Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - Wikipedia

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - Wikipedia
Jump to content
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from
Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED
Wikipedia policy about what is not acceptable in the online encyclopedia
"WP:NOT" and "WP:!" redirect here. For other uses, see
WP:NOT (disambiguation)
. For usage of ! in Wikipedia jargon, see
Wikipedia:Glossary § !
For the Department of Fun, see
WP:¡
This page documents an English Wikipedia
policy
It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should
normally
follow.
Substantive
edits to this page
should reflect consensus
Shortcuts
WP:NOT
WP:NOT
WP:WWIN
WP:WWIN
Wikipedia in a nutshell:
Wikipedia is a digital
encyclopedia
project that covers
notable
topics, run by volunteers. It does not contain every piece of information about every subject and is not the place to publish original research, blogs, advertising, or self-promotion. Wikipedia is regulated by our
policies and guidelines
, but it is not a bureaucracy. Standards are set through
consensus
, not democracy.
Content policies
Neutral point of view
No original research
Verifiability
Article titles
Biographies of living persons
Image use policy
What Wikipedia is not
Wikipedia
is a
free
online
encyclopedia
. The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia does not aim to contain all knowledge. What to exclude is determined by an online community of volunteers known as
Wikipedians
who are committed to building a high-quality encyclopedia. These exclusions are summarized as the
things that Wikipedia is
not
Style and format
The
Print Wikipedia
project
The following policies relate to Wikipedia's content.
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia
Shortcuts
WP:PAPER
WP:PAPER
WP:NOTPAPER
WP:NOTPAPER
"WP:PAPER" redirects here. For guidance on sources in print, see
Wikipedia:Offline sources
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but a digital encyclopedia project
. Server costs aside, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, or the total amount of content.
However, there is an important distinction between what
can
be done, and what
should
be done, which is covered under
§ Encyclopedic content
. Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by
policies
, particularly those covered in the
five pillars
Editors should limit individual articles to a reasonable size to keep them accessible (see
Wikipedia:Article size
). Splitting long articles signals a natural growth of a topic (see
Wikipedia:Summary style
). Print encyclopedias can cover most topics only in short, static articles, but Wikipedia can include more information, provide more external links, and update more quickly.
Encyclopedic content
Shortcuts
WP:NOTEVERYTHING
WP:NOTEVERYTHING
WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC
WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC
WP:EXHAUSTIVE
WP:EXHAUSTIVE
Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a
summary
of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.
Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with
appropriate weight
. Although there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. The examples under each section are not exhaustive.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary
Shortcuts
WP:NOTDICTIONARY
WP:NOTDICTIONARY
WP:DICTIONARY
WP:DICTIONARY
Main page:
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary
No, it isn't part of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide. For a wiki that
is
a dictionary, visit our sister project
Wiktionary
. Missing dictionary definitions should be contributed there. Wikipedia articles are not:
Definitions
. Articles should begin with a
good definition
or description, but articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content. If they cannot be expanded, Wikipedia is not the place for them. In some cases, however, the definition of a word may be an encyclopedic subject, such as the
definition of
planet
Dictionary entries
. Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as
Macedonia
(terminology)
or
truthiness
. Articles almost always focus on a single definition or usage of the title. Articles about the cultural or mathematical significance of individual
numbers
are also acceptable.
Usage, slang, or idiom guides
. Descriptive articles about languages, dialects, or types of slang (such as
Klingon
Cockney
, or
Leet
) are desirable. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of such languages are not. See
§ Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal
below. For a wiki that
is
a collection of textbooks, visit our sister project
Wikibooks
. Consider
importing
such content there.
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
Shortcut
WP:ORIGINALITY
WP:ORIGINALITY
"WP:ORIGINALITY" redirects here. For the guideline on original sources, see
Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources
See also:
Wikipedia:No original research
Editors will try to answer relevant questions on talk and Wikipedia pages, but they are not here to fix your broken toaster.
Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or new information. Per the
policy on original research
do not use Wikipedia for any of the following
Primary (original) research
, such as proposing theories and solutions, communicating original ideas, offering novel definitions of terms, or coining new words. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as
peer-reviewed
journals, other printed forms,
open research
, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however,
citations
of
reliable sources
are needed to demonstrate that such material is
verifiable
, and not merely the editor's
opinion
Personal inventions
. If you or a friend invented a drinking game, a new type of dance move, or even the word
frindle
, it is not
notable enough
to be given an article until multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources report on it. And
Wikipedia is
certainly
not for things made up one day
Shortcut
WP:NOTESSAY
WP:NOTESSAY
Personal essays
that state your feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts). Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of an individual are important enough to discuss, let other people write about them. (Personal essays on Wikipedia-related topics are welcome in your user namespace or on the
Meta-Wiki
.)
Shortcuts
WP:NOTFORUM
WP:NOTFORUM
WP:FORUM
WP:FORUM
WP:NOFORUM
WP:NOFORUM
Discussion forums
. Stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant
talk pages
, but do not take discussion into articles, as it removes from the encyclopedic value that article holds. In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion or voicing opinions about the article topic or anything else. Nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the
talk page guidelines
. If you wish to ask a question on a topic other than Wikipedia there is a
reference desk
with
reference desk guidelines
Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion
Shortcuts
WP:PROMOTION
WP:PROMOTION
WP:SOAP
WP:SOAP
WP:PROMO
WP:PROMO
"WP:PROMOTION" and "WP:SOAP" redirect here. For other pages about advertising and promotion, see
Wikipedia:Advertising
. For the Soap Operas WikiProject, see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas
See also:
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Further information:
Wikipedia:Advocacy
Advertise on these
billboards
, but not on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is not a
soapbox
, a
battleground
, or a vehicle for
propaganda
, advertising, and showcasing. This applies to
usernames
, articles, drafts, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. Promotional articles about
notable
people, organizations, and other subjects
should normally be addressed through editing, not deletion
Content hosted on Wikipedia is not for:
Shortcut
WP:NOTADVOCACY
WP:NOTADVOCACY
Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment
of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively
about
such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a
blog
or visit a
forum
if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.
Shortcut
WP:NOTOPINION
WP:NOTOPINION
Opinion pieces
. Although some topics, particularly those concerning
current affairs
and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes", Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a
neutral point of view
. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Wikipedia editors themselves may voice their opinions on Wikipedia policy via
essays
Shortcuts
WP:NOTSCANDAL
WP:NOTSCANDAL
WP:NOTDRAMA
WP:NOTDRAMA
Scandalmongering
, promoting things "
heard through the grapevine
" or
gossiping
. Articles and content
about living people
are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be
libellous
or infringe the subjects'
right to privacy
. Articles must not be written purely to
attack the reputation of another person
Self-promotion
. It can be tempting to
write about yourself
or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources, such as your
résumé or curriculum vitae
, is unacceptable. See
Wikipedia:Autobiography
Wikipedia:Notability
and
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
Shortcuts
WP:NOTADVERT
WP:NOTADVERT
WP:NOTPROMO
WP:NOTPROMO
WP:NOTPUBLICITY
WP:NOTPUBLICITY
Advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations
. Information about companies and products must be written in an
objective and unbiased style
, free of
puffery
. All article topics must be
verifiable
with
independent
, third-party sources, so articles about very small
garage bands
or local companies are typically unacceptable. Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other
social media marketing
efforts.
External links
to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify
notable
organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)
for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing
public service announcements
, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. Contributors must
disclose any payments they receive
for editing Wikipedia. See also
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § Paid editing
Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the
Wikipedia:
namespace
, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project. However, article
talk pages
should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject (see
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines
).
Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
Shortcuts
WP:LINKFARM
WP:LINKFARM
WP:NOTREPOSITORY
WP:NOTREPOSITORY
WP:NOTGALLERY
WP:NOTGALLERY
WP:NOTCOMMONS
WP:NOTCOMMONS
Wikipedia is neither a
mirror
nor a
repository
of links, images, or media files.
Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of:
External links
or
Internet directories
. There is nothing wrong with adding relevant, useful links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See
Wikipedia:External links
for some guidelines.
Internal links
, except for
disambiguation
pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for
lists
for browsing or to assist with article organization and navigation; for these, please follow relevant guidance at
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists
Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists
Public domain
or other source material
such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are useful only when presented with their original, unmodified wording. Complete copies of primary sources may go into
Wikisource
, but not on Wikipedia.
