Wikipedia talk:Editing policy

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Editing policy page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 2 months

See WP:PROPOSAL for Wikipedia's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Wikipedia guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

This page was nominated for deletion on 1 Feb 2010. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Notice of an RFC that may affect this policy

An RFC proposing to move WP:MASSCREATE out of WP:Bot policy has been started at WT:Bot policy#RFC: Sever WP:MASSCREATE from WP:BOTPOL. One of the options suggested for its new location is to move WP:MASSCREATE into this policy. Other options are a standalone policy page, or some other policy page. Please comment there if interested. Anomie ⚔ 20:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Conservative" is being misused to describe far right and nationalist views.

When attempting to correct descriptions of nationalist far right groups, currently described as "conservative" Chris X deletes these changes. This wrong! Pjtawney (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to seek help with this issue. See the "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Editing policy page" box at the top of this page for suggestions regarding where you should go for assistance. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't revert edits just because they're unsourced right?

This is a bit of a mistake I've made in my Huggle sessions. Most people who add unsourced material that sounds true are completely new to Wikipedia. Usually, it's not only true, but the source is out there. Looking for a reliable source (and knowing which RS guideline applies) will take effort most people are unwilling to put in. People who add unsourced material are generally here to build an encyclopedia, they're just bold. (Of course, there's the defamation issue, but although you should revert unsourced claims on BLPs you should paste them somewhere first so you can research them.) T3h 1337 b0y 02:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I typically revert newly added unsourced edits where I'm not 100% sure they're true and leave a note for the editor who added the information, on the grounds that if they added the information to begin with, then they're probably most qualified to know from where they found the information. DonIago (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, most instances of editors making totally unsourced additions to articles will fall under one of the following scenarios:

The addition boils down to a series of claims with dubious verifiability
The added material is very likely to be undue within the article.
After being reverted, the material is readded in a constructive manner that includes viable inline citations

I think there's a very real difference in net editor-work required to improve the encyclopedia between adopting a GIGO stance that insists on new iterative additions being adequately cited, and going out of one's way to remove existing uncited but plausibly WP:V material of unknown provenance—which often makes it harder for later editors to fill in the gaps of substance that are often created. Remsense ‥ 论 07:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating my wish for a tool that would display each of the major additions throughout an article's history that have since been removed. I would make tough choices with much less dread if I knew it was easier for others to see and evaluate what is no longer in an article if they so choose. Remsense ‥ 论 08:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My approach is similar to Doniago's. If it seems like a plausible and useful addition, I'll do a quick search to see if I can add a source myself (and sometimes succeed). I don't know about Huggle, but Twinkle lets you select Reverted good-faith edits, which is a bit gentler. Schazjmd (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right. One alternative at WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM is tagging. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tag if the content isn't newly added (i.e. if it's a stable part of the article), but in the majority of instances where I've tagged, the upshot is that a couple of months later I'll remove the still-unsourced content. That said, I've been editing long enough that 'majority of instances' allows for a fair number of instances where citations were subsequently added. DonIago (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The post that started this conversation talks about edits that are "not only true, but the source is out there." Why remove the still-unsourced content? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is "new editors should be strongly encouraged to always cite their contributions, as to not to inherently create more work someone else has to do" an acceptable answer? Pragmatically, I think it is. (While tagging may be encouragement, reversion is clearly stronger.) Secondly, in the grand scheme of things the class of clearly V statements is actually pretty small, and I generally don't trust myself to produce verifiable prose if I'm not looking at a source. Plus, there's also the DUE issue. Remsense ‥ 论 02:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I firmly reject treating reversion like a "bite" in itself: I am putting the page into a better state than it was presently in, and there is nothing to apologize for in that as long as my reasons are adequately communicated—in this case adequately for an editor still very much getting the hang of things. Remsense ‥ 论 05:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reject all you want, but it's example 1 at Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers#How to avoid being a "biter". - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What provides more benefit to a new editor, though? Fixing their edit for them, which they may not even notice, or reverting their edit and bringing Wikipedia's sourcing policies to their attention so that they (ideally) won't contine to add unsourced material and possibly be reverted in a less gracious manner? DonIago (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are not the only two options. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they were...but if you're going to note that there's other options, perhaps you could bring them up? DonIago (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Example 1 at BITE says:

Improve, don't remove. If something doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, try to fix the problem rather than just remove what's broken. (Nothing stops new contributors and regulars from coming back like having all their hard work end up in the bit bucket.)

