Wikipedia:Benelux Education Program/A guide in Wikipedia writing

This page describes what you should and shouldn't do with writing on Wikipedia. This page is far from complete and focusses mainly on the most important aspects of encyclopedic writing, but if you think something is missing or unclear, you can post a message on the talk page or send me an e-mail. This page is work in progress and based mainly on the experiences with the students of Maastricht University who have written in various years in various courses articles in the encyclopedia.

Quick start in writing
Some things to keep in mind with writing:
 * add to Wikipedia only knowledge that is suitable for an encyclopedia
 * add only material that is available under a free license or describe knowledge in your own words
 * describe the knowledge from a neutral point of view
 * add references as source where the information can be found, for all information a source needs to be mentioned
 * do not write about your own organisation nor about yourself, a family member or your boss
 * do not describe new theories, new insights that have not been published widely
 * look at comparable subjects as examples of how it is done
 * use headers to structure an article
 * use internal links (links to other articles on Wikipedia in that language)
 * do not use links inline in the text, but only as reference or at the bottom of a page
 * avoid qualifications like "the best", "the most", "great"
 * write time specific (not: "now", "nowadays", "last year", "coming month", "today", "still" (as referring to the current time we live in), "modern", etc., but: "on 10 April 2016")

Checklist
Before the upcoming feedback session, please check your article for the following things:


 * All the information you add needs to be sourced. Has about every two or three sentences you added an inline reference that says where it comes from?
 * Please make also sure that at the end of every paragraph a reference has been added.
 * Please note: another Wikipedia article cannot be used as source.
 * Have some internal links been added to pages in the English Wikipedia?
 * Please note: usually we link in an article only once to a certain other topic, unless the article has some length.
 * Have headers been used to structurize the article?
 * Please note: in English usually only the first letter is capitalised, unless it is a proper name.

Choosing a topic
Topics need to be relevant to have an article in Wikipedia. A topic is relevant when the topic is famous or well known, but also when the topic is remarkable, significant, outstanding or is somehow unique. This is easy to determine when a topic participated in the Olympic Games, got wide recognition in society (like receiving a prize), is part of a special collection, but for many other subjects it is less easy to determine.

An important aspect of a Wikipedia article is that there are a wide range of sources available that are independent from the topic. If you write about a person or an organisation, sources like the website, blog, LinkedIn page, Facebook page, project page etc by this person or organisation are not independent sources and must be avoided when writing an article. For your article you need to use secondary sources. Primary sources are sources in what a new idea, thought or research is published for the first time. Secondary sources are sources in what information is presented that originally was presented elsewhere. Tertiary sources such as an encyclopedia or dictionary, attempt to provide a broad introductory overview of a topic.

But just having sources is not enough. In your article you need to make clear to the reader why this subject you choose is important, characteristic, special, outstanding, et cetera. In Wikipedia not just any book/person/etc can have an article. So you need to make clear in the text (based on the sources) why this subject deserves to have an article in Wikipedia.

Text formatting
In Wikipedia articles we use only a minimal and functional text formatting which should not be distracting and should help the reader.
 * Bold: A bold text is only used once in the first paragraph, preferable in the first sentence. Elsewhere a bold text should not be used.
 * Italic: This is especially used in sentences with titles of books and other publications, and by making this text italic the reader better understands when that it is a title and when it ends.
 * Headings: In the drop-down menu Paragraph are multiple options but we mainly only use Heading and Sub-heading 1. In rare cases also Sub-heading 2 is used. Headers work hierarchically: The main headers you use are the ones inserted with Heading. The sub-headers part of a particular main header are inserted with Sub-heading 1. Do not insert headers by making text bold. And do not make headers bold!
 * Links: Use them in the text, but not in the headers.
 * Bullet list: Do no use a  to make a bullet list, but use the ones from the drop-down menu. The bullets can also be easily inserted by typing a.
 * Numbered list: A numbered list is only used when the numbering makes sense, which is often not the case (use then instead a bullet list).

In your text you should avoid abbreviations, please write those out in full.

Writing style
The writing style of a Wikipedia article needs to be neutral and the article should describe the topic from an outside perspective.

