Wikipedia:Don't be evil

The Wikipedia would work a lot better if people weren't evil.

People should not be evil
If people don't vandalise, RC patrollers could work more on expanding the encyclopedia. If people don't get into lame edit wars and don't breach the 3-revert rule, fewer people would be blocked and they would be able to further edit the encyclopedia. If people are civil, everyone will be happier and fewer people would leave the Wikipedia, hence expanding it further. Editors should be mindful that material in Wikipedia can affect people's lives; adding harmful content is not necessary for improving the quality of the encyclopedia.

Remember still to be bold, and when necessary ignore all rules.

Put very simply: Being good, not evil, helps Wikipedia expand.

Wikipedia must not be evil either
Also, as with Google's slogan don't be evil, Wikipedia should be mindful of the effect we can have on people and companies. We should not be evil either; this is the philosophy that underlies WP:BLP and it is a good principle. That does not mean acceding to people's demands for vanity articles or mass links to their site, but it does mean doing what we can to ensure that Wikipedia's "Widgetcorp are teh spammerz!" discussion does not dominate their search engine presence. Wikipedia is not here to be part of their marketing machine, but neither are we here to punish them for trying to abuse us as such. Use redirects, courtesy blanking and other common tools, with discretion but always with a mind to allowing them a graceful exit.

Banned users who have used their real names may also be more likely to "scratch the itch" if their vanity searches keep drawing them back to Wikipedia. Talk to any WP:OTRS volunteer about the impact of deletion and internal discussions on real people and organisations. We WP:DENY recognition but we should also not immortalise people's mistakes. That would be evil. Let's not be evil.

User essays

 * User:Durova/The dark side

es:Wikipedia:No seas cruel