Wikipedia:Etiquette

This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline.

Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus.

Shortcuts

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia etiquette, while often wiki specific, is rooted in common sense intuitions about working together. Be friendly and flexible. Act in good faith. Focus on improving Wikipedia articles.

This page offers some principles of etiquette, also referred to as "Wikiquette", on how to work with others on Wikipedia.

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

Principles of Wikipedia etiquette

Assume good faith. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles.
Remember the Golden Rule: Treat others the way you would want to be treated.
Be polite.
Keep in mind that raw text may be ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming verbally from a person standing in front of you. Irony is not always obvious when written. Remember that text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection, or body language. Be careful when choosing the words you write: what you actually are trying to convey might not be interpreted in the same way by others who read it.
- Likewise, be careful with how you interpret messages, discussions, and responses made by other users: what you believe to understand from messages and discussions might not have translated 100% correctly compared to what others actually meant to say and how.
Civilly work towards an agreement, and keep the principle of achieving consensus as the primary objective and goal when working out disagreements and disputes with others.
Argue facts, not personalities.
Do not intentionally make misrepresentations. Apologize if you inadvertently do so.
Do not ignore reasonable questions.
If someone disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate.
Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.
Although it is an understandably difficult task to perform while you're engaged in an intense or heated argument or dispute, if other editors are not behaving as civilly as you would like or expect them to be, respond to those users in the discussion with more civility, not with less. That way, you can be certain that your behavior and demeanor is not moving towards open conflict and name-calling, and that you're not stooping to their level of behavior in order to "bite back". By your own actions and by staying positive and civil, you're actively doing something about the problem. Try to treat others with dignity and respect at all times — even uncivil editors are people as well.
It may help to politely let the others know if you are not comfortable with their tone (e.g., "I feel that you have been sarcastic above, and I don't feel good about it. Let's try to resolve the issue at-hand").
Be prepared to apologize. In animated or heated discussions, we can often get caught up with our emotions and say things we later wish we hadn't said as a result. If this becomes the case, say so and apologize.
Forgive and forget.
Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.
Give praise when it's due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise. Drop a friendly note on users' talk pages or (better yet) leave them a Barnstar.
Remove or summarize resolved disputes that you initiated.
Help mediate disagreements and arguments between others.
Say "please" and "thank you".
Take it slowly. If you are angry, spend time away from Wikipedia instead of posting or editing. Come back in a day or in a week. You may find that someone else made the desired change or comment for you. If you think mediation is needed, enlist someone to help. Find another Wikipedia article to distract yourself — there are 7,254,413 articles on the English Wikipedia. Take up a Wikiproject, lend your much-needed services at Cleanup, or write a new article.
Remember what Wikipedia is not.
Review the list of common mistakes, and exert conscious efforts during editing or content expansion in order to avoid them.
Avoid reverts whenever possible, and stay within compliance of Wikipedia's three-revert rule (except where exemptions apply).
When reverting other people's edits, give a rationale for the revert (both in the edit summary and on the article's talk page, if necessary) and be prepared to enter into an extended discussion with other users over the edits in question. Calmly explaining your thinking and rationale to others in a civil manner can often result in the users agreeing with you; being dogmatic, defensive, or uncommunicative will often evoke the same behavior in others, and can get you embroiled in an edit war.
Unless you have an excellent reason not to do so, sign and date your posts to talk pages as well as other discussion pages. (Don't use signatures in any edits made to articles.)
Do not use jargon that others might not understand (or, in cases of "Wikipedia jargon", set the word or phrase in question to be a wikilink to a Wikipedia or help page that explains the particular term). Use acronyms carefully and clarify if there is the possibility of any doubt or confusion.

Avoid indirect criticism

Shortcut

WP:INDCRITWP:INDCRIT

Avoid use of unexplained scare quotes and other means of implying criticism or making indirect criticism when you are writing in edit comments and talk pages. Write clearly, plainly, and concisely, and do so in a way that allows other editors to easily respond to you.

Keep in mind that sarcasm cannot easily be conveyed in writing and may be misinterpreted or mistranslated. Insinuation and double entendre should be avoided when expressing constructive criticism. This also helps the editor receiving the criticism to correctly understand your demeanor and respond to your concerns. This can particularly help editors for whom English is not a first language or aid those who have trouble natively understanding written English.

When this style of communication is necessary in the interest of being concise or illustrative, it is best to explain the intended meaning of your use of scare quotes or other indirection immediately afterward.

