RulesToConsider

Since this is a wiki, there are no editors. We must rely on developing our own good habits and occasionally taking a bit of time to correct the results of someone else's bad habits. But it might help to specifically enunciate particularly rules that some of us wish we'd make an effort to follow. So here's a page containing such rules. Two suggested features of this page are: add your name to a list of the rule's "supporters" to get an idea of how strongly WikiPedians support a rule, and "[nameofrule]Debate" pages where we can talk about the merits of the proposed rule. (The latter will help keep this page nice and clean for those people who are mainly interested in the rules themselves.)

See also Naming conventions and RefactoringPolicy.

Rules are established according to the vigor of their enforcement.

---

Ignore all rules: If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business.

Supporters of this rule include (at least) Larry Sanger, WojPob, Jimbo Wales, AyeSpy, OprgaG, Invictus, and Koyaanis Qatsi, Pinkunicorn, sjc, mike dill, Taw, GWO

I now pleasantly ponder the paradox encountered by those who seek to rigorously follow this rule. --Jimbo Wales

Well, what about the related paradox that there is no Rule to decide that something is a Rule (and so should be ignored) --OprgaG

See IgnoreAllRulesDebate

---

Always leave something undone: Whenever you write a page, never finish it. Always leave something obvious to do: an uncompleted sentence, a question in the text (with a not-too-obscure answer someone can supply), wikied links that are of interest, requests for help from specific other Wikipedians, the beginning of a provokative argument that someone simply must fill in, etc. The purpose of this rule is to encourage others to keep working on the wiki.

Supporters of this rule include (at least) Larry Sanger, TimShell, Invictus, LinusTolke, Pinkunicorn,sjc, Janet Davis, mike dill, GWO

See AlwaysLeaveSomethingUndoneDebate

---

Explain jargon: It would be great if you would hyperlink all jargon (area-specific terminology that someone who might happen not to have had a college course in your subject might not understand) and explain it, and then explain all the jargon you use to explain that, until you've reached terms that ordinary educated people can understand.

Supporters of this rule include (at least) Larry Sanger, JerryMuelver, TimShell, Pinkunicorn, AyeSpy (fervently), Janet Davis, drj, GWO

See ExplainJargonDebate?

---

Avoid bias: Since this is an encyclopedia, after a fashion, it would be best if you represented your controversial views either (1) not at all, (2) on *Debate, *Talk, or *Discussion pages linked from the bottom of the page that you're tempted to grace, or (3) represented in a fact-stating fashion, i.e., which attributes a particular opinion to a particular person or group, rather than asserting the opinion as fact. (3) is strongly preferred. See the neutral point of view page for elaboration.

Supporters of this rule include (at least) Larry Sanger, JerryMuelver, Pinkunicorn, AyeSpy, Janet Davis, drj, mike dill, GWO

See AvoidBiasDebate

---

Integrate changes: When you make a change to some text, rather than appending the new text you'd like to see included at the bottom of the page, if you feel so motivated, then please place and edit your comments so that they flows seamlessly with the present text. Wikipedia articles in the end shouldn't be a series of disjoint comments about a subject, but unified, seamless, and ever-expanding expositions of the subject. (Rule introduced 29-Mar-2001)

Supporters of this rule include (at least) Larry Sanger, LinusTolke, Pinkunicorn (strongly), Koyaanis Qatsi, and sjc, Janet Davis, drj, mike dill (hard isn't it?), GWO

See Integrate changes debate

---

Delete patent nonsense: I propose that we delete PatentNonsense when we run across it, and then put it on the Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense page. The problem with this is that people disagree about what is PatentNonsense. So be careful, anyway. It's possible that this makes me a ["wiki reductionist."]

Supporters of this rule include (at least) Larry Sanger, TimShell, JerryMuelver, Pinkunicorn, Koyaanis Qatsi, Janet Davis, drj, Taw, GWO

See DeletePatentNonsenseDebate

---

Give the author a chance: I propose that we add comments at the bottom of a page instead of within the text, when we disagree with an author but to delete or re-write portions of his material would substantially alter its meaning. Then the author may make changes in his own style, and/or discussion of the material can be moved to a Talk Page. When one encounters obvious vandalism of another's work, he should feel free to Delete PatentNonsense.

Supporters of this rule include (at least) AyeSpy, TimShell, and JerryMuelver

See GiveTheAuthorAChanceDebate

---

Establish Context Supporters of this rule include (at least) Jimbo Wales, Larry Sanger, TimShell, LinusTolke, Janet Davis, drj strongly, Koyaanis Qatsi, GWO

---

Define and Describe Supporters include (at least) TimShell, Larry Sanger, and LinusTolke, drj, mike dill, Koyaanis Qatsi, GWO

---

Keep rules simple: If a rule cannot fit on this page, but is so long it has to be on a subpage, maybe it is too complicated to attract followers. --LA2, drj, mike dill

---

Build the web: Article?s in an encyclopedia are nodes in a hypertext. Don't just write the article, but also consider its place in the link web. Make uplinks to categories and contexts (Charles Darwin was a biologist, Sahara is a desert in Africa, enlightenment happened in the 18th century). Make sideways links to neighboring articles (for proton see also electron, Oregon borders on California). Don't build category trees too deep and narrow, or too flat. Write category directories early (top-down), so subcategory articles get useful names (church names are not good now). --LA2

Supporters of this rule include: LA2, sjc strongly, mike dill, GWO

---

Wikipedia is not a dictionary: Please don't just write a definition of a word and then stop; please don't just list the different senses that a word has. People who read an encyclopedia are not interested in words per se and their bare meanings, but in knowledge, information, facts about the items that the words identify. This doesn't mean we want only long articles, or that we don't want "stub" articles--it does mean, though, that "stub" articles should not consist just of a definition of a term.