An article should also not be essayistic, a style that can be found in papers and essays, and basically is characterised by the author who is telling a story (from A to Z). In your article your personal opinion should not be present and keep in mind that you are not telling a story. Instead you are sharing information in a basic and logic way. As you are not telling a story, you also do not address the reader, nor you mention yourself, nor you indicate where in your article something the reader can find.

Bad examples:
 * "In the book you can learn about X." or "You can start" -> Do not address the reader. If the grammar subject (like "you") is left out, you still address the reader.
 * "If you have a family who has certain illnesses, you are at a higher risk."
 * "most of us"
 * "We present the cases of two patients with focal retrograde amnesia."
 * "Read more about this in section X."
 * "The following paragraph focuses on ..."

In essays and in spoken language, often typical words are used to connect the different parts of a text together to make it one fluent story. Often these words bring zero meaning to your article, if you can leave out a word without changing the information and meaning of a sentence, it is better to leave them out. If they bring (extra) meaning to your article, you can't use them but you need to rephrase the text. This kind of words should be avoided in your article:


 * Strong essayistic words: indeed, accordingly, thus, nevertheless, finally, first of all, on one hand, on the other hand, on the other side, moreover, additionally, namely, notwithstanding, first and foremost, shedding light, interestingly, taps into
 * Modest essayistic words: firstly, generally speaking, although, even though, further/furthermore (essayistic if it is not a summary of steps), nonetheless, in fact, refers to the fact, lies on the fact, due to the fact, this means, especially, moreover, overall, even, in consequence, in addition, as a result, it's worth noting, despite the fact that, for this reason, overall, touches upon, in either way, has been associated, Another one of these, referring
 * Weak essayistic words: however, et cetera (requires the reader to imagine other options), the latter, But (start sentence), therefore

Also no marketing language or opinions:
 * "The book was enriched with circa 40 images"
 * "The book ignites the mind"
 * "It is a great addition"
 * "It is an excellent choice" or "has a distinct profile"
 * "It is crucial/essential/unique"

And also: "advanced further", "advanced", "revolutionized", "an important role", "highlighting", "made a significant leap", "establishing itself as a recognized", "This era witnessed", "revealing", "exploring", "added depth to intelligence", "shedding light", "variables", "deep engagement", "prompted", "building momentum", "began to unfold and explore, reaching out", "It went beyond", "giving us", "grew into a rich tapestry of knowledge that went beyond"

Some more bad examples:
 * "Due to littering being an everyday problem that plagues all societies"
 * "In general, it can be said", "It can even physically hurt us"
 * "Figuring out if someone has X can be challenging."
 * "When taking a closer look"
 * "For those who have a lot of money,"
 * "We can use [...]"
 * "During the time before the development of the DEBQ"
 * "it led to the encounter of" (it was a meeting)
 * "can be considered special" (too vague, speculative)
 * "Given that [...]"
 * "For a long time [...]" (too vague, be time specific)
 * "isn't typically"
 * "To be precise [...]"
 * "This article examines [...]"

Also avoid using metaphors as they often are used in essayistic writing.

At the same time you need to make sure that the text is logic. When a series of steps are described, it is necessary to make sure that all steps are described and no steps are skipped, so the reader can logically follow.

Some other points:
 * If you describe something from the past, please make sure it is written in the past tense and not in the future tense. Bad example about someone who already has passed away: "The author will dedicate the rest of his academic career to [...]"
 * Your article needs to be balanced
 * Original research is not allowed
 * Do not describe new things, but describe what is already out there.
 * Stick to the facts, not presenting an opinion as a fact but as an opinion

Unit of measurement
A unit of measurement is a definite magnitude of a quantity, or in other words, it indicates a distance (meters, inches, etc.), an area (square metre/square inch), a volume (cubic metre/cubic inch), a weight (kilogram/pound), or a temperature (° Celsius/Fahrenheit). The English Wikipedia is used in many places around the world where different units of measurement are in use. To deal with those situations, on the English Wikipedia the template Convert is used. You indicate in one unit how long/large/heavy it is, and the template automatically calculates the other unit and places it between brackets. In this way a unit can be understood around the world.

To insert this template click in the bar on Insert > Template > Find template, type  and fill in the parameters.

The first unit is shown normally, the second between brackets. With the metric system as preference, please indicate first the metric unit (and the quantity expressed in this unit), second the alternative unit. For example, if you have a distance in inches, first convert it yourself to centimetres.