Public domain resources
such as the
1911
Encyclopædia Britannica
may be used to add content to an article (see
Plagiarism guideline: Public-domain sources
for guidelines on doing so). See also
Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources
and
Wikisource's inclusion policy
Photographs or media files
with no accompanying text. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to
Wikimedia Commons
. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to
Wikipedia:Images with missing articles
or
Wikipedia:Public domain image resources
. Wikipedia articles are not a repository of images: image use in Wikipedia articles must comply with
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images § Choosing images
Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site
Shortcuts
WP:NOTWEBHOST
WP:NOTWEBHOST
WP:NOTBLOG
WP:NOTBLOG
WP:NOTFACEBOOK
WP:NOTFACEBOOK
WP:NOTFB
WP:NOTFB
WP:HOST
WP:HOST
"WP:MEMORIAL" and "WP:HOST" redirect here. For a list of deceased Wikipedians, see
Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians
"WP:NOTFANDOM" and "WP:NOTWIKIA" redirect here. For the essay, see
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Fandom
Wikipedia is not a
social networking service
like
, or
, nor a
social-network game
. It is not a place to host your own
website
blog
wiki
résumé
, or
cloud
. Wikipedia pages,
including those in
user space
, are not:
Shortcuts
WP:NOTCV
WP:NOTCV
WP:NOTRESUME
WP:NOTRESUME
Personal web pages
Wikipedians
have individual user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia.
Limited autobiographical information
is allowed, but user pages do not serve as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia. If you want to post your résumé or make a personal webpage, please use one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your
Internet service provider
. The focus of user pages
should not
be
social networking
or
amusement
, but rather providing a foundation for effective
collaboration
Humorous pages
that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate
namespace
. Wikipedia articles use formal English and are
not written in Internet posting style
Shortcut
WP:NOTFILESTORAGE
WP:NOTFILESTORAGE
File storage
areas
. Please upload only
files
that are used (or could be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else (e.g., personal photos) will be deleted. Ideally, freely licensed files should be uploaded to
Wikimedia Commons
, where they can be linked from Wikipedia.
Shortcut
WP:NOTDATING
WP:NOTDATING
Dating services
. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to pursue relationships or sexual encounters. User pages that move beyond broad expressions of sexual orientation are unacceptable.
Shortcut
WP:NOTMEMORIAL
WP:NOTMEMORIAL
Memorials
. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy
Wikipedia's notability requirements
. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who
do not meet such requirements
. (
Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians
is excluded from this rule.)
Content for projects unrelated to Wikipedia
. Do not store material unrelated to Wikipedia, including in userspace. Please see
Wikipedia:User pages § What may I not have in my user pages?
for examples of what may not be included.
If you are interested in using the wiki technology for a collaborative effort on something else, even just a single page, many free and commercial sites provide wiki/web hosting (e.g.
Fandom
Google Sites
and
other services
). You can also install wiki software on your own server. See the
installation guide
at MediaWiki.org for information on doing this.
You do not own your userpage
. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion.
Wikipedia is not a directory
Shortcuts
WP:NOTDIRECTORY
WP:NOTDIRECTORY
WP:NOTCATALOG
WP:NOTCATALOG
"WP:DIRECTORY" and "WP:NOTSALE" redirect here. For a listing of Wikipedia's directories and indexes, see
Wikipedia:Directory
. For the essay, see
Wikipedia:What adminship is not § Adminship is not for sale
See also:
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists
and
Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists
Nuh-uh
Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. Please see
Wikipedia:Alternative outlets
for alternatives. Wikipedia articles are not:
Simple lists
(such as
lists of phone numbers
) that do not
include contextual information
showing encyclopedic merit. See
Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Selection criteria
for more information.
Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics
such as (but not limited to) quotations,
aphorisms
, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project
Wikiquote
. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having
lists
if their entries are relevant
because
they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.
Merged groups of small articles
based on a core topic are permitted. (See
Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Appropriate topics for lists
for clarification.)
Shortcut
WP:CROSSCAT
WP:CROSSCAT
Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations
, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also
Wikipedia:Overcategorization
for this issue in categories.
Shortcut
WP:NOTGENEALOGY
WP:NOTGENEALOGY
Genealogical entries
. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a
notable
topic.
