Wikipedia talk:A primer for newcomers

About this essay

This essay is being created as a "Wikipedia for Dummies" (no slur intended) to help rank newcomers better understand how editing these pages works. The terms used herein should be couched in the simplest terms possible so that newcomers can get a handle on there use and better learn how to contribute. The use of simple descriptors is in no way meant to disparage the fine work of the thousands over the years who have built this encyclopedia.

And yes... there are many pages set up to assist new editors, but even they are buried (albeit with the best of intentions) in wiki-speak. This one is intended to speak more plainly... as perhaps a primer that will then lead to the more complicated assist pages. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What do newbs want?

I don't know about you Michael, but I didn't start really reading policy until I was a year into editing.

I am only speaking for myself, but my first concerns were not policy, but were how to create ref tags, templates, etc.

This was followed by deletion policy, and governance, then, as researchers have shown, as I became a veteran editor, only then did I get involved with policy.

I think a newbie guide should probably start out with how to navigate wikipedia and write articles first. followed by everything else.

Has there been a study of newbies done? I know of at least one that was featured on the newsletter. The biggest issues seemed to be technical ones. Ikip 20:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets assume that most newbs simply want to contribute. How many get chased off through lack of understanding of the very basic principals? So I think any help to them must begin with a basic explanation of the basic rules and how they relate to creating acceptable articles. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Made a simple edit to correct spelling.MarkJames (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Nitpicky comments on your nice work

This page is a good initiative, but good things often can be improved. I was surprised by the statement that references should be cited using "<references />" if there are less than 10 or "{{reflist}}" if there are 10 or more. That's a "rule" I never heard before, but more importantly, the behavior of these codes has been changed so that there is now no difference (unless you want to add parameters like columns, but newbies don't need to know about that). Accordingly, that section can be simplified. :-) --Orlady (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The less then 10 thing was something "taught" to me some years back. I agree that the section should and will be simplified. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments

A lot of my time on WP is put into deletion discussion and (often during them), improving articles. The deletion section of the article does have some good points about how new users should not proceed into deletion discussions, but I would like to see a mention and perhaps a brief discussion of and a few examples from WP:AADD. Too many times do I see users coming in with arguments that mirror these ones, and I feel bad, because they do not know how to properly defend their own work.

I also want to comment on this statement:

If a response to your work seems to be short or even rude, do not assume it was done with malice or spite.

If it's short, OK. But if the comment is rude? No-- users, whether new or experienced, are not obligated to continue assuming good faith for that person. You don't need to be a Wikipedian to have a good sense of what is rude and what isn't. A new user who is told "This article is a waste of time" has every right to point out, "Hey, that isn't fair and you're acting out of line."

If you would like help expanding the deletion section, if that's something you want to expand, I can certainly make more suggestions. But it's your essay, so let me know. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Tweaked "rude" to "brusque." --Orange Mike | Talk 01:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Needs something about "Your userpage"

A lot of noobs think their userpage the sandbox, where they write the one article they came here to create, rather than "something about the author". --Orange Mike | Talk 01:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And expanded today per suggestion of JohnCD. (below) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well done, but perhaps the title should be changed

Hello Michael Q. Schmidt,

All in all, I think that this is a very useful introduction for newcomers. My main suggestion is to carefully consider the title. When I came to your essay, I thought that it was about the subject of "guidelines" in the Wikipedia sense, as guidance on, for example, notability of various topics. The sort of pages that I see as one step below our most authoritative policies. Clearly, your objective is broader, so perhaps a broader title may be appropriate. Good luck in bringing your essay to a wider audience. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... a title that needs to be simple, easy to remember, and states what it's for. Maybe WP:Newcomer's guide to policies, guidelines and editing? or WP:Newcomer's PG&E? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Your acronym is no doubt an insider's reference to the 60s blues-rock band, Pacific Gas & Electric. I fear that your insider joke might pass over the head of a young new editor from Mumbai. Otherwise, you are on the right track. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Wanted something catchy, at any rate. Another reason was a nod to the essay WP:PGE :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Seconding Cullen's concern -- I was jumping over to the Discussion page here to raise this exact point. I have some more overarching concerns regarding the content of the guide, but on the whole this is very well done, and a guide like this is something that will benefit Wikipedia immensely. I'll try and get back on Wiki tonight to give it a closer review and express additional thoughts. Very nice work, either way. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Oooo... I hate to see the phrase "more overarching concerns", but will await expansion. I'm thinking that a more simple title of WP:A newcomer's guide would/should be succint enough, but was also concerned about finding an unused set of initials for a shortcut. In this later case WP:ANG and WP:NG were taken. So if I maybe use WP:Newcomers Guide as an alternate choice, shortcuts could be WP:NEWGUIDE (WP:NewGuide), WP:NewbieGuide, WP:NEWBGUIDE, (WP:NewbGuide), and WP:NewcomerGuide. Input and midwives most welcome, as the birth approaches. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Victory/defeat

