything you know about the subject before editing.
  • An unfinished house is a real problem - discusses how unfinished articles are not harmfully, however they should be made accurate and readable before saving.
  • Articles have a half-life - describes the time it takes for a substance to degrade to half its former quantity and what to do about it.
  • Avoid mission statements - discusses how organizational statements generally should not be included in articles.
  • Avoid template creep - discusses how its best not to overuse templates.
  • Beef up that first revision - discusses how hew page patrollers judge the articles by their first mainspace revisions; they prefer these to already contain basic context, assertion of notability, and sources.
  • Categories are different from articles - discusses how categories and articles serve different purposes in Wikipedia.
  • Categories versus lists - discusses how the category system causes more problems than it solves.
  • Categorising fiction - discusses how categorising fictional constructs on Wikipedia can be problematic.
  • Concept cloud - describes how brainstorming can help editors to overcome editorial struggles, and conceptualize, in a material way, the way an article is formed.
  • Complete bollocks - discusses how articles that are obviously false should be treated differently from similar articles.
  • Creating controversial content - describes how new articles or facts that are especially controversial can survive severe dispute.
  • Don't demolish the house while it's still being built - describes how a short article should be marked as a stub and edited, and expanded, rather than simply deleted.
  • Don't hope the house will build itself - describes how a little planning and a little effort is all that is needed to prevent an article from being deleted.
  • Don't include every update - discusses how newly released information is good, but can end up as clutter if everything goes into an article.
  • Don't panic - discusses how you should always keep an eye on yourself when you are involved in a dispute.
  • Don't overuse quotes - discusses how many articles use quotations to represent opinions of significant people. This is a mistake.
  • Editing on mobile devices - describes the challenges of editing with smartphones.
  • Editors are not mindreaders - discusses how someone can distinguish the incomplete, unreferenced article you've just created but plan to improve from one that will never be improved?
  • Featured articles may have problems - discusses how featured articles are not necessarily to be emulated; focus on our policies and guidelines.
  • Give an article a chance - discusses how its best not to nominate newly created articles for deletion.
  • How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance - discusses the creation of new guidance and to the improvement or updating of existing guidance.
  • Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats - provides a rational argument for refusing editors who insist on an article complying with WP:STRONGNAT.
  • Keep it short and simple - discusses how rules and procedure pages should be simple and short, or else people will not read them.
  • Let the dust settle - discusses how its best to wait till things have calmed down before creating an article about current topics to Wikipedia. For breaking news, use Wikinews or current events.
  • Merge Test - discusses how If a merge will result in an article too large to comfortably read or the deletion of encyclopedic content, it should not occur.
  • "Murder of" articles - discusses how articles titled "Murder of [victim]" are a possible solution to the notability guidelines that would bar articles on the perpetrator or victim.
  • Not everything needs a navbox - discusses how navboxs templates can be useful as a tool for navigation, but use them sparingly.
  • Nothing is in stone - discusses how easy is it for Wikipedia to change and that all should pay attention to the changes.
  • Permastub - discusses how some stub articles have no reasonable prospect for expansion.
  • Potential, not just current state - discusses how its best to keep articles based on their potential notability and verification, not just how they look now.
  • Printability- discusses how editors decide whether or not any given type of article-namespace redirect is suitable for an offline, CD/DVD or print version of Wikipedia.
  • Proseline - discusses how articles being comprehensive and up-to-date is perfectly reasonable and okay to a point, but proseline (timelines) tends to degrade the quality of the articles
  • Pruning article revisions - discusses how publicists may want tips on legitimately reporting clients' achievements and have their articles stay in Wikipedia, not deleted.
  • Put a little effort into it - discusses how when creating a new article, even if it is a stub, try to put in at least a little bit more than just the absolute minimum.
  • Redirects are cheap - discusses how redirects take up minimal system resources, so it doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around.
  • Restoring part of a reverted edit - discusses how it is sometimes better to remove the content that is objectionable, instead of entirely reverting an edit.
  • Robotic editing - discusses how the manual performance of the same or similar edit to multiple, perhaps numerous pages.
  • Run an edit-a-thon - discusses how an "edit-a-thons" improves the encyclopedia and can be a great way to help new Wikipedians learn to edit.
  • Temporary versions of articles - reasons for and against temporary versions.
  • There is a deadline - discusses how the preservation or survivability of the knowledge is at stake. Contribute it to Wikipedia before it's too late.
  • There is no deadline - discusses how Wikipedia is a work in progress. Don't rush to edit: it's not a competition.
  • The deadline is now - discusses how when an article contains unverifiable content, it needs to be corrected now before someone reads it and is misled by it.
  • The world will not end tomorrow - discusses how an encyclopedia should not begin to move at lightning speed to keep up with the rat race of the outside world.
  • Walled garden - discusses how articles should have outgoing and incoming links to the wider encyclopedia.
  • What an article should not include - discusses how some things rarely, if ever, should appear in the saved version of an article.
  • Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion - discusses how Wikipedia grows organically, thus the quality of pages is varied.
  • Writing better articles - advice on how to write an effective article, including information on layout, style, and how to make an article clear, precise and relevant to the reader.
  • Wikipedia is not about YOU - discusses how Wikipedia is not the place to promote a topic with which you have personal involvement.
  • Wikipedia is not a fan website - discusses how Wikipedia is a user-edited website, it is an encyclopedia, not a fan website.
  • Wikipedia is not a newspaper - discusses how Wikipedia is not a journal of current news.