Article structure
You use headings to give your article structure, but also the text itself needs to have structure. At multiple levels (sentences, paragraphs, sections) the text needs to be logic and a continuation without missing stepping stones. Missing stepping stones is like when you want to cross a river by jumping from stepping stone to another, etc., if one or a few are missing, or if the gap is to wide, you fall into the water. In a text you also want to avoid such a thing.
 * In a sentence you need to make sure the focus is placed on the right part, so that it reads like a part of your topics article and not about another article. Example:
 * Charles Darwin did research on the Galápagos Islands -> the focus is at the person, bad if your article is about the research because it reads like it comes from the article about the person.
 * The research done by Charles Darwin on the Galápagos Islands -> the focus is at the research, good if your article is about the research.
 * Sentences that follow each other should be a logic continuation of the previous sentence. If a sentence is not a logic continuation of the previous sentence but the start of a new (sub)topic, you likely want to start a new paragraph (on a newline).
 * Sentences that are a logic continuation of the previous sentence, should not start on a newline (a new paragraph), but should follow directly after that previous sentence.
 * If you start a new section (under a header) about a very distinctive topic, the first sentence should somehow refer to the topic of your article and include how this new distinctive topic relates to the topic of your article. In other words, you need to avoid that the new section comes out of nowhere/falls out of the sky.
 * Example: If your article is about a psychological effect, if you start a header about the Terror Management Theory, in the first sentence you must describe how this theory refers to the topic of the article.
 * The topic of distinctive sections, like the previous example, should also already be mentioned briefly in the introduction section.

Introduction
The introduction of a Wikipedia article should define what the article is about.

Example:
 * "Maastricht University is a public research university in Maastricht, Netherlands."
 * "  is a book published by in ."

Bad example:
 * "  can be defined as ..."
 * "The  refers to the phenomenon ..."

More examples to come.

Headers
Already some quick notes:
 * No need to repeat the topic of the article in a header.
 * Do not use too many capitals, especially nouns often do not need a capital. (If your first language is German, please pay extra attention to this!)
 * Do not create a header with the summary of the article. Also a header like Background is often unsuitable.
 * Do not use too many sub-headers: under each header normally are minimal three paragraphs, before can be thought about a sub-header.

When writing an article about a (historical) book, make sure you include the three sections of Context, Contents and Reception. In the context part you describe everything what happened before the publication of the book, in the contents part about the book itself and in the reception about what happened after the publication of the book. Other additional main headers can be okay depending on the subject.

In articles about people usually a header Biography is present. For many other topics it is often expected to have at least a History section.

Context
When writing about a book usually a section about the context is expected. In the section of Context I expect to read about what happened before the publication of the book, including what has led to the existence of the book and the timeframe in what the book was written. This section should not contain a biography of the author, but it can describe information that also can be present in biographies. Important to note is that this information should be presented in a different writing style, namely: written in relationship to the book. Key questions that need to be answered in this section are:
 * What did the author do before the publication of the book (related to the book and its subject)?
 * Why did the author write the book?
 * How did the topic of the book evolve before the book was published?

Some inspirational questions that might help:
 * Did the author study something that later on was the subject of the book?
 * Did the author do any research that resulted in the publication of the book?
 * Did the author make any travels for the book as preparation?
 * What other things/events happened that (in the end)(also) resulted in the publication of the book?
 * What other books/publications did the author write before the publication of the book and how do they relate to this book? (Books and publications that are not related to the book should not be described.)
 * By who/which/what was the author influenced to write/in writing the book?
 * Why was the author driven to write the book?
 * Did the author had an aim with writing this book?
 * How did the topic of the topic of the book evolve in the time before the publication of the book?
 * Where there any other books published by colleagues/competitors about the same subject?

Book contents
This section describes in short what the book is about, but is not intended to contain a long summary of the book. It is also not a book review nor a book report! If people are interested in knowing more about the book, they should read the book itself.

An article about a historical book should as maximum be for one third of the length of the article about the contents of the book. The sections of the context and reception are much more important.

