User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation

This page is an attempt to codify all policies and guidelines into one single document.

Before you start editing Wikipedia, you should read and make sure you understand the policies and guidelines outlined below. By editing Wikipedia, you automatically agree to follow these rules and you understand that you may face sanctions if you break them.

General philosophy and principles

 * Your main goal is: you are here to write and maintain an encyclopedia that others can trust.
 * All rules outlined here are meant to lead to this goal, without exception. If any rule prevents you from doing that, ignore it.
 * If you came here to do something else, please stop. In particular, this is not a place to make up stuff, spread propaganda, advocacy, gossip or otherwise make the encyclopedia unreliable and biased. You will be banned if you do that, particularly if repeatedly or consistently so.
 * This is an encyclopedia, so not everything belongs. We are not a newspaper, an information dump, a dictionary, a directory nor a collection of source documents.


 * Wikipedia is a collaborative project.
 * Treat others as you would like others to treat you, even when you disagree with them or do not like them.
 * Don't be a jerk to anyone in any way. We will ban people who misbehave.
 * We are not social media.
 * If you came here to start, wage, or win wars of any kind, to "own" someone or to advance any sort of agenda other than improving the encyclopedia, you are in a wrong place
 * Wikipedia operates on consensus - a general agreement of editors. We are not, however, a political experiment of any kind.


 * Wikipedia is free to use, edit, and distribute
 * Do not violate copyright and never plagiarise from any source.
 * If possible, use free media ("free" as in "freedom"). Usage of copyrighted media is sometimes allowed but is legally restricted.
 * There is no such thing as "your article". Anyone can edit, and even delete, what you wrote, as outlined in the rules.


 * Wikipedia's rules should be written in a simple, understandable way that yields just outcomes for all participants.
 * Rules should be as concise and clear as possible.
 * Rules must be consistent and should apply equally to all editors
 * Use common sense and your best judgment when applying the rules
 * We are not here for the rules, the rules are here so that the encyclopedia creation process runs smoothly.
 * Do not lawyer your way through the rules during arguments. Do not look for technicalities or ways to weaponize the rules to your ends, aim for their spirit.

Types of rules
When applying a certain policy or guideline, make sure that you choose such a way to apply it that will best work towards the betterment of the encyclopedia and its articles, even if alternative options better suit your political, religious or other personal veiws. If a policy or a guideline prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it.
 * 1) Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards all users should follow. They are codified here.
 * 2) Guidelines are sets of best practices supported by consensus. As such, you should also follow them, but there may be some valid exceptions, so don't interpret them rigidly. Guidelines, except for the Manual of Style, are also codified here. They are explicitly marked as such.
 * 3) Process pages implement a certain policy or guideline in connection with a certain process (e.g. Articles for Deletion allows for articles to be deleted according to a subset of rules regulating removal of content).
 * 4) Essays are pieces of advice or commentary (a) certain editor(s) offer(s) on a policy or guideline. Explanatory essays or supplemental essays are special cases of essays that offer advice on how to apply a certain policy or guideline when editing Wikipedia. Essays are NOT policies or guidelines, may not override them and are not their official interpretations. That said, some may be influential in the community.

Another way of defining the rules reflect the areas that the rules cover:

Editing. This includes rules about:
 * Content, i.e. what you should and should not write in an article for it to belong to an encyclopedia. They only apply to article space.
 * Naming conventions are a set of guidelines about choosing an appropriate article title
 * The Manual of Style regulates the technical details of writing, which includes proper language and formatting.
 * Deletion, i.e. how unwanted content is removed, wherever it is.
 * Notability guidelines regulate what topics are important enough to belong in an encyclopedia. They are often used in article deletion discussions.
 * Conduct, i.e. acceptable behaviour between editors.

Disputes between editors are divided into those about conduct (the last position) and content (everything else). Wikipedia generally maintains a separation between the two. Therefore, conduct disputes will generally be processed in dedicated venues resolving conduct issues.

Procedure. Thes rules treat about:
 * User rights, which outlines what a user with a given permission may or may not do.
 * Processes, i.e. ways to report bad conduct, appeals, seeking consensus or changes to the rules.
 * Legal issues, mostly set by the Wikimedia Foundation.
 * Enforcement, outlining the duties, rights and restrictions on actors authorized to enforce the all of the above rules.