Of course, criticism communicated in any manner and concerning any subject must be civil, should reflect the assumption of good faith, should not constitute or exhibit the biting of newcomers, and should comply with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If directed generally towards an editor's behavior or other aspects of talk page commentary, any and all criticism made must not constitute a personal attack as described in Wikipedia's "no personal attacks" policy. See also the essay "Avoid personal remarks" for a viewpoint on the latter form of criticism.

How to avoid abuse of talk pages

Shortcut

WP:AVOIDABUSEWP:AVOIDABUSE

Most people take pride in their work and in their point of view. Egos can easily get hurt in editing, but talk pages are not a place for striking back. They are a good place to comfort or undo damage to egos, but most of all, they are for reaching agreements that are best for the articles to which they are attached. If someone disagrees with you, try to understand why, and take the time to provide good reasons why you think that your method, way, or strategy is better by starting or responding to discussions on relevant talk pages.
The improvement process employed by Wikipedia is constant, and the critical analysis of prior work is a necessary part of that process. If you are not prepared to have your work thoroughly scrutinized, analyzed, and criticized, or if your ego is easily damaged, then Wikipedia is probably not the place for you.
Do not label or personally attack people or their edits.
- Labeling editors or their edits with terms like "racist" or "sexist" make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively. If you must criticize, do it politely and constructively. Avoid usage of invectives and expletives, even if used without an intention to attack any editor, as these may be easily construed to be personal attacks and may not productively add to a collegial and congenial environment.
Always make clear what point you are addressing, especially in replies.
- In responding, quoting a post is acceptable, but paraphrasing it or stating how you interpreted it is often better. Qualify your interpretation by writing, "As you seem to be saying" or "as I understand you" to acknowledge that you made an interpretation. Before going on to say that someone is wrong, concede you might have misinterpreted them.
- Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to some, but it is virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow.
Editing another editor's signed talk page comments is generally frowned upon, even if the edit merely corrects spelling or grammar.

Working towards a neutral point of view

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

Inquire politely on the article's talk page about aspects of the article you consider non-NPOV (unless they are really egregious), and suggest replacements.
If no reply comes, make the substitutions. (Use your watchlist to keep track of what you want to do.)
If a reply comes, try to agree about the wording to be used. That way, when an agreement is reached, an edit war is very unlikely. Waiting to make an edit until an agreement has been reached has the disadvantage that the article stays in an unsatisfying state for a longer period, but an article that changes frequently does not create a good impression with other Wikipedians or of the project as a whole.

A few things to bear in mind

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral, instead of endorsing one viewpoint over another, even if you believe something strongly. Talk (discussion) pages are not a place to debate value judgments about which of those views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as social media, public weblogs, and other wikis. Use article talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article, not as a soapbox for advocacy.
If someone disagrees with you, this does not necessarily mean that the person hates you, that the person thinks that you are stupid, that the person is stupid, or that the person is mean. When people post opinions without practical implications for the article, it is best to just leave them alone. What you think is not necessarily right or necessarily wrong—a common example of this is religion. Before you think about insulting someone's views, think about what would happen if they insulted yours. Remember that anything written on Wikipedia is kept permanently, even if it is not visible.
Wikipedia invites you to be bold, though it is wise to remember that it is possible to be too bold. Before initiating discussion, ask yourself: is this necessary to discuss? Could I provide a summary with my edit and wait for others to express opinions if they like? Might my actions have consequences that I have not considered?
You can always take a discussion to email or to your user page, if it is not essential to the article.
If you know you do not get along with someone, do not interact with that person more than you need to do. Unnecessary conflict distracts everyone from the task of making a good encyclopedia and is unpleasant. Following someone you dislike around Wikipedia—Wikihounding—can be disruptive. If you do not get along with someone, try to become friendlier. If that does not help the situation then it is probably best to avoid them.
Though editing articles is acceptable and encouraged, editing the signed words of another editor on a talk page or other discussion page is generally not acceptable, as it can alter the meaning of the original comment and misrepresent the original editor's thoughts. Avoid editing another editor's comments unless necessary.

Other words of advice

Shortcut

WP:DOORWP:DOOR

Parting words of advice from Larry Sanger:

Be open and warmly welcoming, not insular;
Be focused single-mindedly on writing an encyclopedia;
Recognize and praise the best work: work that is detailed, factual, well-informed, and well-referenced;
Work to understand what neutrality requires and why it is so essential to and good for this project;
Treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Wikipedia with respect and good will;
Attract and honor good people who know a lot and can write about it well, and;

For more advice of a similar nature, see User:Kingturtle/WikiPrinciples.

Notes

↑ Posted by Larry Sanger on his user page on February 14, 2003

[1] Posted by Larry Sanger on his user page on February 14, 2003