Wikipedia:Training/Meta

We can't wait to see what you'll share.

If you are part of a course that involves contributing to Wikipedia, you've come to the right place. After completing this orientation, you'll be ready to help build the world's knowledge by contributing your own expertise to Wikipedia.

Please press the forward arrow below to go on to the next page.

1 Core: The core policies and guidelines that govern content development on Wikipedia.

2 Editing: The technical skills you'll need to edit Wikipedia. You will also be introduced to the Wikipedia Community: a vital part of your editing experience.

Here's how this orientation works.

Menu Tab
Click on "Menu" at the top of the page, and you'll see links to all of the pages in this training. You can click "back" on your browser to return to where you were.

Forward and Backward
The arrows at the bottom of the page will allow you to move forward and backward through your module, and will take you to the next step in the sequence.

Links
We've intentionally limited the number of links that will take you out of the modules, just to keep things simple. Most of these links will be found under the Resources tab.

NOTE: If you click on a link you will be taken away from the orientation. If possible, open all links in new browser tabs so you can return to the training when you're ready! Otherwise, you will need to use the back button on your web browser.

We hope the material found in this orientation will provide you with practical information to help you get started on Wikipedia. We also hope that this will help you find your own place in the Wikipedia community. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and the way it gets better is from people like you editing to improve it.

When you complete all modules of the training, we'll ask you to push a few buttons and (optionally) leave some brief feedback for us, using your Wikipedia username. Make sure you finish the steps at the end to receive credit from your instructor for completing the training!

Click on the forward arrow to go on to learn about the Core Policies of Wikipedia.

This module will provide a basic overview of Wikipedia’s core policies and guidelines.

When you finish, you should be able to answer:

Although Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, that doesn't mean that everyone can edit it independently. Article development is not the result of chaotic, random edits.

Wikipedia is the result of a community that follows five guiding principles (pillars), and makes sure these principles are followed by others. There's also a governance structure that shapes the content development process.

Without this community, there's no Wikipedia. And when you edit Wikipedia, you're a part of this community. So it's best to learn what's expected!

These five guiding principles are key to how Wikipedia works.

Wikipedia's Five Pillars:

1. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia
2. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view
3. Wikipedia is free content
4. Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner
5. Wikipedia does not have firm rules

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia.
It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.

Maybe this seems obvious. But it's important because it highlights what Wikipedia is NOT.

• Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory.
• Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary, a newspaper, a book or instruction manual, or a collection of source documents.
  • However, note that there are Wikimedia sister projects that serve all of the above purposes (namely wiktionary, wikinews, wikibooks, and wikisource, respectively).

What does this mean for you? Ask yourself: Does my contribution look like a blog post? An advertisement? A newspaper? A how-to guide? If you've written something aside from an encyclopedia article, something is amiss!

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view.

Strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner. Avoid false balance. Wikipedia's neutrality policy requires that articles fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.

• Avoid advocacy. Characterize information and issues, don't debate them. Let the facts speak, and the reader to make up their own mind.
• In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in other areas we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and NOT presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".

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

A crucial bit of this pillar is what it means to be 'free.'

The original content at Wikipedia, as contributed by people just like you—as opposed to copyrighted, non-free content that is used at Wikipedia under a claim of fair use, such as short quotations and some low resolution images—is automatically dually-licensed under highly free copyright licenses (CC BY-SA and the GFDL) that allow it to be taken, used, and modified by the public at large (even for commercial purposes), so long as suitable credit and a posting of the licenses accompanies its reuse.

An important takeaway is that most of the content added to Wikipedia must be original – written in one's own words. Reliable sources are cited to show that the information is verifiable, but the words and sentences are not copied except under limited fair use, such as including short quotations from sources, which must be marked as such using quote marks, and cited to the source of copying using an inline citation. Outside of such limited exception, copying and pasting copyrighted content into Wikipedia is illegal, as copyright infringement, and unethical as plagiarism. It is therefore crucial to understand the material you are adding, process it, rephrase it from a neutral perspective, and then add the content, while citing the corroborating source.

• Respect copyright laws, and do not plagiarize sources. Limited use of non-free content is allowed under a valid claim of fair use, but strive to find free alternatives to any media or content that you wish to add to Wikipedia.