Content rules
Content rules aim to guide the development of articles so that they are informative, well-written, balanced, honest and trustworthy, while also following appropriate style guidelines.

Wikipedia is
Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia that can fit a lot of things. Wikipedia hosts articles that are a summary of accepted knowledge about the subject, presented in an encyclopedic style. Wikipedia is not constrained by limitations that paper encyclopedias have, and theoretically Wikipedia could cover an extremely large amount of topics in great depth. But just because it can doesn't mean it should. And it won't.

Wikipedia is not

 * A dictionary (Wiktionary is the place). Encyclopedia entries should start with a good definition, but if you cannot expand beyond it, it doesn't deserve an article. However, definitions themselves, and changes therein, may be of encyclopedic interest (e.g. definition of planet, Macedonia (terminology)), as can be a term has earned enough coverage or scholarly/cultural commentary that it can be expanded beyond the bare meaning (e.g. truthiness, 3, π).
 * A textbook or a manual. (Wikibooks and Wikiversity are the places). Summarize accepted knowledge, don't tell the reader how to do stuff. Articles should not read like textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions, nor like manuals or cookbooks, where you guide the reader through necessary steps. However, if your article simply informs the reader by means of example, or describes how people actually use certain things, instead of instructing how to do that, it's fine. This applies to languages - describe them, don't try to tell the readers how to learn them. You can easily change the prescriptive wording to a descriptive one, e.g. -> The EMA advises to take the vaccine.
 * A travel guide. (Wikivoyage is the place) Wikipedia can describe landmarks within a given city (e.g. the article on Paris should mention the Louvre and the Eiffel Tower), but don't cram it with travel guide stuff such as the "best" restaurants and hotels with pricelists, or attractions not located in the city. The main attractions are more than enough.
 * A game guide. (Wikibooks is the place). A brief plot summary and the main actions the player performs in the game are good; lists of gameplay concepts and items are generally bad, and walk-throughs and detailed coverage do not belong, either. However, there may be certain game concepts or details that secondary sources discuss in gaming context in detail, or which are essential to understand the game or its significance in the industry. These may have a concise mention, or even their own articles if appropriate (e.g. BFG from the Doom series). See also WP:WAF and WP:VGSCOPE.
 * A FAQ/advice column. Frequently asked questions (FAQs) and Q&As are not appropriate in Wikipedia articles. Instead format the information as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s).
 * A scientific journal. (a WikiJournal may be the place). We write for a general audience, so write plainly and avoid overly technical language. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible. Any literate reader without a background in your area of expertise should be able to understand what you are writing about in the lead and initial sections without having to guess the meaning of the words, and the learning curve should be as shallow as possible. Do a wikilink to advanced or more complicated concepts.
 * A case study. Many articles tell the relation of factor X to factor Y (e.g. situation Z in location A, or version B of item C). The key is that there has to be something in this relation that, taken together, distinguishes the topic enough to be notable enough for a separate article (e.g. because it is a culturally significant thing). For example, slate industry can have subarticles such as "Slate industry in Wales" and "Slate industry in Spain" because these are significant in these jurisdictions and this is covered in reliable sources. "Date palm trees in Oman" or "Blue trucks", however, would likely be a POV fork or have original research as there is little that distinguishes them of all "date palms" or "trucks" enough to warrant coverage.
 * A place for speculations and unverified predictions. We do not have a crystal ball, and your personal opinion on the future is of no significance to Wikipedia. Moreover, some topics that describe a future event do not belong (yet) to Wikipedia. A summary is presented in the table below.

