“Wikipedia Policies,” by Wiki Education is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. The following page reproduces the training in a single, easily-annotatable page for inclusion in a first-day activity before students create Wikipedia accounts. The only modification of the training is in the formatting.

Policies and guidelines: basic overview

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Wikipedia is consistently ranked as one of the top-ten websites on the planet, with more visitors every day than Twitter or CNN.

Wikipedia is free and written by volunteers. And because so many people rely on it, it’s crucial that the information they find there is accurate. We’re going to show you everything you need to share your knowledge on Wikipedia.

Everything in this training is yours to keep. You can visit any part of the training later on, so feel free to come back whenever you have questions.

Ready? Let’s get started!

Five Pillars

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but there’s a lot of collaboration behind every article. You’ll work with many people to build Wikipedia. To collaborate effectively, you’ll want to follow the five key principles, or pillars, of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia’s Five Pillars are:

• Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia
• Wikipedia has a neutral point of view
• Wikipedia is free content
• Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner
• Wikipedia does not have firm rules

Let’s explore these a bit.

Pillar One

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia.

OK, maybe this seems obvious. But it may be more helpful to think about it as telling you what Wikipedia is NOT.

It’s not an advertising platform, a personal website, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, a collection of random data, or a search engine.

It’s not a dictionary, a newspaper, a book or instruction manual, or a collection of found documents.

It’s an encyclopedia, a place where you can go to find a good summary of what’s already known about a topic.

Pillar Two

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view.

Wikipedia articles should document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner. Just the facts! Don’t:

• Debate or attempt to persuade readers
• Share personal experiences or opinions
• Share your own analysis of the information you find

Of course, facts aren’t always clear cut. Some articles might have to describe multiple points of view. In those cases, present each view accurately, with context. Don’t suggest that one version of the story is “the truth” or “the best.”

This is a big deal. Anything you add to an article should be based on a published source of information, and you should always cite that information when you include it. (Don’t worry — we’ll show you how later on). That means citing published, authoritative sources that people trust.

Pillar Three

Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute.

Everything on Wikipedia is free to use. So when you contribute information to Wikipedia, you need to make sure it’s OK to share freely.

Copying and pasting copyrighted material into Wikipedia isn’t just plagiarism, it’s a copyright violation, too. You have to attribute facts to reliable sources, but you must use your own words when you do.

It’s also important to avoid “close paraphrasing.” That’s when you take another person’s words and make minor changes to their word choices, while keeping the overall structure of their writing.

Finding a balance can be tricky at first. The best system is to make sure you really understand the material you’re adding. Think about it, rephrase it from a neutral perspective, and then add it (while still citing the original source).

Pillar Four

Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner.

Don’t panic if someone else edits your work, or removes your contributions. This is part of the process!

Every article has a Talk page where you can interact with the other Wikipedia editors who are working on your article. If you have a disagreement, keep some core Wikipedia values in mind:

• Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree.
• Avoid personal attacks. Talk to people you disagree with, and try to find consensus.
• If you don’t agree with someone’s edit, don’t just “change it back.” That’s an edit war, and it could get you both blocked! If you have a persistent disagreement, talk to your instructor, or the Wikipedia Expert you’ll find on your course page. They’ll help you get it fixed.
• Never tell others to keep your edits, or to wait to make changes in an article, because you “need it for a grade.” That isn’t true! All of your edits are always saved and can be found by your instructor.
• Act in good faith and assume good faith of other editors. It’s difficult to read tone in an online communication. Remember that regardless of how you think another editor’s behavior comes across, it’s still critical that you reply in a polite and respectful manner.

Being respectful also means responding to messages left by other editors, thanking people who help, and checking back after your edits to see if anyone has responded. Always be mindful of the community around you. And if you encounter any issues, reach out to your Wikipedia Expert or the Student Program Manager. We’re here for you!

Pillar Five

Wikipedia does not have firm rules.

OK, we know you just read a bunch of rules. So what does this last one mean?

Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone. Their wording and interpretation are likely to change over time.

The principles and spirit of Wikipedia’s rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule.

Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles. Dive in, and don’t panic about making mistakes. Prior versions of pages are saved, so mistakes can be corrected. The most important thing to do is communicate through Talk pages — the part of every article where Wikipedians discuss what they’re working on — to tell the other editors what you’d like to do, what you’ve done, and why.

Think of it this way: You aren’t going to break Wikipedia (but please don’t try).

Wikipedia editing is about using your best judgment, and you may be asked to explain your decisions. Explaining why you decided to do something is part of being in any community of people.

Review

So, we’ve just reviewed the five pillars. Let’s take a little break and see if you can remember what you’ve learned! In the next slide, you’ll be asked a multiple choice question. If you get it wrong, don’t worry. You’ll see an explanation of why, and you can try again.

Five Pillars quiz

A Wikipedia article should…

• Present the facts in a careful way, to persuade readers to draw certain conclusions.
• Replicate the best information from published authors, word-for-word.
• Share neutral facts from reliable sources that present all views in a balanced way.
• Include interesting first-hand accounts about the author’s experiences with the topic.

Bravo!

Well done! Let’s look at a few more core policies that will help you make a meaningful contribution to Wikipedia.

Verifiability

Verifiability: “Says who?”

Behind every great Wikipedia article is a collection of great sources. Finding good sources is one of the first things you should do.

That’s because content on Wikipedia must be verifiable. People reading and editing the encyclopedia can check its information, see that it is up to date and comes from a reliable source.

You wouldn’t trust everything you read on the internet, and Wikipedia is no different. But at the end of every page, you can see where the facts stated in the body of the article came from: its source. That helps anyone double check facts to make sure that they’re true. When you add content to Wikipedia, you’ll want to give the same opportunity to others.

So, make sure you only share facts that you draw from reliable sources. Reliable sources include:

• Textbooks
• Literature reviews
• Books or publications written by experts in the field, and published by reliable publishers.

Do not use:

• Blog posts
• Press materials intended to show something in a certain light

In some cases, such as articles that involve medical editing, newspapers and pop-press articles aren’t appropriate, either. If that applies to you, we’ll explore more about this later, in our module on editing medical topics.

Verifiability quiz

Here’s another quiz question.

What does it mean for a fact to be “verifiable” on Wikipedia?

• Everyone would agree it was true.
• You experienced it first-hand, and you know it is true.
• You remember reading it from a book.
• You found the fact in a reliable source, and can cite that source for others on Wikipedia to easily find.

Notability

Notability: “Why this?”

Wikipedia isn’t a catalog of everything that’s ever existed. Some topics and articles don’t exist on Wikipedia because the subject hasn’t been covered enough by outside sources. In other words, it isn’t yet notable.

When you’re thinking of ideas to write about, keep notability in mind. You might be asked why this topic is notable enough to remain in Wikipedia. Find a handful of reliable sources early, so you know your article is notable. Then you can share them through the article’s Talk page as you get started. (We’ll show you how to do this later on).

Notability: “Why this?”

Notability is an important first step, because it will help you pick your topic. So let’s look a bit closer at what makes a topic notable.

The basic requirement for a topic to have its own article is: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

• significant coverage means that at least a couple of sources talk specifically about your topic. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, though it doesn’t have to be the core focus of the book or article you cite. On the other hand, it should be more than a single mention or single line of text.
• reliable sources generally means that coverage comes from secondary sources from reputable publishers. You want the book, journal article, or other source you’re referencing to have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Those sources don’t have to be in English, and they don’t have to be online.
• independent of the subject means the publisher doesn’t have a stake in presenting a biased point of view (either positive or negative). For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject of your article, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.

Notability quiz

Your classmates have each picked a different hot dog stand to write about. Which hot dog stand is the best candidate for a Wikipedia article?

• Soapy’s hot dogs. Your classmate has found a recent newspaper article about its opening, and found the Soapy’s hot dog stand official website.
• Snappy’s Sausage Stand. Your classmate has an old newspaper article about its opening in 1930, an article showing a presidential visit from 1948, and an old advertisement stating that Snappy’s is the best hot dog in the state.
• America Dog. Your classmate has an old newspaper article about its opening in 1980. The stand is shaped like a poodle, which is a lot like a hot dog stand in another state mentioned in an architectural guidebook (though it doesn’t mention America Dog).
• Dog Eat Dog. Your classmate has an academic journal stating that this stand invented the practice of putting a sausage on a bun. He has a book on the history of hot dogs that says the same thing. Finally, he has an interview with a hot dog historian mentioning Dog Eat Dog as the birthplace of the modern hot dog.