If you click on the "fix the problem" link you'll find a list. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is clearly intended to apply to new edits though. As I've said, I treat unsourced content differently if it isn't new to the article. DonIago (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my initial message in this thread, if something is 100% true and I'm 100% sure a source is out there then I might leave it alone. But that's a rare occurrence. I'd also note that it's almost always more expedient to just add a source when content is challenged than it is to argue about whether a source is needed, and very often when editors do question the need for a source I find myself questioning whether they're making that argument because they don't themselves believe that a source exists. Put simply, if the editor arguing for inclusion of content isn't willing or able to provide a source (or at least demonstrate that they want to collaborate to find one), then I feel that punches a large hole in any arguments that it's appropriate to include the content. DonIago (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, an editor who is challenged has the obligation to produce an RS. But how should you challenge? Reverting from the get-go is easy, fun, and likely to cause hurt feelings on the part of the reverted (especially if they're a newbie). All I'm asking is that editors consider alternatives first. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, if you're new and you're going to have your feelings hurt because someone reverted you while telling you relatively gently that you need to provide a source (and again, this shouldn't be a significant burden), then I think you're in for a rude awakening if you continue to edit in any meaningful capacity. There's a lot of policies and guidelines on Wikipedia that it's easy to fall afoul of (frankly I'd rather have a single sentence reverted because I didn't provide a source than have the five hundred words I added to a film's plot summary reverted per WP:FILMPLOT), and I think new editors should expect that they might accidentally run into some of those P&Gs. Similarly, anyone who sticks around long enough is, unfortunately, probably going to run into editors who will be a lot more rude than an editor who gives someone a Level 1 advisory for having added unsourced content. DonIago (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a first revert that is accompanied by a relatively gentle explanation is less likely to scare off a newbie than one that is a lot more rude. But I believe the point of the BITE essay is that someone whose very first edit is reverted is not likely to stick around at all regardless of the tone of the explanation. You may disagree - or you may feel that an editor who cannot handle a "gentle" revert of their very first edit is too thin-skinned and it is best to scare them off from the get-go. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move NOCON to this page?

With a total of four editors in favor and zero against, the editors at wp:Consensus agree that wp:NOCON should move from that page to wp:EP (discussion at wt:Consensus#Moving NOCON to Editing Policy). What say the editors at this page? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see that there is a consensus for it, and you'd need to advertise a centralized discussion to get a sufficient WP:CONLEVEL. Andre🚐 00:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the discussion at wt:Consensus can be better summarized as “no one expressed any opposition to moving it”. However, the number of people responding to that RFC was quite small… so, yeah, hopefully it will gain more participants here. Blueboar (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CONLEVEL applies to a change that would override a community consensus. Is there a community consensus somewhere that NOCON must be in Consensus? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There’s not. Someone put it there, unilaterally, not knowing where better to put it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps not unilaterally, since it was discussed multiple times on multiple pages. But the specific line enshrining WP:QUO could perhaps be described as a unilateral-over-objections addition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever issue there may be about "enshrining" QUO exists whether NOCON is in Consensus or Editing Policy (or Dispute Resolution). In short, that issue isn't relevant to THIS discussion. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it fits well on the current version of this page. The only mentions of consensus is a tangential one on mass creation of articles, and a sentence saying Bold editing does not excuse edits against existing consensus.... Without discussion of consensus as a decision-making mechanism, there would be a lack of context. As the last sentence of Wikipedia:Editing policy § If you need help directs editors to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if they need help reaching an agreement with other editors, perhaps that page would be a better fit. isaacl (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but is it more so out of place where it is. When I looking at improving it at WP:CONSENSUS, I can only see myself cutting it back, severely. The same may happen here, but here, the focus on “how to edit” matches better, rather than there theoretical/philosophical/idealistic stance there. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Think how silly it would be if the last sentence of Wikipedia:Editing policy § If you need help were to direct editors to WP:CONSENSUS. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It’s simple logic. NOCON is about who to do (how to edit) in the ~~absence of an explicit consensus~~ case of a declared explicit “no consensus”. It looks in the direction of what to now in the meantime. As it is not advice on how to develop consensus, it does not belong under the title “Consensus”. This page is a great location because: (i) this page deals with practical pragmatisms; (ii) this page has the same “Policy” taggery, and altering the weight of what is written under “NOCON” is no one’s stated intent. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support moving it out of WP:CONSENSUS. Where exactly it ends up is less important to me. I think it could make a fine {{information page}}, for example. It is important to me that the {{info}} message come with it. Editors need to understand that this is a handy summary of pre-existing rules, and not a separate set of rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I am more supportive that WP:Editing policy is the right page, and agree with that it is a handy summary of old accepted practices. I think it is important that WP:CONSENSUS forever point to this documentation, without the implication that it is mandated by the policy WP:CONSENSUS. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]