Back to contents

Deletion of content[edit]

  • AfD is not a war zone - about how articles for deletion (AfD) discussions should remain calm and civil, avoid adhering too strongly to either deletionism or inclusionism.
  • Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - discusses arguments that should generally be avoided – or at the least supplemented with a better-grounded rationale for the position.
  • Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews - discusses how all should try to make clear, solid arguments in deletion reviews, avoiding short one-liners or simple links.
  • Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions - discusses how the strongest arguments are those that explain clearly how they are based upon that policy.
  • Arguments to make in deletion discussions - discusses some arguments that have successfully saved articles from deletion in the past, or otherwise supported one's cause, and therefore, may support yours.
  • Avoid repeated arguments - discusses avoiding repeating statements previously made in AfD discussions.
  • Baby and bathwater- discusses how good-faith editors can mistakenly delete content that is actually properly sourced, and citations which are valid, by misunderstanding our sourcing-related policies and guidelines.
  • Before commenting in a deletion discussion - discusses how there are several things you should be aware of before you comment in a deletion debate in order to best make your case.
  • Content removal - discusses how when removing content from a page, it is important to be sure there is consensus to do so.
  • Delete the junk - discusses how we don't need to keep an article with no merit in itself just because it might, theoretically, be possible to make a good article on the subject.
  • Deletion and deletionism - discusses the processes used on Wikipedia for removing articles, images, miscellaneous pages, user pages, stubs, and categories.
  • Deletion by redirection - discusses how redirecting an article is often an appropriate course of action to be taken when an article clearly fails to meet the general notability guidelines for inclusion.
  • Deletion is not cleanup - discusses how if an article on a notable subject can be improved through normal editing, do not put it through a deletion discussion.
  • Does deletion help - discusses whether or not articles add to a reader's knowledge without misleading or biasing them in any way.
  • Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument - discusses how editors in the midst of a dispute should not offer links to policy, guideline, or essay pages in place of reasoned rebuttals.
  • Do not write articles using categories - an example of how not to use categories to mention every aspect of the topic covered.
  • Field guide to proper speedy deletion a quick guide to understanding the speedy deletion criteria, and how to apply it properly.
  • Help, my article got nominated for deletion! - discusses how new editors who decide to be bold sometimes encounter the deletion process because the new article may be at odds with a Wikipedia policy.
  • How to save an article proposed for deletion - discusses the best ways to save an article that has been proposed for deletion.
  • How to delete a page - discusses how to ask for an article to be deleted because only administrators can delete them. Note that removing all text from a page does not delete it, it just leaves a blank page, which is discouraged.
  • Immunity - discusses the idea that an article cannot possibly be deleted, either because no one will dispute the fact it belongs, or it meets inclusion criteria so well, that no one will dare think to have it deleted.
  • Introduction to deletion process - discusses the guidelines and policies relevant to deletion, and the overall process.
  • Liar Liar Pants on Fire - discusses how calling an editor a liar is not a valid argument in AfD discussions (or anywhere else, for that matter).
  • Overzealous deletion - discusses how overzealous deletion goes against Wikipedia's assume good faith principle.
  • Relisting can be abusive - discusses how editors should not relisting a deletion discussion if a consensus has been firmly and recently established.
  • Revert only when necessary - discusses how editors should revert vandalism upon sight but revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration.
  • So your article has been nominated for deletion - a tutorial for users whose articles have been nominated for deletion, with an eye toward users new to Wikipedia in general.
  • Viewing deleted content - discusses how normally only administrators have the right to view deleted material.
  • Why was the page I created deleted? - discusses how to find out why a particular page or file was removed, and what you can do about a deletion you disagree with.
  • What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion - discusses why an article was tagged for deletion,
  • When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork - discusses how when an event article of borderline notability that could potentially become notable in the future is nominated for deletion, the best solution is to transfer it out of article space without deleting it so it can potentially be re-added at a later date.

