Wikipedia essays |
---|
Essays in a nutshell |
Finding essays |
|
There are over 1600 Wikipedia essays (July 2015), with over a dozen categories to separate them for searching. It is easy to navigate to a page that regurgitates the same information, contains concepts that contradict one another our is overly complicated for one's needs, the effects can be quite frustrating at times. Listed below are essays that are interpretations or commentary on perceived community norms, located in the Wikipedia namespace, with descriptions to allow searching for particular words or phrases. "How to edit" essays are located at the Help:Directory.
To search essays on this page with your browser:
You can also search essays:
-
- See Essays in a nutshell for a summary of the gist of each essay, as sorted by topic; or essays by category or the navigation template located at the bottom of most essays.
- You can use a wiki-search Special:Search, just include the words "Wikipedia essays" (with your other search-words) to hunt a topic inside an essay (but it matches many non-essays).
-
- see essays in Category:Wikipedia essays (currently 1,686 pages).
- look for new essays auto-indexed under "Wikipedia:..."
Contents
Keep in mind
Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created without approval. Following the instructions or advice given in an essay is optional. In Wikipedia discussions, editors may refer to essays provided that they do not hold them out as general consensus or policy. Editors should defer to official policies or guidelines when essays are inconsistent with established community standards and principals.
List of essays
About essays
- About essays - describes what essays are and there position within the community.
- Essay writing guide - describes how to create and edit essays.
- Value of essays - describes how essays are not policies or guidelines, however many are worthy of consideration.
- Difference between policies, guidelines and essays - describes what the community chooses to call a "policy" or a "guideline" or an "essay".
- Essays are not policy - describes how valuable essays may be, when reading them it is a good idea to keep in mind that they are neither policies nor guidelines.
- Don't cite essays as if they were policy - describe how we don’t use essays or proposals as if they were guidelines or policy.
- Avoid writing redundant essays - describes how it is a good idea to check if similar essays already exist before creating new ones.
- Finding an essay - this essay
- Quote your own essay - describes how editors may refer to essays provided that they do not hold them out as general consensus or policy.
Contributing to Wikipedia
Philosophy of Wikipedia
- Articles must be written - describes how articles should be created before linked in articles.
- Avoid vague introductions - describes how the lead of articles should summarize the contents of the article.
- Be a reliable source - describes the best way you can be a good source by strictly adhere to the guidelines pertaining to them.
- Cohesion - describes how text and other information is organized and structured within an articles.
- Concede lost arguments - describes how making explicit concessions when an argument is lost is good.
- 8 simple rules for editing our encyclopedia - describes some basics about contributing and interactions with others.
- Don't lie - describes how editors should refrain from lying at all times.
- Explanationism - describes the concept of Wikipedia's purpose as being to some degree based in explanations.
- External criticism of Wikipedia - describes how criticism of Wikipedia from professors and journalists may be biased.
- Here to build an encyclopedia - describes the distinguish constructive and non-constructive behaviour of editors.
- Most ideas are bad - describes how most proposals are bad and how to handled that point.
- Not editing because of Wikipedia restriction - describes how some articles should not be written although we'd like to write it.
- Neutrality of Sources - describes how to deal with sources that are reliable but non-neutral.
- Oversimplification - describes how not to oversimplify material in the effort to make it more understandable.
- Paradoxes - describes the major conceptual contradictions within our project
- Paraphrasing - describes how editors should generally summarize source material in their own words.
- POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields - describes how editors, sources, and fields can have a point of view and original research, and even some edits can have a POV, as long as the article in Wikipedia does not.
- Product, process, policy - describes how process and policy are generated in order to improve Wikipedia.
- Purpose - describes Wikipedia's motive for being.
- Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia - describes some basics about contributing and interactions with others.
- Tendentious editing - describes how to recognise bad editing, how to avoid it, and how not to be accused of it.
- The role of policies in collaborative anarchy - describes how policies produce a quality encyclopaedia.
- The rules are principles - describes how policies and guidelines exist only as rough approximations of their underlying principles.
- Trifecta - describes the foundational principles of our policies and guidelines.
- Wikipedia in brief - describes the very basics principals about contributing.
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - describes some norms of the Wikipedia community.
- Wikipedia is a community - describes how there is nothing wrong with occasionally doing other things than writing the encyclopedia, and that community spirit is a positive thing.
Construction of Wikipedia
- 100K featured articles - discusses the challenge of accomplishing the goal of 100,000 more Feature-quality articles.
- A navbox on every page - discusses how Navbox templates can be useful as a tool for navigation.
- Acronym Overkill - discusses how articles should reflect acronym use in the 3rd party sources.
- Adding images improves the encyclopedia discusses how adding images to articles and essays is an easy way to improve the encyclopedia.
- Advanced article editing - describes advanced techniques to help improve the editing of Wikipedia articles.
- Advanced table formatting - describes advanced techniques in editing of tables.
- Advanced template coding - describes advanced techniques in editing of templates.
- Advanced text formatting - describes advanced techniques in text formatting.
- Alternatives to the "Expand" template - describes better ways to say "this article needs more information" then using a template.