Alright, so this is kind of picky. But that being said, I'm not the biggest fan of the "Graciousness in victory or defeat" section. Content-wise it's fine, but the title seems to be going towards the kind of attitude we want to discourage. Unfortunately, discussions are often currently viewed as battles to be fought or won. In reality, of course, there's really no "winner" or "loser"; some people get their way, some don't, but the only way anyone wins is if we all win and the encyclopedia improves. I'd love for new users to adopt that attitude and never even consider the idea of winning or losing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well... to be fair, that section was added by another. But I do agree that it makes sense to remove the "in victory or defeat" from the section title as unneccessary. Good call. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, new title looks good to me.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! As a complete newbie I am sure this will be referenced many, many times. This is a whole new world from contributing in print or other publishing forms.--St George888 (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Cymru.lass

Okay, so I'm gonna use this to write any comments I have as I'm reading, per your request:

• 2nd paragraph of the lead section "Okay.... so you're new to Wikipedia and want to write an article"... maybe better put as "Okay.... so you're new to Wikipedia and want to learn how to use it" because article writing isn't the only thing we do here. (Editing, fixing wikisyntax, deletion discussions, etc.)
  • Modifed to include both sentiments, as I do hope this essay encourages new content.[1]
• Long pages are superdaunting to newbies. I think this would do good as several subpages, all navigable from and with short summaries on the main page.
  • Understood, but when a newcomer myself, the task of digging through variouis pages and redirects to find answers was even more daunting. So with this essay, I wished to create a one-stop-shop where a neb would not have to click the back button. I fully expect that they will move on to all the other help pages as their comfort levels grow.
• Other than that it seems pretty great :)

--— Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Implemented and responded. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Great essay!

I will not nit-pick (for now, LOL), because I think the idea is great! Bearian (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Some nitpicky comments

Opening - I wouldn't give WP:RFF as a "place to ask for help" - list it later as a suggestion for after a draft article has been created.

Done

Five Pillars 3: after "is usually copyrighted" replace unnecessary "outside of Wikipedia" with " - see Wikipedia:Copy-paste." WP:Copy-paste is a good idiot's guide.

Done

First Steps/Consider userspace. Rather than linking to WP:Userspace draft here, which is mainly about what to do after you've made one, I suggest Help:Userspace draft which leads in to how to set one up. Later, when you explain how to make sandboxes, I would like to to see Help:Userspace draft offered as an alternative - it has the two advantages of automatically applying {{userspace draft}} (and therefore NOINDEX) to the resulting page, and leading them in to the Article Wizard.

Done

On building an article/Verification: I think this bit from WP:V is so important that you should quote it directly:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

Done

On building an article/Citations: this worries me, as making things too long and complicated. I don't know what to suggest, in the absence of an idiot's guide to citations, but I can see people getting this far and giving up. I think it might be better just to get them as far as <ref> </ref> and how to link a URL, and point to WP:CITE for the rest of it.

This one is a simple as I dared, offering instruction that what we write in Articles MUST be sourced to a RS outside the project. I can hope that if a newcomer has gotten this far, they will have also noted and be able to use the offered shortcuts to Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, Help:Citations quick reference, and Help:External links and references.

User space: I'd like to see a little more about what the main user page is NOT for - as OrangeMike says above, many new users assume that it is the right place to post an advert for their band or charity, or a copy of their company's website.

Done

Using your sandbox(es): as above, I strongly suggest that you lead in with Help:Userspace draft as the way to start a draft article, which will set it up for them with {{userspace draft}} on top and link in to the Article Wizard. Then go on to how to set up sandboxes for other purposes.

Revision pending

Additional reading: nos. 2, 5 and 6 seem to be deadlinks.