• Since anyone can edit and modify Wikipedia articles, don't panic if you see your articles edited, or some of your contributions reverted. While you own under a free license the copyright of text you add to Wikipedia, if it is to sufficiently creative, you do not own the pages you added it to and have no right to control any page, which anyone can change or even seek to have deleted.

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

• Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree.
• Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and avoid personal attacks. Talk to people you disagree with, try to find consensus, avoid edit wars, and remember that there are over four million other articles on the English Wikipedia you could work on instead.
• Act in good faith, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
• Be open and welcoming, and assume good faith on the part of others.
• When conflict arises, discuss details on the talk page, and if needed, follow the dispute resolution process.

This doesn't apply exclusively to conflicts. Being polite means responding to messages left by editors, thanking other editors for their help, and checking back after an edit to see if anyone has responded. If you were building a house and someone offered to help you paint, you wouldn't just walk away! You're building an encyclopedia with a community's help. Always be mindful of the community around you.

Wikipedia does not have firm rules.

• Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone, as 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 and do not worry about making mistakes. Prior versions of pages are saved, so any mistakes can be corrected.

A lot of Wikipedia editing is about using your best judgment, and you may be asked to explain the edits you make. Explaining why you decided to do something is just part of being in a community of people.

Beyond the five pillars, there are a few more important policies and guidelines to keep in mind. First:

Verifiability

Notability

Is the subject of the article you want to work on notable enough for an encyclopedia? This guideline helps to clarify the notability question. In some cases, you may need to justify to other Wikipedians why the article topic is notable and should remain in Wikipedia. Coverage in published, reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of the subject, and which treat the subject in substantive detail is the key to notability.

Thousands of new Wikipedia articles are started every day. Volunteer Wikipedia editors work hard to review each of these pages to determine whether they are appropriate for an encyclopedia. Notability is one of the key criteria for their decisions.

Notability

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

• significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
• Published means "made available to the public in some form".
• reliable sources, for the sake of establishing notability, generally means at least two independent source from reputable publishers. For example, mainstream newspaper articles, non-vanity books, established magazines, scholarly journals, television and radio documentaries – sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

  This means generally not random personal websites, blogs, forum posts, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, self-published sources like open wikis (including other Wikipedia articles), etc. (These need not necessarily be in English or be available for free or online.) Multiple sources from the same author or organization are considered a single source for establishing notability.

• independent and secondary excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. While primary and other connected sources may be useful to verify certain facts, they must be used with caution and do nothing to establish notability. In short, we are looking for secondary sources written by third parties to a topic that have no vested interest in the subject of their writing or coverage.

  This means generally not anything written by or on behalf of the subject or anyone connected with the person or organization in any way; not the subject's own website, not the subject's social media, not interviews (with the person, or of an organization's employees, officers or other insiders), and not press releases, regardless of where they are republished. An unconnected source is, for example, a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter.

Verifiable information on topics that do not meet the notability guideline may still be included within articles on broader topics.

No original research

Typical academic writing requires students to do original research, have a point of view, and argue it. Wikipedia, however, is a tertiary source of information—based on a collection of secondary sources writing about a primary source.

Simply put, Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research, but rather is a summary of what has been written in reliable sources about the original topic or research.

"If I copy only a
couple of paragraphs
from a book, is that ok?"

Check out Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.

In the next module you’ll learn how to edit Wikipedia.

Click on the forward arrow to go on to learn about Editing Wikipedia.

— Joseph Lapka, San Francisco State University

This module focuses on the basic editing skills necessary to successfully contribute to Wikipedia and collaborate with other editors.

By the end of this section, you should be able to answer:

Some of the typical editing and formatting tasks you can try out to begin with are:

• Bolding and italicizing text
• Creating headers
• Editing subsections
• Creating bulleted and numbered lists
• Creating links
• Creating references
• Starting a sandbox page

You should also familiarize yourself with:

• The distinctions among article pages, talk pages and user pages
• The use of talk pages

If you haven't done so already, it's time to create your Wikipedia user account. If editing basics are being covered in class, be sure to create your account ahead of time. Each individual student editor must have their own account.