Finally, Wikipedia is not censored. Regardless of the opinions of certain organisations calling for them to stay secret, Wikipedia will not remove information they object to if it is otherwise encyclopedic. Also, Wikipedia explicitly allows usage of objectionable content or obscenities if there is a good reason to use them. If the omission makes the article less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available, that content should and will stay. You should not bowdlerise profanities (replace some letters with symbols). However, offensiveness is not a reason in itself to include content, nor does it mean there is a preference for (more) offensive content. Just choose the most relevant option to illustrate the article topic. Exceptions include things that violate Wikipedia policy or United States law (where the servers are located). We do not deploy additional disclaimers to alert readers to objectionable material; please read WP:Content disclaimer.
 * A newspaper. You should update the article with new verified information once it appears, and may even create one as the event unfolds. However, we don't host first-hand coverage of breaking news and we don't write in news style. (Wikisource and Wikinews may do that). Don't rush writing up on a news story, consider the long-term notability. If the only sources in the article are contemporaneous coverage and no new coverage on the event appeared, it may be a signal the article was emphasising the news too much and may not even be notable after all. Individuals only known due to a single notable event are not necessarily notable - instead describe them in the article about the event. The inverse is true as well: just because an article describes an event involving a celebrity doesn't mean you need to add information to that person's article, particularly if this is trivia or, worse still, gossip.
 * An information dump or a database (Wikidata and Wikispecies are, though). Articles about creative works or works of art can and should discuss the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. Just including a film plot or lyrics for a song is not good enough (and when you do, beware of copyright and limit your quotations to fair use size). Similarly, including statistics in an article is only fine if you put them into context, create graphs, tables and plots that facilitate understanding of them, and explain what they stand for. Another example of a database that we strongly discourage is posting exhaustive software update logs or list of all app versions and patches - a summary of the app's development is enough.
 * A mirror or repository of links and media files. It is OK to mention some links and add a few images to the articles, but do not overwhelm the article with too many links (external or internal), or media without any sort of description of why they are relevant to the article. Complete copies of primary sources in the public domain should go to Wikisource; on Wikipedia, only cite the relevant fragments to show context.
 * A directory. Yes, we do organize things within our lists. No, we are not yellow pages nor do we publish TV schedules. Lists should have a well-defined core topic (not too narrow, not too broad) that have encyclopedic merit (so List of heads of state of South Africa is OK but List of senior Black employees of Waffle House or List of Ukrainian restaurants in Buenos Aires don't work). Of course, if reliable sources establish notability of a particular grouping in the list (family, ethnic, racial, or otherwise) and this is somehow culturally or historically significant, you may create the list. Lists of creative works of notable creators are generally allowed (for instance, a bibliography of Veronica Roth, a HarperCollins author, can be included, but a list of all HarperCollins books is too broad.) However, if these creations are just aphorisms or famous quotes, an article is not appropriate (but Wikiquote will accept these).
 * A resource to conduct business. Articles and talk pages are not meant to allow for conducting business of the article subject on Wikipedia. Whereas a list of top functionaries of a notable company may be appropriate, other lists related to businesses will not generally be. We are not a price comparison service and do not say which products are superior, we may at most report others' opinions on that. We are not customer support on products covered on Wikipedia. An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention. It may be a detailed discussion in mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews), but a passing mention alone is not enough.
 * A soapbox or a means to promotion. Advocacy, propaganda, advertisement, marketing, publicity or public relations (including self-promotion), whatever their nature, topic or purpose, are not allowed on Wikipedia. You can report objectively on how this is done, but this must be done from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not here to share and promote your opinions on current affairs, or anyone else's for that matter. If you came here to prove your opinions are correct, then you are in a wrong place. If you came here to show how good you are, you should do it elsewhere, too. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources, such as your CV, is unacceptable for an article. Neither is it acceptable for an article to be an extension of the company's website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts. If your company intends to make a public service announcement or promote a cause or an event, Wikipedia is the wrong venue. If you have any conflict of interest while editing Wikipedia (e.g. you are employed by the title company, paid to edit, or related to the person you edit about), you MUST disclose it, and you'd rather not touch the areas where such conflict exists. Wikipedia endorses no corporate entity nor runs affiliate programs.
 * A forum for your thoughts. Original theses, novel ideas, personal essays, opinion pieces, unpublished analyses etc. do not belong on Wikipedia, particularly on its articles. Your task is to summarise knowledge as published by other people, preferably experts, it is not to brag about your views or promote them, or show off you brand-new invention, at least until it becomes notable enough as to be discussed in reliable sources.
 * A PvP area. Your task is to create an encyclopedia and not bicker with random people on the Internet. Article pages should stay factual; article talk pages can only be used to discuss improvements to the article and are not areas to argue about the article subject. We will delete discussions that do not comply with the talk page guidelines. If you want to discuss a specific question on a topic that has reasonable academic interest, you may use the Reference Desk.
 * Social media. Your website, blog, wiki, CV or your cloud storage does not belong on Wikipedia - do it somewhere else. Do not upload files to Wikipedia that you will not use for its betterment - those that are not used will be deleted. Your user page is only to tell something of relevance while working on Wikipedia. You do not own your user page. Don't use user pages for non-Wikipedia stuff, including amusement and social networking. Do not seek relationships or sexual encounters. Your relative's/friend's death is not grounds enough to create an article about them, and commemorating them in this way is inappropriate use of the website.
 * A place for scandalmongering. Spreading gossip or things "heard through the grapevine" is not allowed. Take particular care when writing about a living person, as you must make sure you do not defame them or infringe their right to privacy. Deliberate defamation, or creating pages solely to attack the reputation of any person, legal or natural, via Wikipedia articles, is strictly forbidden and will get you sanctioned.