- Amnesia test - discusses how you should forget everything you know about the subject before editing.
- An unfinished house is a real problem - discusses how unfinished articles are not harmfully, however they should be made accurate and readable before saving.
- Articles have a half-life - describes the time it takes for a substance to degrade to half its former quantity and what to do about it.
- Autosizing images - describes techniques to auto-size, or scale, any image.
- Avoid mission statements - discusses how organizations briefly generally should not be transcribed in full in articles.
- Bare URLs - discusses how it is preferable to use proper citation templates when citing sources.
- Be neutral in form - discusses how being neutral in both content and in form is an asset.
- Beef up that first revision - discusses how hew page patrollers judge the articles by their first mainspace revisions; they prefer these to already contain basic context, assertion of notability, and sources.
- Blind men and an elephant - discusses how reliable sources may be considered credible... until newer reliable sources contradict them.
- Children's lit, adult new readers, & large-print books - discusses how children's sources, adult new reader sources, and abridged large-print media are questionable and need checking for reliability before being cited.
- Citation overkill - discusses how when citing material in an article, it is better to cite a couple of great sources than a stack of decent or sub-par sources.
- Concept cloud - describes how brainstorming can help editors to overcome editorial struggles, and conceptualize, in a material way, the way an article is formed.
- Creating controversial content - describes how new articles or facts that are especially controversial can survive severe dispute.
- Dictionaries as sources - discusses how dictionaries and glossaries present a special challenge in determining whether one is primary, secondary, or tertiary.
- Don't demolish the house while it's still being built - describes how a short article should be marked as a stub and edited, and expanded, rather than simply deleted.
- Don't hope the house will build itself - describes how a little planning and a little effort is all that is needed to prevent an article from being deleted.
- Don't panic - discusses how you should always keep an eye on yourself when you are involved in a dispute.
- Editing on mobile devices - describes the challenges of editing with smartphones.
- Editors are not mindreaders - discusses how someone can distinguish the incomplete, unreferenced article you've just created but plan to improve from one that will never be improved?
- Endorsements (commercial) - describes how commercial endorsements of goods, services, businesses, companies, nonprofits, and famous persons present special editorial challenges that require particular care.
- Featured articles may have problems - discusses how featured articles are not necessarily to be emulated; focus on our policies and guidelines.
- Fruit of the poisonous tree - discusses how an otherwise reliable source attributes information to an unreliable source then that information is likewise unreliable.
- Give an article a chance - discusses how its best not to nominate newly-created articles for deletion.
- Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats - provides a rational argument for refusing editors who insist on an article complying with WP:STRONGNAT.
- Inaccuracy - addresses what editors should do with concerns about potentially inaccurate source material.
- Law sources - discusses how some law sources may not be reliable. Others may be very complicated to use.
- Link rot - discusses how there are steps to be taken to reduce or repair its effect., and the fact its not good to delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer.
- Mine a source - discusses how articles with "citation needed" tags often already have sufficient sources that simply have been under-utilized.
- Merge Test - discusses how If a merge will result in an article too large to comfortably read or the deletion of encyclopedic content, it should not occur.
- Minors and persons judged incompetent - discusses how in light of WP:BLP, editing about minors and persons legally judged incompetent should be especially protective of their rights.
- "Murder of" articles - discusses how articles titled "Murder of [victim]" are a possible solution to the notability guidelines that would bar articles on the perpetrator or victim.
- Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography - discusses how not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article.
- Not everything needs a navbox - discusses how navboxs templates can be useful as a tool for navigation, but use them sparingly.
- Nothing is in stone - discusses how easy is it for Wikipedia to change and that all should pay attention to the changes.
- Permastub - discusses how some stub articles have no reasonable prospect for expansion.
- Potential, not just current state - discusses how its best to keep articles based on their potential notability and verification, not just how they look now.
- Printability
- Pruning article revisions - discusses how editors decide whether or not any given type of article-namespace redirect is suitable for an offline, CD/DVD or print version of Wikipedia.
- Put a little effort into it - discusses how publicists may want tips on legitimately reporting clients' achievements and have their articles stay in Wikipedia, not deleted.
- Restoring part of a reverted edit - discusses how when creating a new article, even if it is a stub, try to put in at least a little bit more than just the absolute minimum.
- Robotic editing - discusses how it is sometimes better to remove the content that is objectionable, instead of entirely reverting an edit.
- Sham consensus - discusses how a consensus may not be relied on, because it violates a policy, a guideline, or an ArbCom decision.
- Run an edit-a-thon - discusses how an "edit-a-thons" improves the encyclopedia and can be a great way to help new Wikipedians learn to edit.
- Temporary versions of articles - reasons for and against temporary versions.
- There is a deadline - discusses how the preservation or survivability of the knowledge is at stake. Contribute it to Wikipedia before it's too late.
- There is no deadline - discusses how Wikipedia is a work in progress. Don't rush to edit: it's not a competition.
- The deadline is now - discusses how when an article contains unverifiable content, it needs to be corrected now before someone reads it and is misled by it.