Back to contents

Wikipedia's code of conduct[edit]

Civility[edit]

  • Wikipedia:A weak personal attack is still wrong - advises that mild severity of a personal attack does not make the personal attack okay
  • Wikipedia:Advice for hotheads – discusses how argumentative, cantankerous and curmudgeonly personalities can avoid getting themselves into trouble
  • Accepting other users - discusses how working cooperatively with other users and assume good faith. Wikipedia is a collaborative project.
  • Apologizing - discusses how we should not be afraid to apologize, and reminds us to apologize with sincerity.
  • Civil POV pushing - discusses how the dispute resolution process has a difficult time dealing with civil POV pushers.
  • Compromise - discusses how negotiation skills often assist editors in delicate situations.
  • Divisiveness - discusses how content on your user page might be seen by some as "divisive" it is recommended that you may choose to expand the content in question.
  • Encouraging newcomers - discusses how the more guidance you offer novice editors, the better they will get at using Wikipedia.
  • Keep it down to earth - discusses workable solutions that have a realistic chance at succeeding..
  • Thank you - discusses how we all like to be respected, and we all deserve respect.
  • Truce - discusses how when in a dispute, attempt to reach a compromise or declare a truce.
  • High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors - discusses how Autistic and Asperger's editors may have different wiring patterns in their brains, but that does not mean they cant contribute.
  • How to be civil - discusses how editors should offer constructive comments, forgive editors, be polite, and walk away if you have to.
  • How to improve civility - discusses how you should treat your fellow editor as a respected and admired colleague, who is working in collaboration with you on an important project.
  • Imagine others complexly - discusses how civility issues, misunderstandings, and discomfort on Wikipedia can sometimes arise from a failure to imagine others complexly.
  • Maintaining a friendly space - discusses how Wikipedia should strive to provide a respectful, transparent, and positive experience for everyone.
  • Obsessive Compulsive Disorder editors - discusses how editors with OCD may have different wiring patterns in their brains, and you may have to learn how to interact well with them, but they can still make a valuable contribution to Wikipedia.

Back to contents

Behavioural philosophy[edit]

  • Admitting you're wrong - discusses how you can make friends and influence enemies on Wikipedia by learning when to admit you're wrong.
  • An uncivil environment is a poor environment - describes how being civil encourages others to be civil. Work towards building a collaborative workspace.
  • Avoid instruction creep - discusses how guidance that is too wordy and tries to cover all the bases and every conceivable outlying case tends to become counterproductive.
  • Avoiding difficult users - discusses how only a few users are difficult, so they should be avoided.
  • Be the glue - describes how following WP:AGF can be a tactic that will let you either discover common ground when you're really facing good faith, or empirically establish that you aren't.
  • Civility warnings - describes the best practice in leaving those notifications and warnings.
  • Drama - discusses how creating and spreading drama disrupts and harms Wikipedia – and it may get you blocked.
  • Don't be high-maintenance - discusses how editors should not threaten to quit, or otherwise make trouble, if you don't get your way.
  • Enjoy yourself - discusses how editing should be fun.
  • Expert retention - discusses the issue of how to attract and retain expert specialists, given the anarchic and often frustrating nature of Wikipedia, is one that many Wikipedians feel needs to be addressed.
  • Expect no thanks - discusses how we should edit Wikipedia for the love of the project, not primarily with the hope of being thanked, however a little more thanks would go a long way.
  • Expressing thanks - discusses common methods for communicating thanks to other users.
  • Failure - describes how failure is a good thing because people are prone to mistakes, and they learn as a result of them.
  • Ignore personal attacks - discusses how if someone attacks you personally, you should ignore it, rise above it, and continue to comment solely on relevant content.
  • Forgive and forget - describes how editors should stop fighting. Forgive others, apologize, and move on.
  • It's not the end of the world - describes how If people disagree with you or revert your edits, it probably doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
  • Nobody cares - describes how lack of action by others can mean lack of interest.
  • Policy shopping - describes how it is best to present all justifications for a change at one time (not incrementally).
  • Reasonableness - discusses how reasonable people with good intentions can still disagree over matters of substance.
  • Relationships with academic editors - discusses how Wikipedia is not a place to make an academic reputation, nor to post still-unpublished theories, and attempting academic defence of material is an emotional danger to one's self.
  • Staying cool when the editing gets hot - describes how editors should remain calm when in an editing dispute. Respond politely and assume good faith.
  • There is no seniority - The number of edits (or if the editor is a Wikipedia Administrator) does not mean that they are always right. Seniority does not add weight to arguments.
  • Taking the road less traveled - discusses how doing things differently from others can often yield better results.
  • The grey zone - describes how editors should not fall between the cracks.
  • The last word - describes the importance that you always ensure that you get "The Last Word".
  • The rules of polite discourse - describes how editors may need to take a "time out" and try to discuss the issue calmly.
  • There is no Divine Right Of Editors discusses how no editor, administrator or otherwise, is superior or above the law.
  • Wikipedia is not about winning - describes how all should work together to build a reliable encyclopedia, not try to prove themselves to be "better" than others
  • Writing for the opponent - describes how editors should represent all point of views neutrally and with due weight, even if you disagree with the view.
  • You can't change the guideline first - discusses how there are several reasons for why you can't change the policy or guideline first,
  • You can search, too - discusses how search engines exist for a reason, and it is not other editors' job to use one for you.

