User:Teratix/What Wikipedia is not copyedit

Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia. Unlike traditional encyclopedias, there is no practical limit on Wikipedia's amount of content. However, there is an important distinction between what be included on Wikipedia, and what  be included. There are certain things – this page is a non-exhaustive list.

Wikipedia is not a directory, dictionary or product catalogue


Articles are not:
 * 1) Definitions or dictionary entries. Although articles should begin with a good definition, they also should provide content beyond this initial description. In rare cases, words or definitions themselves may be encyclopedic subjects, such as the definition of planet, Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness. However, articles rarely, if ever, contain more than one  definition or usage of the article's title. For a wiki that  a dictionary, visit our sister project Wiktionary. Dictionary definitions should be transwikied there.
 * 2) Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or people. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant  they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are permitted. (See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Appropriate topics for lists for clarification.)
 * 3) The white or yellow pages. Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses is not encyclopedic. Likewise, disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones.
 * 4) Directories, directory entries, electronic program guides, or resources for conducting business. For example, an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings.
 * 5) Sales catalogues. Articles should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers.
 * 6) Indiscriminate cross-categorizations, such as Tongans employed by Toyota or Korean restaurants in Reykjavik. Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Overcategorization for this issue in categories.
 * 7) Simple listings without contextual information. Examples include: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose. Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted. Thus, for example, Wikipedia should not include a list of all books published by HarperCollins but may include a bibliography of books written by HarperCollins author Veronica Roth.

Wikipedia is not for advocacy nor original thought
Wikipedia should not contain:


 * 1) Original research and personal inventions. If you have completed new primary research on a topic, conceived a new scientific theory, coined a new word, or even just made up something one day, articles will only cover your work if it is discussed in independent reliable sources.
 * 2) Personal essays. Although some topics, particularly current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes", Wikipedia is not a place to express your opinions. In the unusual situation where your opinions are significant enough to discuss in articles, let other people write about them. Essays on Wikipedia-related topics are an exception, but should remain on user pages or project pages.
 * 3) Discussion forums. Articles' talk pages are solely for discussing how to improve articles. They are not for general discussion about the article's subject or for finding technical assistance. You can talk to other editors about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, but these conversations should not intrude into articles. Wikipedia's reference desk is an exception to this guideline.
 * 4) Advocacy or propaganda. Articles should not attempt to recruit readers to commercial, political, scientific, religious, national or even sports-related causes. However, articles may discuss these causes from a neutral point of view.
 * 5) Gossip or scandal-mongering. Content about living people is required to meet especially high standards of reliability, to avoiding libelling subjects or infringing their right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack someone's reputation.
 * 6) Self-promotion. Although it is tempting to write about yourself or your projects, it can be difficult to maintain a neutral point of view, because you will have an interest in portraying yourself in the best possible light. Having this conflict of interest also makes it difficult for you to judge whether you truly meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. Excessively relying on autobiographical sources, such as your résumé or curriculum vitae, is unacceptable.
 * 7) Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, without puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about small garage bands or local companies are typically unacceptable. Articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Contributors must disclose any payments they receive for editing Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Wikipedia is not a web hosting service
Articles are not merely:


 * 1) Link collections, whether the links are external or internal. Although articles often list useful links for further reading in "see also" and external links sections, these lists can unduly dwarf their parent articles if they grow too large. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, linking one major site may be more appropriate than linking every site. Exceptions to this guideline are disambiguation pages and certain stand-alone lists.
 * 2) Public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are useful only when presented with their original, unmodified wording. Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia. Public domain resources such as the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica may be used to add content to an article (see Plagiarism guideline: Public-domain sources for guidelines on doing so). See also Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources and Wikisource's inclusion policy.
 * 3) Photographs or media files with no accompanying text. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Images with missing articles or Public domain image resources.
 * 4) Personal web pages. Although editors may maintain user pages where limited autobiographical information can be presented, these should not serve as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia. User pages should not focus on social networking or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.
 * 5) File storage areas. Only upload files to be used in articles or project pages. If you have extra relevant images, consider uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia.
 * 6) Dating services. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to pursue relationships or sexual encounters. User pages that move beyond broad expressions of sexual orientation are unacceptable. However, you very well may form new friendships as you go about improving the encyclopedia.
 * 7) Memorials or genealogies. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased people. Nor is it a place to document family histories, except to contextualise articles on notable people. (The list of deceased editors is an exception.)

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal
Articles should not read like:
 * 1) Instruction manuals.  to the reader how bakers make bread, how potters shape vases or how athletes perform a pole-vault is acceptable;  the reader how to do these things is not. Articles should not read like manuals, tutorials, cookbooks, or advice columns. Such guides may be welcome at Wikibooks instead.
 * 2) Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. While travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, an article for a city should list only those that are actually in the city. If you do wish to help write a travel guide, your contributions would be more than welcome at our sister project, Wikivoyage.
 * 3) Game guides. Articles on games should briefly summarize their plot and the main actions the player performs. Avoid lists of gameplay concepts and items unless these are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context (such as the BFG9000 from the Doom series). A concise summary of gameplay details (specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, etc.) is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry, but walk-throughs and detailed coverage are not. See also WP:WAF and WP:VGSCOPE. As of a 2021 decision to start allowing them, such guides may be welcome at Wikibooks instead.
 * 4) Internet guides. Articles should not exist  to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be kept significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources, since editors can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See the Current events portal for examples.
 * 5) Usage, slang, or idiom guides. Descriptive articles about languages, dialects, or slang (such as Klingon language, Cockney, or Leet) are desirable. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers are not.
 * 6) FAQs. Articles should not list frequently asked questions (FAQs). Instead, format the information as neutral prose.
 * 7) Textbooks and annotated texts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. Articles should not read like textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, and Wikiversity. Some kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in an article.
 * 8) Scientific journals. An article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead (and sometimes the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by readers without knowledge in the given field before advancing to detailed explanations. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text. See Manual of Style/Linking.
 * 9) Academic language. Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible. Academic language in the text should be explained in lay terms.
 * 10) Case studies. Many topics are based on the relationship of factor X to factor Y, resulting in one or more full articles. For example, this could refer to situation X in location Y, or version X of item Y. This is perfectly acceptable when the two variables put together represent some culturally significant phenomenon or some otherwise notable interest. Often, separate articles are needed for a subject within a range of different countries, due to substantial differences across international borders; articles such as "Slate industry in Wales" and "Island fox" are examples. Writing about "Oak trees in North Carolina" or "Blue trucks", however, would likely constitute a POV fork or original research, and would certainly not result in an encyclopedic article.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. In articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims (for films, see WP:NFF). In particular:


