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.
The link counts for Wikipedia's core content policies and their often-used WP:SHORTCUT acronyms may offer some insight into how much weight is placed on the separate policies and of the sections within the policies. Instead of hard rules, Wikipedia has norms derived from consensus. We have policies and guidelines, but these reflect and draw their authority from consensus. With a few exceptions for policies derived from law, the policies and guidelines can change when consensus changes. These link counts offer an unintended tally for every time the policy pages and shortcut acronyms are referenced on talk pages and notice boards.
The tables below compare the link counts of:
Wikipeda content policy pages,
The top-level acronyms of each major content policy, and
The WP:SHORTCUT links to the sections and sub-sections.
WP:NPOV appears to be cited much more as a policy about balance than neutrality, going by the shortcut links. An NPOV article can be very positive or negative so long as it reflects the balance of coverage in high-quality sources. This may be why, anecdotally speaking, it seems to be shortened much more often to the acronym "NPOV" than any form of the word "neutral".
WP:V's most-linked sections are about the requirement to cite sources in order to keep content in an article and about how to determine which sources to cite. This is definitely about verifiability, but I'd say it's equally about accountability. When an article is composed by IP addresses and pseudonyms, where does the responsibility lie? The cited sources. Outside of WP:REDFLAG, there's very little about what types of content are more or less verifiable.
Two policies (WP:BLP and WP:NOT) were cited more often than one of the core content policies, so I've included the link counts for acronyms on those pages as well.
The most-linked sections of WP:NOT were about people adding junk and promotional spam. With the rise of generative LLMs, this will likely continue to be heavily cited and grow into a stronger policy.
WP:PHANTOM rules almost surely exists for some of the acronyms. Shortcuts exist as hyperlinks to the policy pages, but they also function on their own as tokens, referencing and deriving meaning and weight from every previous time they have been invoked. Some acronyms are being cited in these WP:PHANTOM contexts. For example, WP:PROMO and the related the shortcut links point to a section about keeping promotional content off of Wikipedia. PROMO alone has over 10,000 links from User talk pages. The behavioral rule here (something like, "Editors only on Wikipedia to promote a single cause will be considered a single-purpose account and possibly blocked from editing") is related to the content policy, but these links are not reinforcing the content policy so much as an adjacent behavioral norm. Some pages may get some mild inflation from these types of links.
Some guidelines offer a stricter interpretation than the policy and are cited more often than the weaker policy requirements. WP:NPOVVIEW had less than fifty links, but the guideline at WP:POVFORK has almost 6,000. In this case, the policy page explains a few situations where a fork could be acceptable, and the guideline explains many situations where a fork would not be acceptable and "such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." Some link counts may be deflated in situations where editors are frequently linking a guideline that is actually stricter than the policy.
Halfway into making this, I remembered that the template can only take 30 entries for a single bar chart. Apologies for breaking the bar charts up in some section.