Removed I'm now kicking myself for not preserving them with webcite.

General: this is excellent stuff. How are people going to find it? perhaps see if you can get agreement to link it from some of the Welcome templates, and publicise it to the New Page Patrollers who are generally the first people to communicate with newbies.

Well, I will spread the word myslef as often as possible, as will many who assisted in its editing. I will investigate other places where I may share the link.

While this is just right for the many editors who may have come here originally with a vague idea they would write about themselves or their band but are willing to get involved on other subjects, there are also many new users who have come here precisely because they believe WP is a noticeboard where they can pin an advert for their company, band, charity, whatever, and they are not just going to go away or (except in rare cases) convert to writing articles about other subjects. I wish there were some way to head them off at the pass by explaining to them before they sign on what Wikipedia is NOT for, but in the absence of that, I have written User:JohnCD/Not a noticeboard because I have the same conversation so often with that kind of user, and I would be glad of your comments in return about that. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Expalining what NOT to write about is written of at On picking a topic. I can strengthen it some, certainly. You have given some terrific suggestions, thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutral tone

One more suggestion: I know you have mentioned neutrality of tone in "From sandbox to mainspace", but it's an important issue that many newbies are slow to grasp. It might be worth adding the following to "Building the article in your sandbox":

Be very careful not to write in a promotional tone, which may lead to your article being deleted as an advertisement. Be sparing with adjectives, do not use PR-speak or "peacock terms". Material from a website or a Myspace page is unlikely to be suitable, even apart from copyright issues: an encyclopedia article is different, and should be a neutral description, no opinions, just plain facts cited to reliable sources.

JohnCD (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Done Expanded and underscored. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Language, and deletion section

Hi, coming in as a talk page stalker from DGG's page because it sounded interesting:

• It's a splendid piece of work, and will be a help to new editors who want to help the encyclopedia. A lot of new editors won't bother to read anything this long, and we need other ways to get messages across to them, but this will help those who want to learn.

• In "The basics" 3 you've got a "he" which should be "he or she".

  Done

• In general, some of the language seemed perhaps too idiomatic for something being read by English users from all over the world, for some of whom it is a second or more language. "Giving a leg-up" in the Intro, "sound like a broken record" (do post-vinyl people use the phrase?), "take a gander", "cover your bases", perhaps a few more.

  Done

• In particular: "Don't crap it up." - some readers will find that offensive, and it seems inappropriate in a serious piece addressed to newcomers.

  DOne

• "Oops... did somebody tag your article for deletion?" could usefully include a description of the three types of deletion - speedy / prod / AfD - and what the editor can do in each case: you've included some material about CSD and AfD but not, I think PROD.

  Done

But in general it seems a great piece and will be an asset to the encyclopedia! Thanks for your work. PamD 21:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the section about deletion methods will be more helpful as it now stands, thanks. But the section on speedy doesn't mention the button now available within the speedy template, where the author of the article can "Click here to contest this speedy deletion", rather than having to add {{hangon}}. PamD 08:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that you added it, it does, and nicely. :) My thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

A rose by any other name....

Getting down to the final hours in userspace. I extend my thanks and appreciation to those who contributed their eyes and time in polishing up this essay.

Now for a name.

As a move to mainspace becomes imminent, I am settling down on a short list of possibilities, but am open to input and suggestions.

My original working title of Newcomer's guide to guidelines was never to be permanent, as the essay was intended to be more than just a guideline primer. In considering that it acts as a one-stop newcomer's primer for policy, guideline, and article creation, and in a nod to WP:PGE, I am considering (long title) WP:Newcomer's guide to policies, guidelines and editing, (short title) WP:Newcomer's PG&E, (shortcut) WP:PG&E. I am also considering the short titles WP:A newcomer's guide, WP:NewcomerGuide, WP:NewGuide, WP:NewbieGuide, andWP:NewbGuide. Though less descriptive of their content, they would be "catchy" and easy to remember.