Shortcut
WP:NOTTVGUIDE
WP:NOTTVGUIDE
Electronic program guides
. An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules,
format clocks
, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable.
Shortcut
WP:NOTPRICE
WP:NOTPRICE
A resource for conducting business
. Neither articles nor their associated talk pages are for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Listings to be avoided include, but are not limited to: business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, contact information, patent filings, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent
source
and
encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just
product reviews
) providing commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Wikipedia is not a
price comparison service
to compare prices and availability of competing products or a single product from different vendors. Lists of creative works are permitted. Thus, for example, Wikipedia should not include a list of all books published by
HarperCollins
, but may include a bibliography of books written by
Veronica Roth
Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal
Shortcuts
WP:NOTGUIDE
WP:NOTGUIDE
WP:NOTHOWTO
WP:NOTHOWTO
It's a cookbook!
(But Wikipedia
is not.)
Wikipedia
is an encyclopedic reference
, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like:
Instruction manuals and cookbooks
: while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, an
article
should not read like a "how-to" style
owner's manual
cookbook
advice column
legal
medical
or otherwise), or
suggestion box
. This includes tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the
imperative mood
about how to use or do something is not.
Wording can easily be modified to avoid advising the reader:
Do not give aspirin ...
The WHO advises against the use of aspirin ...
. Such guides may be welcome at
Wikibooks
instead.
Travel guides
: an article on
Paris
should mention landmarks, such as the
Eiffel Tower
and the
Louvre
, but not the telephone numbers or street addresses of the
"best"
restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the
Champs-Élysées
. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel, venue, etc. While travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should list only those that are actually in the city. If you
do
wish to help write a travel guide, your contributions would be more than welcome at our sister project,
Wikivoyage
Strategy guides
: an article about a
video game
should briefly summarize the story and the main actions the player performs in the game. Avoid lists of gameplay concepts and items unless these are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context (such as the
BFG
from the
Doom
series
). A concise summary of gameplay details (specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, etc.) is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry, but walkthroughs and detailed coverage are not. See also
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction
and
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games § Inappropriate content
. As of
a 2021 decision to start allowing them
, such guides may be welcome at
Wikibooks
instead.
Internet guides
: Wikipedia articles should not exist
only
to describe the nature, appearance, or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an
encyclopedic manner
, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact, or historical significance, which can be kept significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources, since editors can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See the
Current events portal
for examples.
FAQs
: Wikipedia articles should not list
frequently asked questions
(FAQs). Instead, format the information as neutral prose within the appropriate articles.
Textbooks and annotated texts
: the purpose of Wikipedia is to
summarize
accepted knowledge, not to teach subject matter. Articles should not read like
textbooks
, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects, such as
Wikibooks
Wikisource
, and
Wikiversity
However, examples intended to
inform
rather than
instruct
may be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia articles.
Scientific journals
: a Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. Article titles should reflect
common usage
, not academic terminology, whenever possible. Introductory language in the
lead
(and sometimes the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While
wikilinks
should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text. See
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking
. Publishing such scientific articles may be more appropriate for
WikiJournal
in Wikiversity.
Case studies
: many topics are based on the relationship of
factor X
to
factor Y
, resulting in one or more full articles. For example, this could refer to
situation X
in
location Y
, or
version X
of
item Y
. This is perfectly acceptable when the two variables put together represent some culturally significant phenomenon or some otherwise notable interest. Often, separate articles are needed for a subject within a range of different countries, due to substantial differences across international borders; articles such as "
Slate industry in Wales
" are fitting examples. Writing about "
Oak trees in North Carolina
" or "
Blue trucks
", however, would likely constitute a
POV fork
or
original research
, and would certainly not result in an encyclopedic article.
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
Shortcuts
WP:CRYSTAL
WP:CRYSTAL
WP:SPECULATION
WP:SPECULATION
"WP:FUTURE" redirects here. For the WikiProject, see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Futures studies
"WP:BALL" redirects here. For the humourous essay, see
Wikipedia:Complete Bollocks
...
but Wikipedia does not.