- Walled garden - discusses how articles should have outgoing and incoming links to the wider encyclopedia.
- What an article should not include - discusses how some things rarely, if ever, should appear in the saved versopn of an article.
- Wikipedia is a work in progress - discusses how Wikipedia is constantly being improved and expanded, and it will never be finished.
- Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion - discusses how Wikipedia grows organically, thus the quality of pages is varied.
- The world will not end tomorrow - discusses how an encyclopedia should not begin to move at lightning speed to keep up with the rat race of the outside world.
- Writing better articles - advice on how to write an effective article, including information on layout, style, and how to make an article clear, precise and relevant to the reader.
Deletion of Wikipedia content
- Adjectives in your recommendations
- AfD is not a war zone
- Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
- Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews
- Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions
- Arguments to make in deletion discussions
- Avoid repeated arguments
- Before commenting in a deletion discussion
- But there must be sources!
- Content removal
- Delete the junk
- Does deletion help
- Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument
- Follow the leader
- How to save an article proposed for deletion
- I just don't like it
- Immunity
- Liar Liar Pants on Fire
- Nothing
- Overzealous deletion
- Relisting can be abusive
- Wikipedia is not Whack-A-Mole
- Why was the page I created deleted?
- What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion
- When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork
Wikipedia's code of conduct
Wikipedia's civility expectations
- How to be civil
- Compromise
- Accepting other users
- Enjoy yourself
- Thank you
- Apologizing
- Truce
- Divisiveness
- Encouraging newcomers
- Relationships with academic editors
- High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors
Behavioural philosophy
- An uncivil environment is a poor environment
- Be the glue
- Civility warnings
- Deletion as revenge
- Failure
- Forgive and forget
- It's not the end of the world
- Nobody cares
- Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals
- Staying cool when the editing gets hot
- The grey zone
- The last word
- Most ideas are bad
- The rules of polite discourse
- There is no common sense
- Wikipedia is not about winning
- Writing for the opponent
Positive actions
- Assume good faith
- Assume the assumption of good faith
- Assume no clue
- Avoid personal remarks
- Avoid the word "vandal"
- Call a spade a spade
- Candor
- Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass
- Deny recognition
- Encourage full discussions
- Get over it
- Inform for guidance
- How to lose
- Just drop it
- Mind your own business
- Keep it down to earth
Negative actions
- Don't give a fuck
- Don't be inconsiderate
- Don't be rude
- Don't call a spade a spade
- Don't call the kettle black
- Don't take the bait
- Do not insult the vandals
- Don't come down like a ton of bricks
- Don't be ashamed
- Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid
- Don't spite your face
- Don't call things cruft
- No angry mastodons
- No, you can't have a pony
- Don't be an ostrich
- Don't template the regulars
- Don't be a fanatic
- Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack
- Don't fight fire with fire
- Don't be prejudiced
- Don't remind others of past misdeeds
- Don't throw your toys out of the pram
- Don't help too much
- Passive Aggressive
- Don't cry COI
- Don't be obnoxious
- Don't be a WikiBigot
- You can't squeeze blood from a turnip
Interactions overviews
Wikipedia, notability
- Alternative outlets
- Articles with a single source
- Bare notability
- Bombardment
- Businesses with a single location
- But it's true!
- Cherrypicking
- Citation overkill
- Clones
- Coatrack
- Discriminate vs indiscriminate information
- Every snowflake is unique
- Existence ≠ Notability
- Fart
- Google searches and numbers
- High Schools
- Inclusion is not an indicator of notability
- Inherent notability
- Insignificant
- Masking the lack of notability
- Make stubs
- News coverage does not decrease notability
- No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability
- No big loss
- No one cares about your garage band
- No one really cares
- Notability/Historical/Arguments
- Notability cannot be purchased
- Notability is not a level playing field
- Notability is not a matter of opinion
- Notability means impact
- Notability points
- Notability sub-pages
- Obscurity ≠ Lack of notability
- Offline sources
- One hundred words
- One sentence does not an article make
- Other stuff exists
- Pokémon test
- Run-of-the-mill
- Significant coverage not required
- Solutions are mixtures and nothing else
- Subjective importance
- What notability is not
- Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause
Notability advice
Humorous material
- Assume bad faith
- Assume good wraith
- Assume stupidity
- Assume that everyone's assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming good faith
- Avoid using preview button
- Avoid using wikilinks
- BOLD, revert, revert, revert
- Boston Tea Party
- Barnstaritis
- Don't-give-a-fuckism
- Edits Per Day
- Editsummarisis
- Go ahead, vandalize
- Lamest edit wars
- Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them
- No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man
- Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you
- Please bite the newbies
- R-e-s-p-e-c-t
- The first rule of Wikipedia
- The Five Pillars of Untruth
- Watchlistitis
- Why not create an Account?
User essays
To display all subcategories click on the "►": |
---|
|
See also
- Advice pages, about guidance pages written by WikiProjects.
- Community standards and advice, a descriptive directory of community norms and advice for editors.
- Editor's Index to Wikipedia, lists hundreds of essays, as well as guidelines, policies, help pages, and more.