But then... and in thinking of the more personified Wikipedia:TenPoundHammer's Law by User:TenPoundHammer, why not use WP:MichaelQSchmidt's primer, or WP:Schmidt's primer, WP:MQ's primer. WP:MQSP . Dare I? :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I like "Schmidt's primer", shortcut MQSP. JohnCD (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Me too. Nods to TPH and UncleG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions from Yopienso: "Orientation for new editors" or "Newcomer's guide to WP universe". ONE might get confused with One Event, but you could have GWP for the other. (I'm passing these on because she's rather busy at the moment.) Peridon (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Worth consideration, though I am leaning toward "Schmidt's primer". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

While I quite like "Schmidt's primer", I suggest it will need a lot of redirects/shortcuts from mis-spellings, missed apostrophe, etc - it's a name whose spelling won't be obvious or memorable unless someone is familiar with German-origin surnames. It also perhaps makes it sound very personal, as if it might be something WP:POV rather than a neutral introduction to editing. PamD 07:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well... shorcuts are cheap... and WP:MQSP is easy enough. I wish it could be as snazzy sounding as WP:TenPoundHammer's Law, WP:HAMMER, WP:CRYSTALHAMMER, WP:HAMMERTIME, WP:TPHL. But as I remember well the confusions of my early days contributing, is is personal, and the POV is that of someone who wishes he knew then what he knows now. I wish it to sound like advice from a concerned friend "who's been there". MQ'S Primer? (gets all my initials) :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... There's always WP:A Primer for Newcomers ( WP:APFN or WP:APN or WP:APN) or WP:Primer for newcomers (WP:PFN)... Not snazzy, but workable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A thought

This guideline is a good idea - but will they see it? Is there some way of getting a bot to pop a copy of it to the newbies when they are starting to open a new page, or at least give them a very conspicuous link to it? Peridon (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

One way is through usage and sharing. I now see WP:TOOSOON referred to in a number of places and by editors with whom I never had contact. Pretty neat to know that one IS making a difference. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Late-comer comments

Responding to Michael's invitation for comments, I see that I am come late to this party. This essay appears to have been in development for almost two years now. I think it's a great effort and could be a wonderful tool to help newbies navigate the system. Sadly, the vast majority of new editors come to push their own {band, company, game, boss, client, ...} and never intend to learn how to properly use Wikipedia. For those few who are genuinely interested in improving the project, this essay could be a significant first step. For those who have commented before me about the length of the page, I agree with Michael's assessment that presenting all of the information in a single page rather than as a set of linked pages makes better sense for the new user. All in all, I applaud Michael's efforts (and the other's who have been busily improving the page over the past two years). As a new page patroller, I would certainly reference this essay in communication with new users who appear to be genuinely interested in improving the project rather than just promoting their own thing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You've given me an idea for another, far shorter essay. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking for a while too - in connection with my comment involving a bot just above here. Even the one article promoters might get a sound article up if they saw the criteria at the start - and some of the worst might be put off.... (cynical sod) Peridon (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

An aside

Inspired by User:WikiDan61's comments above, WP:NOTABOUTYOU just went live. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories

I had a quick read-through - impressive! I didn't notice anything about adding categories to articles. A short paragraph showing how to explore the category system and how to choose categories (e.g. adapt them from articles on similar topics). Or did I miss it? --GuillaumeTell 10:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to foist work on others, but I've noticed that uncategorized articles do not remain so for too long. The article cannot cover everything in WP:Editing policy and to be managable instead strives to hit the highlights in an understandable manner. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I like this essay...

... but I wonder if it's still too long for the casual newbie to be bothered reading, or at least to read all the way through. I think many newbies have read somewhere that Wikipedia is a place where anybody can edit and add an article, so many come here, not to do mundane stuff like fixing typos and adding tags, but to add a new article on their favorite band or building, etc.

It might be a good idea to expand the intro paragraph a bit to talk about new articles, mentioning that it's covered in more details later in the essay. I think the notability/reliable sources thing really needs to be spelled out and hammered home, because some of the rules here just don't make sense to newbies. Robman94 (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Referring to a later section is a simple fix. And I feel the essay "hammers" notability and reliable sources "just enough" for a newcomer to understand without scaring them away. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

...as a one-stop-shop, I had to give consideration to just what a newb would need to know to write an article that won't be speedied within the first few minutes of existance (see the related WP:NOTABOUTYOU). Articles do not get deleted because thay lack categories or images. They do get deleted if they lack verifiability in reliable sources, or if written about inappropriate topics or through lacking neutrality or if they are original research. Those biggest newcomer issues needed addressing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Some comments

Why so many shortcuts? Pick one that's memorable, like WP:PRIMER. Dicklyon (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Gonna let the bait float and see what gets the nibbles at what, before removing a shortcut as unused. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC).

