Wikipedia:Areas for Reform/Ethical principles for editors

CURRENTLY, THIS PAGE IS BEING DEVELOPED FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY.

Wikipedia editors should follow certain ethical principles when editing. Many of these principles are laid out in our policies and guidelines, and the five pillars of Wikipedia. However, it may be helpful to have a set of ethical guidelines that editors should observe each time the "edit this page" button is clicked. Additionally, there are ethical principles that Wikipedia administrators should consider when performing administrative actions.

Be cautious and judicious when editing mainspace articles
Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites in the world. When a mainspace article is edited, it is possible that the edit may be viewed by thousands or even millions of readers. It is therefore necessary to ensure that when one edits an article, some principles are followed.

Cite a reliable source
A reliable source should be the basis for every article edit. Wikipedia is intended to be a distillation of reliable, verifiable knowledge on a subject, not a collection of its editors' personal thoughts or opinions. Further, the source for an edit should be clearly attributed, so that readers can do further research and future editors can verify and make further use of the source. Editors should not hesitate to challenge uncited information and remove it if no citation can be provided, and should not be attacked or vilified for doing so. It is the responsibility of the editor who makes an edit or wishes to retain information to provide a proper citation to a reliable source.

Use special care with material regarding living persons
Material regarding a living person can have a real and immediate impact on the life of the subject. This material is most commonly contained in a biographical article on a living person, but can also be contained in other articles or even in non-article space, such as a talk page discussion or articles for deletion debate. When appropriate, courtesy blanking should be used after a discussion's conclusion. In cases such as the posting of sensitive personal information (address, telephone number, or the like), permanent deletion should be requested immediately.

Potentially negative or controversial information regarding a living person should be removed at once unless it is properly cited. The material should not under any circumstances be reinserted unless it can be attributed to a highly reliable source. All editors are responsible for removing such information on sight. A negative and unsourced article on a living person should be speedily deleted or tagged for speedy deletion as an attack article unless an appropriate version exists to revert to.

Discuss controversial changes with other editors
Talk pages are there for good reason. When another editor disagrees with an edit, a good-faith effort should be made to address that editor's concerns. Quite often, citation to a reliable source is sufficient.

Observe neutrality
It is not Wikipedia's place to "take a side" in debate or controversy, as Wikipedia is intended to have a strictly neutral viewpoint. The neutral point of view disallows articles from stating or implying that any given side is "right" or "wrong". In cases of debate, all sides should be presented with the proper amount of weight.

However, neutrality is not the same as equal weight. Minority positions should not be given the same weight as majority, positions supported by evidence should be given more weight than those supported by nothing more than belief, positions verified by research should be given more weight than those falsified by it.

A belief or position should always be presented as a belief or position, never as fact. Only relatively undisputed facts should be presented as fact. (Therefore, "Abraham Lincoln was the sixteenth President of the United States [1] " is acceptable, but "Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was constitutional [1] " is not. Instead, "Joe Historian asserts that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was constitutional [1] .")

Any given editor's viewpoint is not the neutral viewpoint, even if it is the majority one. Wikipedia is not the place to advance anything.