Reception
When writing about a book usually a section about the reception is expected. In the section Reception I expect to read about what happened after the publication of the book, including how the book was received, what people thought of it, how it was used, what influence it had and how it influenced they way people thought, how the perspective of the book is different from modern views, etc. Almost everything related to the book that comes after the date of publication fits in this section. Key questions that need to be answered in this section are:
 * What did the author do after the publication of the book (related to the book and its subject)?
 * How was the book received and used since its publication?
 * How did the topic of the book evolve over time since the publication of the book?

Some inspirational questions that might help:
 * How was the book reviewed/received by his/her colleagues, (science) community, society, etc? Was it praised, criticised or both?
 * How was the book valued in that time? How is the book valued in the 21st century or the time since publication and now?
 * Did the book change the perspective on a subject?
 * Was this work somehow important? How and why?
 * Why is this book special or what makes this work unique?
 * If the author had an aim with the book, was the author successful in achieving this aim?
 * How was the book used in the subject after it was published? Was the book maybe used as textbook?
 * How well was the book sold? Was the book sold out?
 * Were there multiple editions/versions of the book? How did those evolve? What changes were made in newer versions? Maybe published in multiple languages? (This can also be in a separate section if much can be said about this.)
 * Did the author do any research as a result/after the publication of the book?
 * Did the author make any travels for newer editions of the book or for other books about the same topic?
 * What other books/publications did the author wrote after the publication of the book and how did they relate to this book? (Books and publications that are not related to the book should not be described.)
 * What other things/events happened that were the result of or stimulated by the book?
 * Who/what did the book influence?
 * How did the subject of the book in general develop over the years since the publication of the book? (Note: it should not become an essay that describes how the topic of the book has changed.)
 * How differs the vision of the book with the vision on this topic in the 21st century? (Note: it should not become an essay that describes how the topic of the book has changed.)
 * How is the book looked at nowadays?

Chronology
Chronology in an article is the describing how things have developed themselves over time in a logical way. It is just like a song: you want the hear the full piece and in it the theme/title must be present. This is the same for the text of an article. If you are writing an article about a book, this especially applies to the context part, but it can also happen in other parts of your article. There are three main things that can go wrong:
 * 1) The story has been mixed up (like with a section/paragraph in what three subjects are covered in what the order is A-C-B).
 * 2) The story is fragmented, relevant parts missing (gaps) or jumping with sentences or parts of the story missing in between (like with a section/paragraph with A-B-D, while the reader senses C is missing).
 * 3) The story is building up to the end, but the last part is missing or a text which does not make clear how it relates to the article subject (like with a section/paragraph in what A-B-C are described, but D is missing so the section/paragraph is not making clear how it relates to the subject).

When describing things that happened, they need to be described in a logical way in what first comes A, followed by B, then C, and then D. Sounds obvious right? Still still is often goes wrong in students articles. Here below a fictitious example, can you spot the broken chronology? Alice is hungry and sees an apple tree with lovely looking apples. She climbs in the tree. She throws the apple core on the ground.

This is an obvious example, but this happens a lot and makes reading complicated as it is often not so obvious what happened in between. In the context section the last step in the story is the publication of the book. In the reception section the text starts right after the publication.

What else can go wrong? You are writing an article and in it you have a section about the general developments regarding the field of the subject. Then likely I will tell you that this section has a broken chronology. Why? Everything in your article needs to make clear how it is related to the subject of your article. A section only about the general developments regarding the field is likely not describing how these general developments relate to the subject of the article. The reader needs to be able to read the individual parts of the article and have a rough picture which article this section belongs to, even when the reader hasn't seen the title or the rest of the article. To conclude:
 * Not to do: Just writing a stand alone section or paragraph about the developments in the field of the subject.
 * What to do: Write a section or paragraph about the developments of the field and how this relates to the subject of your article.

Links
In Wikipedia articles we link keywords to other articles in the same Wikipedia. In an article we link in principle to a subject only once, but when a new section starts in what a keyword is very important a second link is okay. Be aware that internal links are only linking to articles in the same language Wikipedia and not to articles in Wikipedias in other languages.

If you have one or more red links in your article there are two possibilities:
 * either the topic does not exist -> remove the link
 * or the topic does exist -> edit the link and ensure that it links to the correct article in the same language Wikipedia.

In the text external links are not allowed. External links can only be used in references and sometimes at the bottom of an article under the header External link.

Reference list
At the bottom of your article you add the header  under which the software will add the list of used references.