No original research

No original research: “How do you know this?”

When you’ve written for classes before, you’ve probably been asked to do research, come up with a point of view, and then argue it.

Writing for Wikipedia is different. Wikipedia is not a place to publish your ideas or conclusions about a topic. On Wikipedia, that’s considered “original research.” Of course, you can (and should) do “research” in the traditional sense of finding good information, likely through your library.

“No original research” means your writing for Wikipedia will summarize what other people have said about a topic you’re interested in, so that a Wikipedia reader can get an overview of the current thoughts and understanding of that topic.

While it may be tempting to connect ideas in a Wikipedia article, you shouldn’t make those connections unless someone else makes them in a published, reliable source.

No original research — example

Let’s say you’re writing about a nearby river, and find a government report from 2003 shows that Arghtron Industries, which had a factory nearby, was fined $6 million for dumping hazardous waste into the river. Let’s say you also find an ecology journal that notes the river used to be home to an endangered species of frogs, which went extinct in 2003.

You might be tempted to write something like, “The pollution from Arghtron Industries contributed to the extinction of frogs in the river.” But that’s original research. You’ve fused together two ideas (the pollution, and the extinction) and tied them together. Unless another source confirms the link, you can’t make that connection on Wikipedia.

Don’t make assumptions of facts, or draw conclusions, on Wikipedia. Those conclusions might seem obvious to you, but you can never know what you don’t know. So, only write what you can explicitly verify.

Copyright and plagiarism

You might think you know what plagiarism is, and how to avoid it. But Wikipedia is a little bit different. The rules cover not only copy-and-paste plagiarism, but also close paraphrasing and copyright violations. And the stakes are high: the consequences of committing plagiarism in a Wikipedia class assignment are the same as handing in a paper you didn’t write.

Plagiarism and copyright violations are disruptive and time-consuming for volunteers to clean up. Except for brief quotations, copying content from copyrighted sources onto Wikipedia is against policy.

This video lays out what you need to know to avoid these pitfalls!

Review:

Copyright and plagiarism

Let’s review the forms of plagiarism you learned about in the video.

• Unattributed plagiarism, when a piece of text is copied word-for-word from a source and added to a Wikipedia article without citation.
• Cited plagiarism, when a piece of text is copied word-for-word from a source, and added to Wikipedia with a citation. Even if you acknowledge that the words aren’t yours, you still can’t copy them into a Wikipedia article.
• Close paraphrasing, when a piece of text is copied, but the words are changed bit-by-bit. The basic structure of the sentences stay the same. This is bad news, whether you cite it or not.

How do you avoid these problems? The best bet is to understand what you’re reading first. Then, take notes that phrase your understanding into your own words. Draw from several sources that support your facts, and never directly copy a source. Instead, take notes as if you were explaining it to a classmate or colleague.

Let’s review

That’s it! Now, let’s go through some quick review questions to make sure you’re ready to start out on Wikipedia.

Citations quiz

Let’s say you’ve made a properly cited contribution to an article. Another editor removes it, but doesn’t explain why. What is the best response?

• Add it right back in. If they wanted to remove something, they should have asked you.
• Explain what you added, again citing the source of that material, to the Talk page of the article. Or go to the user page of the editor who removed your content, and ask why they removed it.
• Assume you used a bad source, or did something else wrong. Don’t edit the article again until the due date, and hope your professor sees it before the other editor.
• Tell the Talk page that you’re being graded, and that others should avoid editing the article until your teacher sees it. Write this message entirely in capital letters, to make sure other editors see it.

Notability (revisited) quiz

What does “Notability” mean on Wikipedia?

• The subject is famous.
• The subject has received significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• The subject is important, even if it’s overlooked.
• It’s a well-written article.