• Take a moment to look at Wikipedia's username policy and consider how anonymous you would like to be on Wikipedia. You need not use your real name, although many Wikipedians choose to do so. Keep in mind that your username must not imply shared usage of your account, appear to be promotional, register as the name of a company, group, institution or product, impersonate other people, or be likely to offend, and, once chosen, cannot be easily changed.
• When you've chosen a username, click "Create account" at the top right and follow the instructions.
• Adding an email address to your account is strongly recommended; this allows you to send and receive emails with other editors. (Your email address is not revealed when other users contact you.) You can also receive email notifications whenever pages you are interested in get changed, if you wish. And if you forget your Wikipedia password, you can have it emailed to you — but only if you add your email address to your account!

A user sandbox is a personal wiki page(s) where you can experiment, practice editing, plan out articles, or begin drafting articles before moving them into the article "mainspace” on Wikipedia—where live articles are read and edited.

To go to your default sandbox page, simply click the Sandbox link, which can be found at the top right whenever you are logged in.

Later on, you can use that sandbox (or a new one — you can create as many as you need) to work on content for Wikipedia.

If you leave the template code at the top, {{User sandbox}}, you can use the link in that template to easily submit your sandbox work to be moved into Wikipedia as a new article.

When you start to revise larger chunks of an existing article, it's a good idea to draft your first significant edits into a sandbox. Don't copy the whole article, just choose the small piece you want to work with. Note though, that when you do so you must provide copyright attribution in your edit summary, by stating the copying taking place and wikilinking the source of the copying. A model edit summary: "Copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution."

Trying to rewrite an entire article in a sandbox can be annoying to editors who work on that article. Other editors will keep making good edits or expansions to that article while you are revising an old version in parallel in your sandbox; if you just copy and paste the whole article from your sandbox sometime later, you will undo all of those edits! Focus on small chunks of the text you want to edit instead.

It's polite to use the talk page of the article to link to your sandbox when you are ready to copy things over. That way editors can see what you're up to, and post suggestions to the talk page before you start. Once you are happy with your sandbox draft, you can place another notice on the talk page of the article with a link to the sandbox, explaining what you've done and asking for comments on it once you've added it to the main page.

For expanding a short article that doesn't provide encyclopedic coverage (known as a stub), beginning from a sandbox can be helpful. Here you can write and rewrite before going "live."

Small articles that are expanded by a factor of five within a short period (and are well-referenced) are also eligible as "Did You Know" entries (a section on the Main page); working in a sandbox until reaching that threshold may be a good idea.

For starting a new article, you may first want to draft the article in a user sandbox named after the topic, such as

just as you would when expanding an existing article. Work on it until it meets the basics requirements for new articles: it should be based on significant coverage of the topic, in reliable sources that are independent of the topic.

When you are ready to make it live on Wikipedia, try asking an experienced editor you've encountered to look it over and see if it meets the basic requirements for new articles. One way is to submit the article to the Articles for creation project. To do this, copy, paste and save this code at the top of the draft article: {{subst:submit}}

Articles can however, be moved directly to the article mainspace. Click the Move tab, then move it out of your sandbox to its final title. Note that if the page has problems from the perspective of experienced users, it is far more likely that the page will be nominated for deletion if you move it yourself, without having it checked first.

So, you've drafted something in a sandbox and moved it into the mainspace. How do you know when other editors have a suggestion?

A personal watchlist is an easy way to keep track of all the pages to which you are contributing. You can use your watchlist to monitor article changes, conversations and editor collaboration.

When you add an article to your watchlist, you also watch the corresponding Talk page, so if someone responds to your article edits on the Talk page, it will show up on your watchlist.

You'll want to know when someone has offered advice on your article or edits, or you may see your work disappear! You can set your email preferences to receive email whenever pages on your watchlist are changed.

Consensus is the main way decisions are made on Wikipedia, both in terms of article content and how Wikipedia itself is run. It's not a matter of voting, and nobody is in charge over a final say.

Instead, the consensus view on Wikipedia represents the facts that even opposing sides agree are relevant. Wikipedia's concept of consensus doesn't necessarily mean that everyone agrees, but it involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

When disagreements occur, we resolve them through discussion—usually on the relevant Talk page. Since Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view—fairly describing significant viewpoints on a subject without endorsing any of them—it is almost always possible to reach consensus about article content, even if editors themselves have fundamentally different points of view on the subject.

The ideal Wikipedia article on a controversial topic is one where partisans on both sides would read it and say, "my viewpoint is described accurately".

The Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle is one good way to think about the consensus editing process.

1 Be Bold: If you think you can make an article better, but you aren't sure whether others will disagree with the changes you want to make, you should start by boldly editing as you think best, making sure to cite source that verify any information additions.

