Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
TemplateStyles' src attribute must not be empty.
| Error creating thumbnail: |
TemplateStyles' src attribute must not be empty.
| File:Walnut.png | This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia is a volunteer digital encyclopedia that covers notable topics. 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. |
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
[edit source]
The following policies relate to Wikipedia's content.
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia
[edit source]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
[edit source]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.[1] 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
[edit source]
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
[edit source]
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.
- Template:Va
- Template:Va
- Template:Va
Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion
[edit source]
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:
Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
[edit source]Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files.[2] 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
[edit source]Wikipedia is not a social networking service like Facebook, X, YouTube, or Instagram, 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- Template:Va
- 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.
- 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.
Wikipedia is not a directory
[edit source]
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:
- Template:Va
- 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.)
- Template:Va
- Template:Va
- Template:Va
- Template:Va
Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal
[edit source]
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.[3] 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. Template:Va
- 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
[edit source]
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 Alberto (2030)" 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"[lower-alpha 1]) 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
[edit source]
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:
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
[edit source]
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:
Wikipedia is not censored
[edit source]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.
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)[4] | ||
Community
[edit source]The following policies relate to Wikipedia's governance and processes.
Wikipedia is not an anarchy or a forum for free speech
[edit source]
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
[edit source]
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
[edit source]While Wikipedia has many elements of a bureaucracy,[5] 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
[edit source]Research about Wikipedia's content, processes, and the people involved[6] 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,[7] 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.[8]
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
[edit source]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.[9] Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban.
Wikipedia is not compulsory
[edit source]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 ...
[edit source]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
[edit source]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
[edit source]- 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
[edit source]- ↑ See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 § Final decision, which suggested a similar principle in November 2004.
- ↑ 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 copyright 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.