Articles must be notable
Notability is a necessary condition for the article's existence. Notability is a measure of how much a topic is remarkable, significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. A topic is notable and thus generally may have an article or list if:

It is up to you to demonstrate notability when you are challenged to do so (e.g. when somebody starts a deletion discussion). If you cannot demonstrate it by naming several good published sources about the topic, the article about it will be deleted. Subject-notability guidelines will make deletion harder but not impossible, as eventually any article only satisfying an SNG will have to prove it also satisfies the GNG.
 * It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) or any of the subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs)
 * It is not anything listed in Wikipedia is not

General notability guideline (GNG)
A topic generally may have a stand-alone article or list when several reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject address the topic directly and in detail, not just as trivia, so that editors do not have to resort to original research.

Subject-specific notability (SNG) guidelines
In certain topic areas, SNGs have been written to to help clarify when a standalone article can or should be written. The assumption is that the topic that passes the criteria should pass GNG because it would have been covered for reasons outlined below, and even if it wasn't, is important enough to likely warrant their own article.

SNGs may differ in their criteria from the GNG. However, the main rule remains: if for whatever reason reliable sources that are independent of the subject do not or are unlikely exist, do not create an unsourced article, as content must be verifiable. Reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject are still the ones that establish notability, and the notes about the requisite number of sources and what is non-trivial coverage apply as well, unless specifically told otherwise. Some SNGs will also specify which articles should not be created.

This code presents a summary of extant SNGs that differ from the general notability guideline above. As guidelines, they are rules of thumb that should not be interpreted rigidly - exceptions may apply. WikiProjects may have their own notability criteria and may offer valuable advice about writing articles in their areas of interest. However, remember these are mere essays and may have little force of persuasion during deletion discussions.

Caveats

 * A notable topic is not equal to a "famous" or "important" topic. At least not equal to whatever perceived fame or degree of importance you attach to the topic. We have reliable secondary and independent sources to do that job.
 * Notability does not guarantee a stand-alone article. Sometimes the encyclopedia would benefit from treating the topic in another article, or group several topics in one big article. To see if you should, think whether the topic would be better seen in context of another topic, or as part of larger topic, and if you can improve the stand-alone article beyong the current state. Articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into whatever article closely associated with the topic is better developed and has better demonstrated notability; but if you can make it more than a stub, do so. It may also appear after a thorough discussion and inspection that the Wikipedia article fails notability after all, even if the article passes GNG and/or SNG. In this case, also merge the content to other article(s).
 * The concept does not apply to article content. Other content policies apply to article content. However, editors may agree to use list selection criteria for lists.
 * The concept applies to the topic, not to the current state of the article. What matters is whether this topic has enough good coverage to build at least a basic article, not if Wikipedia uses it now or not even whether the Wikipedia article is full of tags indicating problems with verification. However, once you identify a subpar article and find adequate sourcing that demonstrates notability, please fix the article.
 * Notability is not temporary, but attention over a sufficiently significant period of time is needed. Once an article meets GNG, it doesn't need ongoing coverage. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and does not allow advertisement or promotion, so if, after considering all sources out there, the article will resemble a newspaper article or an ad, particularly if coverage of the topic was not sustained over time, it will not be notable.
 * Do not create articles about a person only known for a single event. If you believe you need an article, describe the event instead.

Why we have notability requirements
The main purpose of these standards is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies we list below. These policies are necessary to have trustworthy articles.


