User:Jochem van Hees/Misconceptions about Wikipedia
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
There are numerous common misconceptions around Wikipedia that often get new editors in trouble. This page explains them, to hopefully help new editors not fall into such traps.
See also: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
Misconception: anyone can decide what's on Wikipedia
[edit]Anyone can edit, but no individual has the power to decide (you don't, and also admins don't). Decisions are made through consensus among editors.
Yes, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, because in most cases, edits are uncontroversial. That is why Wikipedia encourages you to be bold when making edits. But if your edit gets reverted, then that is an indication that there is no consensus for your edit, and you should seek consensus first (most commonly on the talk page). Do not edit war, even if you are right, because edit warring is always unconstructive and can get you blocked if you violate the three-revert rule.
If you are not willing or able to communicate and to collaborate with other people on Wikipedia, then this may not be the website for you.
Misconception: Wikipedia is a collection of everything that's true
[edit]It is not. Instead, Wikipedia is a summary of all verifiable information that is relevant to a notable topic, presented from a neutral point of view.
This means that not everything that's true deserves to be on Wikipedia. Endless listings of trivia and statistics generally do not give the reader a better understanding of a topic. If you as a reader do want all the statistics, then Fandom is probably a better source for you than an encyclopedia.
Furthermore, this also means that Wikipedia does not contain a perfect description of the truth, as that's impossible. Rather, we rely on reliable sources to tell the truth for us, and we summarise their findings. This also allows us to determine how prominent certain viewpoints are in the literature, and give them due weight on Wikipedia. Therefore, when adding info, make sure to cite your source as well (if you don't know how, just paste the link between <ref>...</ref> tags or in your edit summary, and probably someone else will properly format it for you).
Misconception: Wikipedia is a democracy
[edit]As explained above, decisions on Wikipedia are made through consensus, not a vote.
Confusion arises because there are various discussion venues that look like votes, with editors stating their preferred course of action in bold, but at the end of the day the arguments and the discussion are the most important part. Only stating your position and not providing any arguments is discouraged for this reason. The only purpose of bolding is to help give a rough overview of the editors' positions, not to vote. For this reason, the expression "!vote" ("not-vote") is often used instead.
Misconception: someone else will fix it
[edit]Sadly, Wikipedia is generally lacking in contributors. There are many examples of unambiguously problematic content (even vandalism) staying on an article for years before finally being fixed. In that time possibly hundreds of people have seen it and done nothing. Please don't be such a person and be bold.
As a side note: there are rare exceptions to this advice, particularly with articles with a high volume of edits, such as articles about current events. In such cases, more edits can lead to edit conflicts which can get in the way of other editors. Therefore, for small issues, it may be better to leave it for a moment for someone else to fix it.
Misconception: Wikipedia needs your money
[edit]This is not related to editing Wikipedia, but it is still a common misconception because the advertisement banners suggest otherwise. Sure, the Wikimedia Foundation may need your money, but that money is not spent on improving or maintaining Wikipedia. For more information on this topic, I recommend a The Daily Dot article by Andreas Kolbe: Wikipedia is swimming in money—why is it begging people to donate?
Summary
[edit]Wikipedia is a collaborative project to summarise the world's existing literature. Be bold and donate with your contributions, not your money.