Images
A good Wikipedia article usually has images, but it is not required to have an image in an article. For many assignments/courses it is not a requirement to add one or more images to an article, but you are certainly welcome to add images to the article you are writing.

Images are often scanned by the university library and uploaded by Romaine for you. If you yourself have found or created an image, then it can quickly become complicated and therefore you preferable contact Romaine about it.

Wikipedia (and Wikimedia Commons) follows the copyright laws very strictly and images that are violating copyrights will be deleted. Also images with incomplete data on the file page (that should have been provided during uploading) may be deleted because of lack of information or lack of permission. An oral approval is not sufficient. Do  not  just upload an image to see what happens, violating copyright can have serious consequences.

To use an image in an article, two steps need to be taken. First of all an image needs to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. This is the central repository for most of the images and other media files that are used in Wikipedia articles. If you want to use an image that already has been used in another Wikipedia article (in any language) or is already available on Wikimedia Commons, the first step already has been done by someone else and the first step can be ignored. The second step is adding the image to the article itself.

When can you upload an image to Wikimedia Commons?
 * You yourself have taken a photo about a subject which has (or will have) a Wikipedia article, if:
 * the photo is of a building or public artwork in the public space in countries with freedom of panorama (like in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, but not France) or the building has been designed by an architect who died in or earlier (there are exceptions in some cases), or
 * the photo is of a person (relevant for Wikipedia), or
 * the photo is of anything else for what no design has taken place by an architect or artist (there are exceptions).
 * You found an image somewhere which you want to use in a Wikipedia article, if:
 * the image has been created by someone who died in or earlier (this include exact photos of 2D artworks/etc.) (there are exceptions in some cases), or
 * the image is clearly marked as being released in the public domain, CC0, CC BY, or CC BY-SA (see also Creative Commons license).

Most other images are copyrighted and can't be used. Also screenshots are usually not allowed, unless the website has been released in the public domain, CC0, CC BY, or CC BY-SA. For these rules are various exceptions possible, contact Romaine for help.

When you have an image that is allowed to be uploaded, you have to provide a description of what is depicted, the date when it has been made or published, where the image is coming from (own work, name of publication, URL to source, etc), and who the author is (your name or user name when you made the photo yourself or the name of the person who made the image). You also need to provide an existing category to which an image is added. All of these things are asked for during the upload process and be aware that the image may be deleted if this information is missing or false. Ask for help when you want to upload and send a link to the uploaded file(s) to Romaine so it can be checked that everything went well.

After the uploading is ready, the image can be added to the article. The easiest way is to copy the file name of the image. Then go to the article (editing modus) > put the cursor on the place where the image should be added > Insert (menu bar) > Images and media > add the file name in the search field > click on the image you want to insert > click on the blue button Use this image > provide in the field under Caption the text that should appear under the image > click Insert. If you want to add an image to an (existing) infobox: click on the infobox > Edit > look for the parameter field Image (or other parameter for adding images) (may be hidden under Add more information) > add in the field the file name of the image > Apply changes.

Infobox/templates
It is commonly not required for the assignment to use templates in your Wikipedia article, but you are welcome to use them. A template is a piece of code that performs a certain function and often has certain fields in what text is added. Templates are in the visual editor inserted with:
 * Insert > Template > fill in the name of the template > fill in (all) the parameter(s) of the template you know

The two most common used templates in students articles are infoboxes and the template Blockquote to add a special quoted piece of text.


 * Infoboxes are commonly used templates that are positioned in the top right of an article and show a box in what the key characteristics of the subject are presented. See for example in the article of Maastricht University. There are many infobox templates possible, depending on which subject you are writing about. If you want to know which infobox you can use, you go to another article about a similar topic and see which infobox has been used there. The find the name of the infobox: 1. you edit the page in the visual editor, 2. you click on the infobox, 3. a pop-up box appears and shows Generated from: ... with on the dots the name of the template. This name you then can use with inserting the infobox in your own article. Most commonly students write about a book or a person, so the commonly used infoboxes are Infobox book, Infobox person.

""
 * Blockquote is a template that is used for special quotes of texts. Common quotes are inserted in Italic and between " and ". Special quotes can use the template Cquote and are added on a separate line to make clear it is a special quote. Choose as name Blockquote when inserting this template and fill in at least the quoted text. Example: