Wikipedia:Honour

Honour has had many meanings at different times and different places.

To some it is a civil agreement in a society promoting honesty and personal integrity. Codes of honour have included Chivalry, the United States Military Academy's a cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do, and tomes on Common Law and Civil Law.

In Wikipedia, we should note the three areas where honour is important:

1. Editors should act with honour towards the goal of Wikipedia - that is, the creation of an accurate, unbiassed encyclopedia with material of use to its readers.

2. Editors should behave with honour towards each other at all times.

3. Editors must behave with honour towards the subjects of all articles in the encyclopedia.

Honour towards Wikipedia
Some of the major policies and guidelines in this area are WP:COPYVIO, WP:PLAGIARISM and WP:SOCK.

Copyright and plagiarism violations run contrary to the stated goals of the project, and are therefore not honourable. Using a "sock puppet" in order to subvert the encyclopedia is also dishonourable.

Honour towards other editors
Wikipedia has, among others, WP:NPA. WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY, each of which directly relates to honour.

Recently, WP:CIVILITY has been the cause of much discussion. It is reasonable to assert that "honour" is not dependent on "this guy is a good editor and is exempt from honourable behaviour". Thus any policies or guidelines must be uniformly stated, and apply to all equally.

The problem is not just the "F-word" but use of snide comments and asides about other editors, and anything which reduces actual honour on the project, not just expletives.

Honour to the subjects of articles
Here WP:RS and WP:BLP are among the relevant policies and guidelines.

Allegations and rumours are not the province of honourable edits, nor is seeking damage in any way, shape or form to the topic of an article "honourable".


 * George Gnarph, rumoured to be the illegitimate son of Queen Fredish, is alleged to have raped seventy-three people

Is precisely the sort of edit that has been found in articles in the past. Wikipedia is ill-suited for "revenge", for "campaigning", for "proving the person is evil", for demonstrating "this is the correct history of Fooia" or the like. All articles must be edited conservatively with an emphasis on ascertainable fact, and not on contentious opinions. There are few people, groups, or nations for which one can not find very strongly worded opinions, and emphasis on such is not honourable as viewed in this essay.

Note this is not limited to "biographies of living persons" but includes all contentious areas - religious "cults", border disputes, political groups and the like. If Wikipedia presents the facts, then we can and ought to trust readers to form their own opinions.