2 Revert: If your edit gets reverted by another editor, that's okay! You've simply met an editor with a different view about the article. This is your chance to see Wikipedia's consensus model in action. Check the edit summaries and the Talk page to see why the other editor reverted your edit. (Do not simply make your edit again; that's not building consensus, that's the beginning of an edit war: It's actually seen as very aggressive, and could get you temporarily blocked!)

3 Discuss: Start a discussion on the Talk page (if the other editor has not done so already) — politely! After all, you both want to improve Wikipedia. Explain why you made the edit. Work with the other editor(s) to develop a consensus. Be confident, but listen and consider all objections. When you've found some common ground, you can make more edits.

For productive discussions, remember to:

• Assume good faith: Wikipedia, being on the internet, is often a place for misunderstanding tone. Always assume other editors are trying to improve the project, mean well, and aren't being deliberately rude.
• Likewise, try to be your best self in responding to feedback: don't get defensive or angry. Whenever an edit is challenged, it has nothing to do with you as a person, and everything to do with improving Wikipedia. Be polite, and discuss article content rather than editors. Never make personal attacks, even in retaliation.
• Read messages people have left on the talk pages of articles you are editing. There may be a concern that will change the way you see your own plan to edit. Try to respond quickly, ideally within a few hours.
• Remember to keep an eye on the Watchlist for the pages you edit. (Did you set up email notifications in your preferences? You should!)

This training has prepared you to contribute to Wikipedia. But you'll keep learning as you keep editing and mastering the skills you need to build up a history of top-quality contributions to Wikipedia. You can find a variety of written help materials and additional videos in the Resources tab above.

If you need help, here are some resources you can bookmark or download:

Materials for self-study

• Help:Contents is the main help page that will guide you in the right direction. The help page may be reached at any time by clicking help displayed under the ► Interaction tab on the left side of all pages.
• Help:Contents/Directory is a descriptive listing of all Wikipedia's informative, instructional and consultation pages.
• Editing Wikipedia is a guide to editing basics.
• Evaluating Wikipedia can help you learn what makes a good or bad Wikipedia article.
• There are handy reference sheets on using talk pages and avoiding plagiarism.
• You may wish to bookmark or print out a copy of the editing cheatsheet for a quick reference on wiki syntax.

Community help

• The Teahouse, a place for new editors to introduce themselves, asks questions, and find support from other editors.
• The Help desk, where you can ask questions about how to use and edit Wikipedia.
• If you place {{Help me}} (including the curly brackets) then your question on your talk page, a volunteer will visit you there!
• The help channel for live chat help from other Wikipedians.

This module goes into more detail on some of the trickier aspects of writing for Wikipedia and some common pitfalls for students doing Wikipedia assignments

By the end of this section, you should be able to answer:

• How do I choose the right article to work on?
• What is expected from a good Wikipedia article?
• How can I get an article on Wikipedia's Main Page?
• How can I get feedback on my article?

Choosing the right first article to work on—and finding the right title for it, if it's a new article—can make a big difference.

Here are a few guidelines for the kinds of articles that may be appropriate to start out on, and what kinds of articles to avoid. These guidelines were created based on feedback and experiences of professors, students and Wikipedians.

Not such a good choice
Articles that are "not such a good choice" for newcomers usually involve factors such as a lack of appropriate research material, highly controversial topics that may be well developed already, broad subjects or topics for which it is difficult to demonstrate notability.

• You probably shouldn't try to completely overhaul articles on very broad topics (e.g., Law).
• You should probably avoid trying to improve articles on topics that are highly controversial (e.g., Global Warming, Abortion, Scientology, etc.). You may be more successful starting a sub-article on the topic instead.
• Don't work on an article that is already of high quality on Wikipedia, unless you discuss a specific plan for improving it with other editors beforehand.
• Avoid working on something only sparsely covered by literature. Wikipedia articles cite secondary literature sources, so it is important that you have enough sources to provide a neutral point of view and be verifiable.
• Don't start articles with titles that imply an essay-like approach (e.g., The Effects That The Recent Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis has had on the US and Global Economics). These type of titles, and most likely the content too, may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia.