Wikipedia is not a collection of
unverifiable
speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It
is
appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is
not
appropriate for editors to insert
their own opinions or analyses
. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating
undue bias
to any specific point of view. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid
advertising
and unverified claims (for films, see
Wikipedia:Notability (films) § Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films
). In particular:
Individual
scheduled or expected future events
should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are
not definite
until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the
2028 U.S. presidential election
and
2032 Summer Olympics
. By comparison, the
2044 U.S. presidential election
and
2048 Summer Olympics
are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future
might
be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. For example, the
ultimate fate of the universe
is an acceptable topic.
Individual items from a
predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names
, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item.
Lists of tropical cyclone names
is encyclopedic; "
Tropical Storm Ana (2027)
" is not, even though it is virtually certain that such a storm will occur. Similarly, articles about
words formed on a predictable numeric system
(such as "
septenquinquagintillion
) are not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use. Certain scientific extrapolations are considered to be encyclopedic, such as
chemical elements documented before isolation in the laboratory
, provided that scientists have made significant non-trivial predictions of their properties.
Articles that present original research in the form of
extrapolation, speculation, and "future history"
are inappropriate. Although scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles
about
notable
artistic works, essays, or credible research
that embody predictions. An article on
weapons in
Star Trek
is appropriate; an article on "
Weapons to be used in World War III
" is not.
Although currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections.
Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors
. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist of only product announcement information and rumors are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creators, a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable.
Wikipedia is not a newspaper
Shortcut
WP:NOTNEWS
WP:NOTNEWS
"WP:GOSSIP" redirects here. For the section of the biographies of living persons policy, see
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Avoid gossip and feedback loops
See also:
Wikipedia:Notability (events)
and
Wikipedia:Too much detail
Extra! Extra!
Wikipedia is not
a newspaper
In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Even when citing recent news articles as sources, ensure the Wikipedia articles themselves are not:
Original reporting
. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports. Wikipedia does have many
encyclopedia articles
on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently
verified
information.
News reports
. Wikipedia considers the enduring
notability
of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in
news style
. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see
Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Routine coverage
for more on this with regard to routine
events
). Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.
Shortcut
WP:NOTWHOSWHO
WP:NOTWHOSWHO
Who's who
. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a
single event
, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event,
in proportion
to their importance to the overall topic. (See
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
for more details.)
Shortcuts
WP:NOTGOSSIP
WP:NOTGOSSIP
WP:NOTDIARY
WP:NOTDIARY
Celebrity gossip and diaries
. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
Shortcuts
WP:INDISCRIMINATE
WP:INDISCRIMINATE
WP:NOTDB
WP:NOTDB
WP:RAWDATA
WP:RAWDATA
"WP:PLOT" and "WP:INDISCRIMINATE" redirect here. For plot summary manuals of style, see
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction § Contextual presentation
. For indiscriminate sources, see
Wikipedia:Indiscriminate sources
See also:
Wikipedia:Notability
and
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections
An indiscriminate collection of information in the universe
To provide encyclopedic value,
data
should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in
§ Encyclopedic content
above, merely being true, or even
verifiable
, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. This does not restrict editors from
citing
databases; however, Wikipedia itself should not
be
a database. Wikipedia articles should not be:
Shortcut
WP:NOTPLOT
WP:NOTPLOT
Summary-only descriptions of works
. Wikipedia treats
creative works
(including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. For more information regarding summaries, see
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction § Contextual presentation
Shortcut
WP:NOTLYRICS
WP:NOTLYRICS
Lyrics databases
. An article about a song should provide information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, and so on. Quotations from a song should be kept to a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article, and used to facilitate discussion, or to illustrate the style; the full text can be put on
Wikisource
and linked from the article. Most song lyrics published after 1931 are protected by
; any quotation of them must be kept to a minimum, and used for direct commentary or to illustrate some aspect of style. Never link to the lyrics of copyrighted songs unless the linked-to site clearly has the right to distribute the work. See
Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources
for full discussion.
Shortcut
WP:NOTSTATS
WP:NOTSTATS
Excessive listings of unexplained
statistics
. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be
split
into a separate article and
summarized
in the main article (e.g., the article
Canada#Ethnicity
summarizes data in
prose
with a
{{
main
}}
hatnote
to
Ethnic origins of people in Canada
that tables the data alongside an explanation of collection method).
Wikipedia:Notability § Stand-alone lists
offers more guidance on what kind of lists are acceptable, and
Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Selection criteria
offers guidance on what entries should be included.