The Nutshell should summarize, not talk about, the essay. See the one at WP:AT. Dicklyon (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

In most other case, sure... but this nutshell is intended for rank newcomers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It's too long; some stuff like all the "what to expect" could be a short section and "more" link to a subpage. There's tons of text that newbies don't need to read, like "Even for experienced editors, Wikipedias "rules" can sometimes be confusing, and most seem written in terms that might better appeal to the folks involved in writing tax code or insurance forms. While you'll find this information covered in far greater depth blah blah blah..." Dicklyon (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Length was a concern, but remembering my own first days, having instructions at one location would have been a great help. This is intended as a one-stop-shop. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

What is the capitalized "IN" about? Seems like an odd section head anyway (Wikipedia:A_Primer_for_newcomers#Building_the_article_IN_your_sandbox). Dicklyon (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Capitalized to stress that building IN a sandbox is the best way to avoid unneccessary confusion to a necwomer when his struggling first efforts are tagged for CSD by NPP. As a section head for the same resons. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC).

"Verification" seems like an odd term to introduce, when "verifiable" is the point. Dicklyon (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Odd to experienced editors, but this is intended for the newcomer. For him, knowing that information needs verifications before he adds it will equate to "verifiability" by the rest of us. WP:KISS Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

Just ruminating

• Ramblingly touching on some points raised in this thread, and not asking for or expecting any changes:
  • It would be really really nice if we (i.e. someone) could come up with a magic wizard button to create a user-space sandbox article, put in the necessary pre- and post-ambles like ((underconstruction)) and ((noindex)) tags, then put the new user into edit or possibly better, preview mode. I fiddled with this long ago but couldn't piece together the right magic words available at the time. Maybe there is someone smarter than me who could figure out how to do it? And by that I mean there certainly is someone smarter than me, and they could prove it by making something like (but simpler than) the new article wizard to make a sandbox page. This could go into deletion notice templates, newbie welcomes, all over the place. A similar bit of magic would be a button or link you could click to userfy your doomed mainspace article by yourself. This could be used in selected user CSD notice templates to give them a painless way out of a situation that seems unremittingly hostile.

    You're preaching to the choir. Such a magic button would go far to address WP:BITE as perceived by a newcomer. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

  • And related, though not the right place to discuss at length, there is a definite tradeoff between using your sandbox to start an article, where the whole thing is up to you, versus starting in mainspace where the "massively collaborative" aspect of Wikipedia can get an article into shape very quickly. The distinction here is between, say, a newly arrived PhD wanting to create an article about a significant fossil species and a newly arrived fan wanting to create an article about the band they personally think is just the greatest. One may benefit more from jumping right in, the other might be better off taking a slower approach.
• Again, I'm not suggesting any changes, just ruminating. Franamax (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

  Well... this essay was more intended to address the issue of inadvertant WP:BITE that chases new contributors away from Wikipedia through their lack of knowledge. When a rank newcomer begins an article in mainspace and it gets tagged for proposed deletion withhin minutes, help is not always as forthcoming as we might hope. New pages patrol usually do a fine job, but many will tag, notify, and move on, leaving the newcomer thinking "Hey... I only just started. What the hell?" This is why the essay repeatedly encourages a rank newcomer ask for help and input, for when a newb begins in a sandbox and seeks advice and input from more experienced editors, a subsequent move to mainspace of even a stub has a better chance of surviving to benefit from collaborative editing. And naturally, a PhD contributor is more likely to have the writing skills to present something in an encyclopedic manner than might a fan (unles that fan himself has a doctorate). This is one essay that I expect editors to leave far behind them as they become more proficient. Like the training wheels on a first bicycle, it's here to prevent the rider from bumps, falls, and nose-bleeds as skills are learned. If one already ride a bike well, one does not need the training wheels. If one learns quickly to balance and steer, the trainers come off all the sooner. Nice ruminations. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice work!

MQS...<sniff>...he's all grown up now...<sniff>

I'd like to comment about the section about conflict of interest. A COI isn't a prohibition on article editing, but people need to realize that they don't own the article, the subject must be notable, it shouldn't be an advertisement. Despite being a member, I wrote the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band article and took it all the way to Featured Article status and it was put on the main page. It is VERY important to note that pushing an agenda is completely inappropriate.