Supporters of this rule include: Larry Sanger, Koyaanis Qatsi, sjc

---

Don't use external links where we'll want Wikipedia links: Don't put in links, [like this], to external URLs linking text that we will want articles on Wikipedia about. Put external links in a "links" section at the end of the article. For example, if I'm writing an article about Descartes and I know of a great article about Rationalism online, I won't link the word "Rationalism" to that article. I will put in a "Links" section, and I will simplify wikify the word "Rationalism" like this: Rationalism?. (Rule introduced June 29, 2001.)

Supporters of this rule include (at least): Larry Sanger, Janet Davis, sjc, GWO ([Wikipedia_commentary/When should I link externally]??)

---

Always list homepage of person or organization the article is about: of course if it exists, but it usually does nowadays

Supporters of this rule include (at least): Taw

---

Cite your sources: When external sources are consulted in the writing or verification of an article, provide a list of references (books and articles as well as web pages). Not only is this intellectually honest, but it will help readers to find more information. Do it especially if topic is controversial (like Genocide).

Supporters of this rule include (at least): Janet Davis, Larry Sanger, drj strongly, sjc, mike dill, Taw

Maybe we should establish the custom that this goes on a /Bibliography? page or some such?

See also: CiteYourSourcesDebate

---

Always fill Summary field: Even short or silly summary is better than no summary.

Supporters of this rule include (at least): Taw Geronimo Jones

---

• use color sparingly: You do not know how much color is presented on the recipients machine. Wikipedia is international. Colors have different meaning on different cultural backgrounds. Too many colors on one page make them look funny but unencyclopedic too.
  • use the color red only for the purpose to alert something, show up serious errors

Supporters of this rule include (at least): StefanRybo, drj strongly, sjc, GWO strongly

---

Highlighting

• do not highlight every instance of title item in text body The reader knows what article he or she is reading. Making every instance highlight with bold typing style is unnecessary.

Supporters of this rule include (at least): StefanRybo, drj, Larry Sanger, Koyaanis Qatsi, GWO

alternately: Bold the phrase or word that the article is about: When writing an article, put bold markers around the word the article describes. This makes it easier for the casual reader to identify the topic.

---

Heading lines

• use font size less to the size of pagetitle
• use font size only one step size bigger or lesser than the group of text it refers to. (Very big fonts only make sense if you have a detailed outline structure that need several levels of headers)

Supporters of this rule include (at least): StefanRybo; Larry Sanger, Koyaanis Qatsi

---

Links

• do link only one or more of instances of the same item. Do not link all instances of it
• group links together Furthermore do group such links if possible.
• do not overlink a text.

Supporters of this rule include (at least): StefanRybo

I'd support the first point here--I don't know what the second two mean --Larry Sanger, also Koyaanis Qatsi

---

Group things

• group things to about max seven items The human who is information processing has a capability to store about seven items in short term memory. Superlong lists, unending prosa and monster sentences appear uncomfortable to read therefore. Use all kinds of grouping instead. Use lists, sublists, paragraphing. And: use short sentences.

Supporters of this rule include (at least): StefanRybo

---

Balance

• balance parts of a page. Let there be a balance in weight of the parts of an article according to its length. (Content, Bibliography) It does not make sense to have a few sentences on a topic and a huge list of literature links. (This may be difficult to obey when an item is new.??)

Supporters of this rule include (at least): StefanRybo, sjc

---

Avoid statements that will date quickly: Phrases to avoid include "recently", "in modern times", "now considered", "is soon to become", "the sixties". Imagine someone is reading your words in 1000 years time. Will they make sense of it?

Supporters of this rule include (at least): drj, GWO ("now", "recently")

Opponents of this rule include (at least): sjc, GWO, ("the sixties". Other things will date much faster)

Avoid statements that will date quickly talk

---

Make only links relevant to the context: It is not useful to mark all possible words as hyperlinks; only mark words that are relevant to the context. In particular, when editing the text for a random topic, don't link to years and dates. (The article for a particular year or date is relevant to very few of the articles that links to it).

Supporters of this rule include (at least) HelgeStenstrom

Opponents of this rule include (at least): sjc, mike dill

See Make only links relevant to the context debate

---

Pay attention to spelling, particularly a new page name. It's not that big a deal, but why not get it right? Use free internet resources like http://www.m-w.com/dictionary or http://www.dictionary.com.

Supporters of this rule include (at least): 209.122.212.xxx; Larry Sanger, mike dill, drj (articles with good spelling and proper grammar will encourage further contributions of good content)

Opponents of this rule include: GWO (good content is king, bad spelling is easily amended by other wikipedians), Larry Sanger :-) (I agree with that too)