Shortcut
WP:NOTCHANGELOG
WP:NOTCHANGELOG
Exhaustive logs of software updates
. Use
reliable
third-party (not
self-published or official
) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied regarding the level of detail to include. A list of every version/beta/patch is inappropriate. Consider a summary of development instead.
Wikipedia is not censored
Shortcuts
WP:NOTCENSORED
WP:NOTCENSORED
WP:CENSOR
WP:CENSOR
"WP:REDACTION" redirects here. For the criteria, see
Wikipedia:Revision deletion § Criteria for redaction
Main page:
Wikipedia:Content disclaimer
See also:
Censorship of Wikipedia
and
Wikipedia:Offensive material
Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general
social
or
religious
norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.
Content
will
be removed if it is judged to violate
Wikipedia's policies
(especially those on
biographies of living persons
and using a
neutral point of view
) or the
law of the United States
, where Wikipedia is hosted. However, because most edits are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may be visible to readers for a time before being detected and removed.
Options to hide an image
Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is
an appropriate image
, text, or
link
. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The
Wikipedia:Offensive material
guideline can help assess appropriate actions to take in the case of content that may be considered offensive.
Some organizations' rules or traditions call for secrecy with regard to certain information about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations; thus, Wikipedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic.
The University is not engaged in making ideas safe for students. It is engaged in making students safe for ideas. Thus it permits the freest expression of views before students, trusting to their good sense in passing judgment on these views.
Clark Kerr
, President of the
University of California
(1961)
Community
The following policies relate to Wikipedia's governance and processes.
Wikipedia is not an anarchy or a forum for free speech
Shortcuts
WP:NOTANARCHY
WP:NOTANARCHY
WP:NOTFREESPEECH
WP:NOTFREESPEECH
"WP:ANARCHY" redirects here. For the WikiProject, see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Anarchism
. For aniarchy, see
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Main page:
Wikipedia:Administration
See also:
Wikipedia:User access levels
and
Wikipedia:Enforcement
Wikipedia is En­cy­clo­pe­dists' Corner, not
Speakers' Corner
Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not an unregulated forum for free speech. The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of
anarchist communities
Our purpose
is to
build an encyclopedia
, not to test the limits of anarchism.
Wikipedia is not a democracy
Shortcut
WP:NOTDEMOCRACY
WP:NOTDEMOCRACY
"WP:DEMOCRACY" redirects here. For Wikipedia's democratic structures, see
WP:WikiProject Democracy
See also:
Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion
and
Wikipedia:Elections
A ballot box. Note that most Wikipedia decisions are
not a result of a vote
Wikipedia is
not an experiment in democracy
or any other
political system
. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is
editing
and
discussion
leading to
consensus
not
voting
. (
Voting is used for certain matters
such as electing the
Arbitration Committee
.)
Straw polls
are sometimes used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys can impede, rather than foster, discussion and should be used with caution.
Off-site petitions and votes have no weight in the formation of consensus on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy
Shortcuts
WP:BURO
WP:BURO
WP:BUREAU
WP:BUREAU
WP:NOTBURO
WP:NOTBURO
"WP:BURO" and "WP:BUREAU" redirect here. For the "bureaucrat" user access level, see
Wikipedia:Bureaucrats
See also:
Wikipedia:Ignore all rules
While Wikipedia
has many elements
of a
bureaucracy
it is not governed by statute: it is not a
quasi-judicial body
, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Although
some rules may be enforced
, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected.
While Wikipedia's written
policies and guidelines
should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the
letter
of policies without considering their
principles
. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia,
ignore them
. Disagreements are resolved through
consensus-based
discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves
may be changed
to reflect
evolving consensus
A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request.
A procedural, coding, or grammatical error in a new contribution
is not grounds for reverting it
, unless the error cannot easily be fixed.