 * 1) Scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the U.S. presidential election and  Summer Olympics. By comparison, the  U.S. presidential election and  Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. For example, Ultimate fate of the universe is an acceptable topic.
 * 2) Items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Alex (2028)" is not, even though it is virtually certain that such a storm will occur. Similarly, articles about words formed on a predictable numeric system (such as "septenquinquagintillion") are not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use. Certain scientific extrapolations are considered to be encyclopedic, such as chemical elements documented before isolation in the laboratory, provided that scientists have made significant non-trivial predictions of their properties.
 * 3) Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. Although scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on weapons in Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not.
 * 4) Although current scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections.
 * 5) Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist of only product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable.

Wikipedia is not a newspaper
Articles should include up-to-date information and stand-alone articles on significant recent events are often acceptable. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure articles are not:


 * 1) Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand reports on breaking stories. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information.
 * 2) News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. In addition to writing in encyclopedic tone, events must be put into encyclopedic context. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews, though that is not a particularly active project.
 * 3) Who's who.  Even when an event is notable, the people involved may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Biographies of living persons for more details.)
 * 4) Celebrity gossip and diary.  Even when a person is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
To provide encyclopedic value, data should be explained and contextualised. Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Articles should not be:


 * 1) Summary-only descriptions of works. Although articles on creative works should contain concise summaries of the work, they should also discuss these works' development, design, reception, significance, and influence.
 * 2) Lyrics databases. An article about a song should provide information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, and so on. Quotations from a song should be kept to a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article, and used to facilitate discussion, or to illustrate the style; the full text can be put on Wikisource and linked to from the article. Most song lyrics published after  are protected by copyright; any quotation of them must be kept to a minimum, and used for direct commentary or to illustrate some aspect of style. Never link to the lyrics of copyrighted songs unless the linked-to site clearly has the right to distribute the work. See Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources for full discussion.
 * 3) Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. (e.g., statistics from the main article 2012 United States presidential election have been moved to a related article Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election). Notability offers more guidance on what kind of lists are acceptable, and Stand-alone lists offers guidance on what entries should be included.
 * 4) Logs of software updates. Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included.

Wikipedia is not censored
Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.

Content will be removed if it violates Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view) or the laws of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted). However, because most edits are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may be visible to readers, for a time, before being detected and removed.

Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The Offensive material guideline can help assess appropriate actions to take in the case of content that may be considered offensive.

Some organizations' rules or traditions call for secrecy with regard to certain information about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations; thus Wikipedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic.

Wikipedia is not an anarchy, democracy or forum for free speech


Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy, democracy or any other political system. Although Wikipedia is free, open and self-governing, it restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia – it is not a place to test the limits of anarchism or unregulated free speech. Its primary means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus. Voting is only used for certain matters, such as electing the Arbitration Committee. Straw polls are sometimes used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys can impede, rather than foster, discussion and should be used with caution.

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy
While Wikipedia has many elements of a bureaucracy, it is not governed by statute: it is not a quasi-judicial body, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected.

While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter  of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus.

Procedural, grammatical or coding errors are not grounds for reverting contributions – unless the error cannot easily be fixed – nor grounds for rejecting proposals.

Wikipedia is not a laboratory
Research on Wikipedia's content, processes, and community can be valuable. Research that analyzes articles, talk pages, or other content on Wikipedia is not typically controversial, since all of Wikipedia is open and freely usable. However, Wikipedia is not a laboratory: research projects that are disruptive to the community or which negatively affect articles&mdash;even temporarily&mdash;are not permitted. Before starting a potentially controversial project, researchers should open discussion at the Village Pump to ensure it will not interfere with Wikipedia's mission. Regardless of the type of project, researchers are advised to be as transparent as possible on their user pages, disclosing information such as institutional connections and intentions.

Some editors explicitly request to not be subjects in research and experiments. Please respect the wish of editors to opt-out of research.

Wikipedia is not a battleground
Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. In addition to avoiding battles in discussions, do not try to advance your position in disagreements by making unilateral changes to policies. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Users are expected to interact civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, intimidate or make legal threats against people you disagree with. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comments might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. If a conflict continues to bother you, take advantage of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. There are always users willing to mediate and arbitrate disputes between others.

In large disputes, resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions. Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Work with whomever you like, but do not organize a faction that disrupts (or aims to disrupt) Wikipedia's fundamental decision-making process, which is based on building a consensus. Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints.

Wikipedia is not compulsory
Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians. Editors are free to take a break or leave Wikipedia at any time.