Now, how to reprhase...I have no idea. Anyone else? Buffs (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As editors gain more experience, they will hopefuly also realize that "promoting a too-personal topic" is quite different from contributory editing of something simply because the topic is of interest and has gotten an editor's attention.

And where is that WP:ICP, WP:Newcomer's ICP, WP:Images and Copyright Primer  ? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} —Preceding undated comment added 21:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC).

working on it offline. Should have something for you within a couple of weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 16:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Another editor?

I was thinking that a core need is to create a "Wikipedia for Dummies" help document and that it should get promoted to prominence. "For dummies" doesn't mean for real dummies, it means that it explains everything without accidentally presuming prior knowledge on the topic. I searched first and found this. What excellent work! Even if it does occasionally slip and presume prior Wikipedia knowledge in a few areas. I might try editing towards that end and see whether such is welcome or unwelcome here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

We have a few of these type of pages..but i agree with you..should be tone down a bit in its wording that only experienced editors will know of. See Wikipedia:Help index#Contributor information for the other pages like this ...they may have better was of expressing things that could be copied here.Moxy (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm at about 29,000 edits and I just today learned (from you) that that index existed. And when a new editor finds it is a list of about 240 articles to read to start learning how to do Wikipedia. I think that one of them needs to emerge as Help article #1. North8000 (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Dont feel bad - I just made the index. like you I found that they were all over the place I also made {{Help navigation}} for the same reason. the index is for all the pages we have Help:Getting started that is a short list. The index is only a portion of the pages we have that I have found - the ones that were complete in nature I put in the index...we still have many others like Wikipedia:The newcomer's manual out there still.Moxy (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Possibly inappropriate language in the 'Guidelines' subsection

Hey, I was reading this page, and realized that in the 'Guidelines' subsection of the 'The basics' section, advises readers to 'not be a dick,' wording that to many readers would be considered unnecessarily inappropriate and suggestive for a Wikipedia essay for newcomers. I just wanted to bring this up on the talk page before I removed this phrase; if you have a problem with this, please just reply below. Tomorrow, I will make this edit, provided no one brings up serious objections on this talk page. Thanks, --Joseph Yanchar (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't be a dick is one of the trifecta of guiding principles that one must abide by on Wikipedia. To the point there is an extensive essay on Meta, see WP:DICK. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

also see WP:CENSOR , If a new commoner needs to be coddled to the point that Don't be a dick is too much for them. then maybe they should not be here. NathanWubs (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The point of the deletion would not be to "coddle" newcomers, or frankly anyone, but to avoid needless sexual references. Thanks, --Joseph Yanchar (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

According to Dick (slang),

It [dick] is also used as a pejorative term for individuals who are considered to be rude, abrasive, inconsiderate, or otherwise contemptible.[1] In this context, it can be used interchangeably with jerk, and can also be used as a verb to describe rude or deceitful actions.

In my personal opinion, this is the context (not a sexual context) in which this term is being used in this article and in others such as WP:Trifecta and Meta:Don't be a dick, etc. Since its use, at least in this context, does seem acceptable (apparently by consensus) on Wikipedia, changing it or removing from this article (but leaving it everywhere else) does not seem, at least to me, like an appropriate thing to do. If, however, the community as a whole someday decided that such a term was inappropriate for Wikipedia, then I would put my personal opinions aside and follow that consensus. No disrespect intended to your personal beliefs, but I think that's best thing to do here. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You would maybe have a point if it was a sexual reference but it is not. See above. NathanWubs (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft namespace

It may be good now to include something about the Draft namespace, when and how articles should be put in there and got out again, when and how they get deleted from there.

If anyone's got a good grasp of these topics...: Noyster (talk), 09:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Too long!

This whole essay is way too long and wordy! Not sure it would be any help to new editors. But, then, most guidelines on Wikipedia are either misleading and/or confusing so I guess this one fits those categories perfectly! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 17:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how one could write a Wikipedian Primer any shorter than this well-crafted document. I wish I had read this early on. :O) - Mark D Worthen PsyD 05:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Survey

Hey all,

I'm looking into doing some research about the things that users seek out help for. If noone has any objections I'd like to add a brief survey to this page to collect some anonymous data about what people are looking for and how we can help them better. I'd like to add this in the next week or so. Ping me if anyone has any issues with this. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)