Wikipedia is not a laboratory
Shortcuts
WP:NOTLAB
WP:NOTLAB
WP:NOTALAB
WP:NOTALAB
Research about Wikipedia's content, processes, and the people involved
can provide valuable insights and understanding that benefit public knowledge, scholarship, and the Wikipedia community, but Wikipedia is not a public laboratory. Research that analyzes articles, talk pages, or other content on Wikipedia is not typically controversial, since all of Wikipedia is
open and freely usable
. However, research projects that are
disruptive
to the community or which negatively affect articles—even temporarily—are not allowed and can result in loss of editing privileges. Before starting a potentially controversial project,
researchers should open discussion at the
Village pump
to ensure it will not interfere with Wikipedia's mission. Regardless of the type of project, researchers are advised to be as transparent as possible on their user pages, disclosing information such as institutional connections and intentions.
Some editors explicitly request not to be subjects in research and experiments. Please respect the wish of editors to opt out of research.
Wikipedia is not a battleground
Shortcuts
WP:BATTLEGROUND
WP:BATTLEGROUND
WP:BATTLE
WP:BATTLE
"WP:BATTLE" redirects here. For the essay about
Battle for Dream Island
, see
Wikipedia:Why was BFDI not on Wikipedia?
See also:
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning
and
Wikipedia:Behave
Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges or import personal conflicts, nor is it the place to carry on ideological battles or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions is in
direct conflict
with Wikipedia's policies and goals, as well as Wikipedia's
founding principles
. In addition to avoiding battles in discussions, you should also avoid advancing your position in disagreements by making unilateral changes to policies.
Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
Every user is expected to interact with others
civilly
, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not
insult, disparage
harass
, or try to intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond disrespectfully. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comments might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. If a conflict continues to bother you, take advantage of
Wikipedia's dispute resolution
process. There are always users willing to mediate and
arbitrate
disputes between others.
In large disputes, resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions.
Assume good faith
that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Work with whomever you like, but do not
organize a faction
that disrupts (or aims to disrupt) Wikipedia's fundamental decision-making process, which is based on building a
consensus
. Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints.
Do not use Wikipedia to make
legal
or other threats against Wikipedia, its editors, or the Wikimedia Foundation—other means already exist to communicate legal problems.
10
Threats are not tolerated and may result in a
ban
Wikipedia is not a chatbot
Shortcut
WP:NOTCHATBOT
WP:NOTCHATBOT
See also:
Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence
and
Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing
Wikipedia cannot be used as a chatbot.
MediaWiki
software, on which Wikipedia runs, is not a
large language model
(LLM). It cannot generate images, texts, or videos. It is not possible to give it commands on
talk pages
. Wikipedia will not respond to queries nor will it answer questions. Any responses you receive come from human volunteers.
Wikipedia is not compulsory
Shortcuts
WP:NOTCOMPULSORY
WP:NOTCOMPULSORY
WP:CHOICE
WP:CHOICE
"WP:NOTREQUIRED" redirects here. For essays, see
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service
. For other uses, see
Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability § References are not optional
Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians. Editors are free to
take a break
or
leave Wikipedia
at any time.
And finally ...
Shortcuts
WP:BADIDEA
WP:BADIDEA
WP:NOTSTUPID
WP:NOTSTUPID
Wikipedia is not a lot of other things as well. We cannot anticipate every bad idea that someone might have. Almost everything on this page is here because somebody came up with a bad idea that had not been anticipated. In general, "that is a terrible idea" is always sufficient grounds to avoid doing something when there is a good reason that the idea is terrible.
When you wonder what to do
Shortcut
WP:WHATISTOBEDONE
WP:WHATISTOBEDONE
When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading
in an encyclopedia
When you wonder whether the rules given above are being violated, consider:
Modifying the content of an article (normal editing).
Turning the page into a redirect if it meets such grounds, preserving the page history.
Nominating the page for deletion
if it meets grounds for such action under the
Deletion policy
. To develop an understanding of what kinds of contributions are in danger of being deleted, you have to regularly follow discussions there.
Changing the rules on this page after a consensus has been reached following appropriate discussion with other Wikipedians via
the talk page
. When adding new options, please be as clear as possible and provide counter-examples of similar, but permitted, subjects.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes
is not an official policy, but can be referred to as a record of what has and has not been considered encyclopedic in the past.
See also
Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup § Style of writing
—a list of templates that can be used to tag potentially inappropriate content when you can't fix the problem immediately yourself
wmf:Resolution:Controversial content
Pages titled "Wikipedia is
..." and "Wikipedia is not
..."
Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes
Wikipedia:Alternative outlets
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes
Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia
Wikipedia:Recentism
Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted?
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not/Outtakes
for a more humorous version
Notes
See
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 § Final decision
, which suggested a similar principle in November 2004.
Wikipedia
article pages
(and various navigational pages: categories,
navboxes
, disambiguation pages, etc.) are off limits for any advocacy.
Talk pages
user pages
and
essays
are venues where you can advocate your opinions provided that they are directly
related to the improvement of Wikipedia
and are
not disruptive
The
English Wikipedia
incorporates many images and some text which are considered "fair use" into its
free content
articles. Other language Wikipedias often
do not
. See also
Wikipedia:Copyrights
The how-to restriction does not apply to the
project namespace
, where
"how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself
are appropriate, such as
Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia
"Former UC President Clark Kerr, a national leader in higher education, dies at 92"
(Press release). UC Berkeley. December 2, 2003
. Retrieved
August 5,
2021
Reagle, Joseph M.
(2010).
Good faith collaboration: the culture of Wikipedia
. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. pp.
90–
91.
ISBN
9780262014472
See
list of academic studies of Wikipedia
Research resources at Wikimedia Meta
, the
Meta research newsletter
, and the
Wikimedia Foundation research blog
Projects that are "potentially controversial" include, but are not limited to, any project that involves directly changing article content (contributors are expected to have as their primary motivation the betterment of the encyclopedia, without a competing motivation such as research objectives), any project that involves contacting a very large number of editors, and any project that involves asking sensitive questions about their real-life identities.
See also
Researching Wikipedia
Ethically researching Wikipedia
, as well as the
conflict of interest guideline
and
paid-contribution disclosure policy
(if researchers editing Wikipedia are being paid under grants to do so, this is paid editing that must be disclosed).
If you believe that your legal rights are being violated, you may discuss this with other users involved, take the matter to the appropriate
mailing list
, contact the
Wikimedia Foundation
, or in cases of
violations, notify us at
Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright
This is a large number, and would be written as a 1 followed by 174 zeros.
Wikipedia principles
Five pillars
Statement of our principles
Jimbo's statement
Historic principles
Simplified ruleset
Synopsis of our conventions
Wikimedia principles
Common to all projects
(in Meta-Wiki)
Principles
Other essays on Wikipedia's principles
Wikipedia key
policies and guidelines
(?)
Five pillars
Ignore all rules
Content
(?)
Verifiability
No original research
Neutral point of view
What Wikipedia is not
Biographies of living persons
Copyright violations
Image use
Article titles
Notability
Autobiographies
Citing sources
Reliable sources
Medicine
Do not include copies of lengthy primary sources
Plagiarism
Do not create hoaxes
Fringe theories
Patent nonsense
External links
Writing articles with large language models
LLM-assisted translation
Conduct
(?)
Civility
Consensus
Harassment
Vandalism
Ignore all rules
No personal attacks
Ownership of content
Edit warring
Dispute resolution
Sockpuppetry
No legal threats
Child protection
Paid-contribution disclosure
Assume good faith
Conflict of interest
Disruptive editing
Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
Etiquette
Gaming the system
Please do not bite the newcomers
Courtesy vanishing
Responding to threats of harm
Talk page guidelines
Signatures
Deletion
(?)
Deletion policy
Proposed deletion
Biographies
Speedy deletion
Attack page
Oversight
Revision deletion
Enforcement
(?)
Administrators
Banning
Blocking
Page protection
Editing
(?)
Editing policy
Article size
Summary style
Be bold
Disambiguation
Hatnotes
Broad-concept article
Understandability
Style
Manual of Style
Contents
Dates and numbers
Images
Layout
Lead section
Linking
Lists
Classification
Categories, lists, and navigation templates
Categorization
Template namespace
Project content
(?)
Project namespace
WikiProjects
User pages
User boxes
Shortcuts
Subpages
WMF
(?)
Universal Code of Conduct
List of policies
Friendly space policy
Licensing and copyright
List of all policies and guidelines
List of policies
List of guidelines
Summaries of values and principles
Retrieved from "
Categories
Wikipedia policies
Wikipedia content policies
Hidden categories:
Wikipedia move-protected project pages
Wikipedia semi-protected project pages
Wikipedia
What Wikipedia is not
Add topic