 * We require several sources to address the topic directly and in detail so that we can actually write a whole article based on them, rather than just half a paragraph or a definition of that topic, and so that the article is not unduly biased or unbalanced due to the viewpoint(s) of the source's author(s).
 * We require sources to be reliable so that we can be confident that we're not passing along random gossip, perpetuating hoaxes, or posting indiscriminate collections of information.
 * We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with our neutrality policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising or promoting anything or anyone.
 * We require the existence of secondary sources so that the article can comply with the policy requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.
 * We require editors to use their judgment about how to organize subjects so that we have articles with proper length. We neither want bloated articles people will get lost in, nor short articles unlikely to be expanded beyond a sentence or two. We also want to reduce redundant information repeated across articles.

Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. They do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. all disambiguation pages and some lists).

Content must be verifiable
All content on Wikipedia must be verifiable. This means that the information that you present is supported by the reference attached to the information. The source should be cited inline and directly support what you write. Other editors should be able to clearly identify the author, title, publisher, page/chapter/section, date, DOI, ISBN etc. of the source so that they could check it themselves (see WP:Citing sources for technical information). The source may NOT be your beliefs, opinions, your conviction that "this is the truth", unpublished information/ideas or whatever you make up.

It is your responsibility to provide a citation to the content you add or want to retain or restore. If you are challenged when doing that, it is up to you to prove that the source indeed supports the content well enough. Make some research yourself and try to find a good source that supports the information, whether you want to delete or retain the information. If the information is not cited inline but there are some general references, find the specific fragments which support the text. Also, remember that exceptional claims require an exceptional quality and amount of sources, particularly when such statements are odd, not covered by reliable sources but would otherwise seen important or would turn mainstream assumptions on their head.

You may remove any content that is not verifiable. If you don't feel comfortable about that, you may add a citation needed template for unsourced information, verification needed to request verification and failed verification if the source does not support the text. In any case, leave a note on the article's talk page, or the talk page of the user who added it, so that people know why you did it. An exception: remove any unsourced/poorly sourced content about living people/existing groups of people immediately, don't wait.

Accessibility of the source doesn't matter much. Do not dismiss a source simply because it is difficult or costly to access or is not available online - ask the editor who cited the source to provide you the quote that supports the content, or alternatively seek Resource Exchange's help. Sources in English are preferred on English Wikipedia - cite them when equal or superior to a foreign-language one - but non-English sources are fine, and better use a good foreign-language source than not. When citing non-English sources, provide the quote in the original language and its translation. For the translation, if available, use that from a reliable source; if it doesn't exist, you may prepare your own but you are fully responsible for its accuracy. Avoid machine translation. If your grasp of the foreign language is not so good, better consult translators who are willing to help than try to understand the source yourself, particularly in articles about living persons.

Do not conduct original research on Wikipedia
Original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. Original research is prohibited in Wikipedia articles. Examples may be your philosophical essay or results of some research you did in the laboratory - these are not allowed as content until they appear in a reliable source.

A special case of original research is improper editorial synthesis. '''Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. In other words, you are not the one who frames facts, indicates their importance or suggests opinions on them.'''

To say whether something is improper synthesis, you have to understand what the sources say, what the text says and whether any assertions in the text align with what the sources mean. If they do, this synthesis is proper. There is no hard-and-fast way to detect improper synthesis. You may avoid improper synthesis accusations by clearly demarcating which parts of the text are supported by which reference.

Some things are not improper synthesis. Summarising or explaining something is not improper synthesis is the general meaning of the concepts explained or summarised is preserved. Neither is translation or transcription. Uploading original images is fine so long as the image does not serve to illustrate or introduce unpublished concepts, including through captions, and is not manipulated to distort facts or positions on the image. If the consensus is that they are correct and meaningfully reflect sources, routine calculations, particularly basic arithmetical operations, are permissible as well. Direct comparison of statistics is OK if methodologies are the same. Finally, interpreting certain sources, like a map, an image, a chart or a graph is acceptable if there is consensus that the way you are interpreting them is correct and meaningfully reflects sources.

Use reliable sources
All sources can be divided according to several classifications - whether the source is reliable or unreliable, independent or not, and how far it is removed from the event or phenomenon described. These classifications are independent of each other.

Primary, secondary and tertiary sources
All sources, can be divided, in order of increasing distance from the event or phenomenon discussed, as primary, secondary or tertiary sources. Grasping this distinction is vital to determine which sources may be used to justify notability, and which sources you may use to base your articles on. It is worth to remember that a source may contain elements from more than one type, or that the source type may change depending on the purpose it is used for. The properties of the sources, with their examples, are given below.