Good choice

• Choose a topic that is well established in its field, but only weakly represented on Wikipedia. The best choice is a topic for which a lot of literature is available but which isn't covered extensively on Wikipedia.
• Gravitate toward "stub" and "start" class articles. These articles often have only 1-2 paragraphs of information and are in need of expansion. You can see an article’s rating by visiting its talk page, and relevant WikiProject pages can provide a list of stubs that need improvement.
• Before creating a new article, do an in-depth search of related topics on Wikipedia to make sure your topic isn't already covered. Often, an article may already exist under another name, or the topic may be covered as a subsection of a broader article.

If you would like some guidance choosing a good topic to work on, here are some options:

• Ask your instructor, who may have compiled a list of potential topics and may know which topics have appropriate sources available.
• If your course has a Wikipedia Content Expert, you can contact him or her through the course page.
• Post a question at the Help Desk or the Teahouse. The more specific you can be about what you're interested in writing about and what potential topics you're looking at, the better. You'll have to check back later to the page where you post your question to see what suggestions people have for you.

Here are some ways to browse for articles to work on:

• Check Wikipedia:Requested articles to see if any of the requested articles are relevant.
• Check the Stub categories to look for underdeveloped articles in a particular topic area.

Getting your new article to appear on the Main Page of Wikipedia as a "Did you know" entry is a great first goal, as soon as you move out of a sandbox. To be eligible, an article must:

• conform to Wikipedia's core policies regarding verifiability, neutral point of view, and copyright;
• have been created (or expanded five-fold) within the last seven days;
• be about 3 or 4 paragraphs long, at the least;
• be supported with citations to reliable sources.

You can read more about the Did You Know process in general, or check out the step-by-step instructions if you think you'd like to try it.

Be sure you understand the requirements and conventions of the "Did you know" process before submitting your article. Your instructor or any experienced editors working with your class may be able to help; for large classes, it's often best to spread out nominations over a few days or even a few weeks, to avoid overburdening the review process.

The checklist for a perfect article starts out simply enough:

• Fills a gap
• Has a great title
• Starts with a clear description of the subject

...

But it's a long list. And the last thing on it is...

...

• May not be attainable.

So don't worry about making your article perfect. Take it one step at a time.

Wikipedia articles usually start humbly, developing and improving gradually over time — even when they are largely written by just one or a few contributors.

Typically, you start by making a stub, just a paragraph or two that serves to identify the topic, with enough sourcing to assure readers that it ought to have its own article. As you expand the article — perhaps nominating it for DYK along the way — you divide it into sections on different aspects of the topic.

Once the article is relatively comprehensive — at least touching on the major aspects of the topic — you should get some advice from other editors. After incorporating that feedback, if you think it meets the Good article criteria, you can nominate it for Good article status, working with the reviewer(s) to fix any major shortcomings.

After more polish and more research to cover every significant aspect of the topic, you can attempt the Featured article process. If, by the end, the article meets the more stringent Featured article criteria, then the article will be eligible to have its day on Wikipedia's Main Page, where it draws the attention of tens of thousands of readers.

Wikipedia has a grading scheme for articles, which can be useful for figuring out how to improve your article. These are the basic quality levels.

You can check out the full grading scheme for more detail about these quality assessments.

There is much more help material available on Wikipedia, much of it specialized for very specific types of articles or specific editing tasks. Here are a few help pages that are particularly relevant to students working on Wikipedia:

• How to edit medical topics — Medical topics have particularly stringent rules for the proper use of sources, so if you're going to work on medicine-related articles (including psychology), this is a helpful primer. You can also read a pdf primer on editing medical topics, or for editing in psychology or sociology.
• Citing books — If you're working primarily from books as your sources, citing different pages at different points in the article, this guide shows how you can format the citations. We also have a .pdf you can use as a reference.
• Here are some helpful do's and don't's for choosing an article.
• Module 5: Background — If you want to learn more about Wikipedia and its history, you can check out the optional fifth module of this orientation.

Click the "Certification and Feedback" button to certify that you've completed this training. Otherwise, you may be asked to take it again.

You'll also be asked to let us know what you thought about it. We'd love your help in figuring out how to make the training better!

Be sure that you are signed in to your Wikipedia account first. If not, log in now. Otherwise, there will be no record that you completed the training.

(If the above button does not work for you, you can manually add your username to the training completion list here.)

Click the image to go to the video on YouTube. You will need to press 'back' on your browser to return to this module.

Click the image to go to the video on YouTube. You will need to press 'back' on your browser to return to this module.