Back to contents

Positive actions[edit]
  • Assume the assumption of good faith - discusses when involved in a discussion, it is best to think very carefully before citing WP:AGF.
  • Assume no clue - discusses how you should assume that people don't know what they're doing before you assume bad faith.
  • Avoid personal remarks - discusses how all should focus on editing, stay civil, don't make it personal.
  • Call a spade a spade - discusses how it's okay to call a spade a spade – to speak plainly – but remember to remain civil, and to stay focused on improving the encyclopedia.
  • Candor - discusses how being honest and frank can be beneficial before an editing disagreement gets worse.
  • Deny recognition - discusses how recognition is a motivation for vandalism. Trolls require food. Don't feed the trolls.
  • Don't link to WP:AGF - discusses how it can occasionally be useful to link to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, but there are many reasons not to.
  • Don't overlook legal threats - discusses how when editors blank articles or make legal threats, they may have good cause. Stop and look carefully before assuming they're disruptive or wielding a banhammer.
  • Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass - discusses how if the debate has died, don't revive it.
  • Encourage full discussions - discusses how editors are encouraged to fully discuss all arguments in AfD discussions. If you bring up a point in the discussion, it is okay if someone else responds to it.
  • Get over it - discusses how editors should not get frustrated over a dispute. Get over it and move on.
  • How to lose - discusses how knowing how to "lose" a debate, with civility and grace, is sometimes as important as winning it.
  • Ignore all dramas ' - discusses how if the dramas prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.
  • Just drop it - discusses how if you want an argument to stop, best you stop arguing.
  • Keep it down to earth - discusses how editors should aim for workable solutions that have a realistic chance at succeeding.
  • Mind your own business - discusses how if editors are in a dispute that has nothing to do with you, then stay away.
  • Thank not criticize - discusses how editors should focus on the positives of a user more than the negatives. Try earning them carrots rather than sticks.

Back to contents

Negative actions[edit]
  • Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack - discusses how you should not retaliate if accused of a personal attack. Return to the discussion of the issue at hand.
  • Don't be a WikiBigot - discuses how intolerance on the basis of people's ethnicity, race or other characteristic is not acceptable.
  • Don't be an ostrich - discusses how you should help other editors when they need help. Don't ignore them.
  • Don't be ashamed - discusses how sometimes, an edit made in good faith does not comply to policy or consensus. Don't be ashamed of making mistakes.
  • Don't be a fanatic - discusses how editors need to recognize that all Wikipedia editors are ultimately colleagues working together, listen with civility, and try to find ways to respect and incorporate others' viewpoints and material as well as your own
  • Don't be inconsiderate - discuses how if people were considerate, we wouldn't need any other policies about behaviour. If people are telling you that you're inconsiderate, chances are that you need to change your behaviour.
  • Don't be obnoxious - discusses how its best to avoid behaving in away that is unpleasant and offends or annoys other editors.
  • Don't be prejudiced

One thought on “Wikipedia Of Essays

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *