ਵਿਕੀਪੀਡੀਆ:Ownership of content

ਇਸ ਸਫ਼ੇ ਦਾ ਸਾਰ ਅੰਸ਼: Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are pages that serve to document the good practices that are accepted in the Wikipedia community. This policy describes how WP policies and guidelines should normally be developed and maintained.

Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practices, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia. There is no need to read any policy or guideline pages to start editing. The five pillars is a popular summary of the most pertinent principles.

Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-agreed practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense.

This policy page specifies the community standards related to the organization, life cycle, maintenance of, and adherence to policies, guidelines, and related pages.

Derivation

Wikipedia is operated by the not-for-profit Wikimedia Foundation, which reserves certain legal rights (see here for a list of its policies). See also Role of Jimmy Wales. Nevertheless, normally Wikipedia is a self-governing project run by its community. Its policies and guidelines are intended to reflect the consensus of the community.

Role

Shortcut

WP:POLICIES

Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally follow. All policy pages are in Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines and Category:Wikipedia policies. For summaries of key policies, see also List of policies.

Shortcut

WP:GUIDES

Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Guideline pages can be found in Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines and Category:Wikipedia guidelines. For summaries of key guidelines, see also List of guidelines.

Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors (such as a WikiProject) for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval. Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace. See Wikipedia:Essays.

Other pages that can be found in the Wikipedia: namespace include community process pages (which facilitate application of the policies and guidelines), historical pages,^[1] WikiProject pages, or help pages (also found in the Help namespace), community discussion pages and noticeboards. These pages are not policies or guidelines, although they may contain valuable advice or information.

Adherence

Use common sense when interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; there will be occasional exceptions to these rules. Conversely, those who violate the spirit of a rule may be reprimanded even if no rule has technically been broken.

Whether a policy or guideline is an accurate description of best practice is determined by the community through consensus.

On discussion pages and in edit summaries, shortcuts are often used to refer to policies and guidelines. For example, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:LIVE. Similar shortcuts are sometimes also used for other types of project page. A shortcut does not necessarily imply that the page linked to has policy or guideline status. Additionally, remember that the shortcut is not the policy; the plain-English definition of the page's title or shortcut may be importantly different from the linked page.

Enforcement

Enforcement on Wikipedia is similar to other social interactions. If an editor violates the community standards described in policies and guidelines, other editors can persuade the person to adhere to acceptable norms of conduct, over time resorting to more forceful means, such as administrator and steward actions. In the case of gross violations of community norms, they are likely to resort to more forceful means fairly rapidly. Going against the principles set out on these pages, particularly policy pages, is unlikely to prove acceptable, although it may be possible to convince fellow editors that an exception ought to be made. This means that individual editors (including you) enforce and apply policies and guidelines.

In cases where it is clear that a user is acting against policy (or against a guideline in a way that conflicts with policy), especially if they are doing so intentionally and persistently, that user may be temporarily or indefinitely blocked from editing by an administrator. In cases where the general dispute resolution procedure has been ineffective, the Arbitration Committee has the power to deal with highly disruptive or sensitive situations.

Content

Policy and guideline pages should:

Be clear. Avoid esoteric or quasi-legal terms and dumbed-down language. Be plain, direct, unambiguous, and specific. Avoid platitudes and generalities. Do not be afraid to tell editors directly that they must or should do something.
Be as concise as possible—but no more concise. Verbosity is not a reliable defense against misinterpretation. Omit needless words. Direct, concise writing may be more clear than rambling examples. Footnotes and links to other pages may be used for further clarification.
Emphasize the spirit of the rule. Expect editors to use common sense. If the spirit of the rule is clear, say no more.
Maintain scope and avoid redundancy. Clearly identify the purpose and scope early in the page, as many readers will just look at the beginning. Content should be within the scope of its policy. When the scope of one advice page overlaps with the scope of another, minimize redundancy. When one policy refers to another policy, it should do so briefly, clearly and explicitly.
Avoid overlinking. Links to policies, guidelines, essays, and articles should be used only when clarification or context is needed. Links to other advice pages may inadvertently or intentionally defer authority to them. Make it clear when links defer, and when they do not.
Not contradict each other. The community's view cannot simultaneously be "A" and "not A". When apparent discrepancies arise between pages, editors at all the affected pages should discuss how they can most accurately represent the community's current position, and correct all of the pages to reflect the community's view. This discussion should be on one talk page, with invitations to that page at the talk pages of the various affected pages; otherwise the corrections may still contradict each other.

Not part of the encyclopedia

Shortcut

WP:NOTPART

Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines about encyclopedic content. These standards require verifiability, neutrality, respect for living people, and more.

The policies, guidelines, and process pages themselves are not part of the encyclopedia proper. Consequently, they do not generally need to conform with the content standards. It is therefore not necessary to provide reliable sources to verify Wikipedia's administrative pages, or to phrase Wikipedia procedures or principles in a neutral manner, or to cite an outside authority in determining Wikipedia's editorial practices. Instead, the content of these pages is controlled by community-wide consensus, and the style should emphasize clarity, directness, and usefulness to other editors.^[2]

These pages do, however, need to comply with Wikipedia's legal and behavioral policies, as well as policies applicable to non-content pages. For example, editors may not violate copyrights anywhere on Wikipedia, and edit warring is prohibited everywhere, not merely in encyclopedia articles.

Life cycle

Shortcut

WP:PGLIFE

Many of the most well-established policies and guidelines have developed from principles which have been accepted as fundamental since Wikipedia's inception. Others developed as solutions to common problems and disruptive editing. Policy and guideline pages are seldom established without precedent,^[3] and always require strong community support. Policies and guidelines may be established through new proposals, promotion of existing essays or guidelines, and reorganization of existing policies and guidelines through splitting and merging.

Essays and information pages may be established by writing them and adding {{essay}}, {{Information page}}, or similar templates to the page.

Current policy and guideline proposals can be found in Category:Wikipedia proposals, and failed proposals can be found in Category:Wikipedia failed proposals. All editors are welcome to comment on these proposals.

Proposals

Shortcut

WP:PROPOSAL

Proposals for new guidelines and policies require discussion and a high level of consensus from the entire community for promotion to guideline or policy. Adding the {{policy}} template to a page without the required consensus does not mean that the page is policy, even if the page summarizes or copies policy. Most commonly, a new policy or guideline documents existing practices, rather than proposing a change to what experienced editors already choose to do.

Good practice for proposals

The first step is to write the best initial proposal that you can. Authors can request early-stage feedback at Wikipedia's village pump for idea incubation and from any relevant WikiProjects. Amendments to a proposal can be discussed on its talk page. It is crucial to improve a proposal in response to feedback received from outside editors. Consensus is built through a process of listening to and discussing the proposal with many other editors.

Once you think that the initial proposal is well-written, and the issues involved have been sufficiently discussed among early participants to create a proposal that has a solid chance of success with the broader community, start an RfC for your policy or guideline proposal in a new section on the talk page, and include the {{rfc|policy}} tag along with a brief, time-stamped explanation of the proposal. After that, you can provide, if you want, a detailed explanation of what the page does and why you think it should be a policy or guideline. The {{proposed}} template should be placed at the top of the proposed page; this tag will get the proposal properly categorized.

The RfC should typically be announced at the policy and/or proposals village pumps, and you should notify other potentially interested groups. If your proposal affects a specific content area, then related WikiProjects can be found at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. For example, proposed style guidelines should be announced at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manual of Style, which is the WikiProject most closely related to style issues. If your proposal relates to an existing policy or guideline, then leave a note on the talk page of the related policy or guideline. For example, proposed style guidelines should be announced at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, which is the main guideline for style issues. Try to identify the subcategory of guideline or policy (see {{subcat guideline}}). Proposals involving contentious subjects or wide-ranging effects should normally be listed on Wikipedia:Centralized discussion for the duration of the RfC. Rarely, a particularly important proposal may be advertised via a watchlist notice; sitenotices (which are displayed to all readers, not just to active editors) are not used for proposals. RfCs for policy and guideline proposals are normally left open for at least one week, and sometimes as long as a couple of months.

To avoid later complaints about insufficient notice, it may be helpful to provide a complete list of the groups or pages that you used to advertise the proposal on the talk page.

Editors should respond to proposals in a way that helps identify and build consensus. Explain your thoughts, ask questions, and raise concerns; all views are welcome. Many editors begin their response with bold-font 'vote' of support or opposition to make evaluation easier. Editors should sign their responses.

Ending a discussion requires careful evaluation of the responses to determine the consensus. This does not require the intervention of an administrator, but may be done by any sufficiently experienced independent editor (an impartial editor not involved in the discussion) who is familiar with all of the policies and guidelines that relate to the proposal. The following points are important in evaluating consensus:

Consensus for guidelines and policies should be reasonably strong, though unanimity is not required.
There must be exposure to the community beyond just the authors of the proposal.
Consider the strength of the proposed page:
- Have major concerns raised during the community discussion been addressed?
- Does the proposal contradict any existing guidelines or policies?
- Can the new proposed guideline or policy be merged into an existing one?
- Is the proposed guideline or policy, or some part of it, redundant with an existing guideline or policy?
A proposal's status is not determined by counting votes. Polling is not a substitute for discussion, nor is a poll's numerical outcome tantamount to consensus.
If consensus for broad community support has not developed after a reasonable time period, the proposal is considered failed. If consensus is neutral or unclear on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal has likewise failed.

Discussion may be closed as either Promote, No consensus, or Failed. Please leave a short note about the conclusion that you came to. Update the proposal to reflect the consensus. Remove the {{Proposed}} template and replace it with another appropriate template, such as {{Subcat guideline}}, {{Policy}}, {{Essay}}, {{Wikipedia how to}}, {{Information page}}, or {{Failed}}.

If a proposal fails, the failed tag should not usually be removed. It is typically more productive to rewrite a failed proposal from scratch to address problems than to re-nominate a proposal.

Demotion

Shortcut

WP:HISTORICAL

An accepted policy or guideline may become obsolete because of changes in editorial practice or community standards, may become redundant because of improvements to other pages, or may represent unwarranted instruction creep. In such situations editors may propose that a policy be demoted to a guideline, or that a policy or guideline be demoted to a supplement, informational page, essay or historical page. In certain cases, a policy or guideline may be superseded, in which case the old page is marked and retained for historical interest.

The process for demotion is similar to promotion. A talk page discussion is typically started, the {{Under discussion|status|Discussion Title}} template is added to the top of the project page, and community input is solicited. After a reasonable amount of time for comments, an independent editor should close the discussion and evaluate the consensus.

The {{Disputed tag}} template is typically used instead of {{Under discussion}} for claims that a page was recently assigned guideline or policy status without proper or sufficient consensus being established.

Essays, information pages, and other informal pages that are only supported by a small minority of the community are typically moved to the primary author's userspace. These discussions typically happen on the page's talk page, sometimes with an RfC, but they have at times also been conducted at Miscellany for deletion (despite the MFD guidelines explicitly discouraging this practice). Other pages are retained for historical reference and are marked as such.

Content changes

Shortcut

WP:PGCHANGE

Policies and guidelines can be edited like any other Wikipedia page. It is not strictly necessary to discuss changes or to obtain written documentation of a consensus in advance. However, because policies and guidelines are sensitive and complex, users should take care over any edits, to be sure they are faithfully reflecting the community's view and to be sure that they are not accidentally introducing new sources of error or confusion.

Because Wikipedia practice exists in the community through consensus, editing a policy/guideline/essay page does not in itself imply an immediate change to accepted practice. It is, naturally, bad practice to recommend a rejected practice on a policy or guideline page. To update best practices, you may change the practice directly (you are permitted to deviate from practice for the purposes of such change) and/or set about building widespread consensus for your change or implementation through discussion. When such a change is accepted, you can then edit the page to reflect the new situation.

Substantive changes

Shortcuts

Talk first. Talk page discussion typically precedes substantive changes to policy. Changes may be made if there are no objections, or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change. Minor edits to improve formatting, grammar, and clarity may be made at any time.

If the result of discussions is unclear, then it should be evaluated by an administrator or other independent editor, as in the proposal process. Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general; announcements similar to the proposal process may be appropriate.

If wider input on a proposed change is desired, it may be useful to mark the section with the tag {{Under discussion|section|talk=Discussion Title}}. (If the proposal relates to a single statement, use {{Under discussion-inline|Discussion Title}} immediately after it.)

Or be bold. The older but still valid method is to boldly edit the page. Bold editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards. Although most editors find advance discussion, especially at well-developed pages, very helpful, directly editing these pages is permitted by Wikipedia's policies. Consequently, you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it and, if one hasn't already been started, open a discussion to identify the community's current views.

Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system, especially if you do not disclose your involvement in the argument when making the edits.

Conflicts between advice pages

Shortcut

WP:POLCON

If policy and/or guideline pages directly conflict, one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict so that all of the conflicting pages accurately reflect the community's actual practices and best advice. As a temporary measure during that resolution process, if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume that the policy takes precedence.

More commonly, advice pages do not directly conflict, but provide multiple options. For example, WP:Identifying reliable sources says that newspaper articles are generally considered to be reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) recommends against newspaper articles for certain technical purposes. Editors must use their best judgment to decide which advice is most appropriate and relevant to the specific situation at hand.

Naming

The page names of policies and guidelines usually do not include the words "policy" or "guideline", unless required to distinguish the page from another.

Notes

↑ Many historical essays can still be found within Meta's essay category. The Wikimedia Foundation's Meta-wiki was envisioned as the original place for editors to comment on and discuss Wikipedia, although the "Wikipedia" project space has since taken over most of that role.
↑ There is no prohibition against including appropriate external references to support and explain our policies or guidelines, but such sources are not authoritative with respect to Wikipedia, and should only be used to reinforce consensus.
↑ Office declarations may establish unprecedented policies to avoid copyright, legal, or technical problems, though such declarations are rare.

Types of ownership

There are two common types of ownership conflicts between users: those involving one editor and those involving multiple editors.

While ownership behavior is often understood to involve the original creator of the article, it can also involve other editors who have conflicting interests in promoting or opposing the subject, hijacking the original article's direction and emphasis, changing the title to reflect such changes, or, if unsuccessful, actually deleting the article as a form of revenge.

Single-editor ownership

In many cases (but not all), single editors engaged in ownership conflicts are also primary contributors to the article, so keep in mind that such editors may be experts in their field or have a genuine interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy. An editor who appears to assume ownership of an article should be approached on the article's talk page with a descriptive header informing readers about the topic. Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of any editor. If the behaviour continues, the issue may require dispute resolution, but it is important to make a good attempt to communicate with the editor on the article talk page before proceeding to mediation, etc. Editors of this type often welcome discussion, so a simple exchange of ideas will usually solve the problem of ownership.

If you find that the editor continues to be hostile, makes personal attacks, or wages edit wars, try to ignore disruptive editing by discussing the topic on the talk page. You may need to ignore attacks made in response to a query. If ownership persists after a discussion, dispute resolution may be necessary, but at least you will be on record as having attempted to solve the problem directly with the editor. It is important to make a good attempt to communicate with the editor on the article talk page before proceeding to mediation, etc. It may also be wise to allow them to withdraw from the conversation and return when they are ready.

Multiple-editor ownership

The involvement of multiple editors, each defending the ownership of the other, can be highly complex. The simplest scenario usually comprises a dominant editor who is defended by other editors, reinforcing the former's ownership. This is often informally described as a tag team, and can be frustrating to both new and seasoned editors. As before, address the topic and not the actions of the editors. If this fails, proceed to dispute resolution, but it is important to communicate on the talk page and attempt to resolve the dispute yourself before escalating the conflict resolution process.

Ownership and stewardship

Shortcuts

Do not confuse stewardship with ownership. Stewardship of an article (or group of related articles) may be the result of a sincere personal interest in the subject matter, an interest in a cause or organization related to the article's subject matter, or the editor could actually be an expert in the subject matter and provide credible insights for locating reliable sources. If this is the case, the editor(s) in question is/are no less responsible for adhering to core policies like WP:Neutral point of view, and for citing reliable sources. But unless an editor exhibits behaviour associated with ownership, it's best to assume good faith on their part.

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert edits that they find detrimental in order, they believe, to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not necessarily constitute ownership, and will normally be supported by an explanatory edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit.

Where disagreement persists after such a reversion, the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership. In this way, the specifics of any change can be discussed with the editors who are familiar with the article, who are likewise expected to discuss the content civilly. This is in keeping with the BRD cycle which stands for bold, revert, discuss. Though not an official guideline or policy, it is a dependable method for conflict resolution.

Featured articles

While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ) are open for editing like any other, they have gone through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high-quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and compliance with the Featured Article criteria. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership. The {{article history}} template on the talk page will contain a link to the Featured article candidacy and any subsequent Featured article reviews.

Good articles (identified by a green circle in the upper-right corner ) have gone through a lighter peer review process than Featured articles, generally by two editors, to check basic requirements of prose, factual accuracy and scope. All editors are welcome to make changes and improve the article, but some discussion of significant changes is recommended, and the editors participating in the review may be able to offer advice and work with you on improving the article further.

User pages

Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. Nevertheless, they are not personal homepages, and are not owned by the user. They are part of Wikipedia and must serve its primary purposes; in particular, user talk pages make communication and collaboration among editors easier. These functions must not be hampered by ownership behavior.

While other users and bots will more commonly edit your user talk page, they have rights to edit other pages in your user space as well. Usually others will not edit your user page itself, other than to address significant concerns (rarely) or to do routine housekeeping, such as handling project-related tags, disambiguating links to pages that have been moved, removing the page from categories meant for articles, or removing obvious vandalism and/or BLP violations.

Resolving ownership issues

While it may be easy to identify ownership issues, it is far more difficult to resolve the conflict to the satisfaction of the editors involved. It is always helpful to remember to stay calm, assume good faith, and remain civil. Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack. Address the editor in a civil manner, with the same amount of respect you would expect. Often, editors accused of ownership may not even realize it, so it is important to assume good faith. Some editors may think they are protecting the article from vandalism, and may respond to any changes with hostility. Others may try to promote their own point of view, failing to recognize the importance of the neutrality policy.

Examples of ownership behaviour

If an editor consistently demonstrates behavior similar to shown in the following examples in a certain article talk page, then he/she probably has issues with page ownership.

Shortcut

WP:OWNBEHAVIOR

Actions

An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article. (This does not include the routine maintenance of article consistency, such as preservation of established spelling or citation styles.)
An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.
An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.
An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the article altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the subject necessary to edit the article (see the first two comments in the Statements section just below).
Sometimes a newcomer puts his or her name into the article as the author. Since no one "owns" any Wikipedia content, content should not be signed. The exact contributions of all editors are seen with their names on the page history. On the other hand, when adding comments, questions, or votes to talk pages, it is good to "own" your text, so the best practice is to sign it by suffixing your entry with "~~~~".

Statements

While the following statements, seen in isolation from any context or other statements, do not indicate ownership behavior or motivation, they may be part of a pattern which indicates ownership behavior. When they occur along with some form of dogged insistence and relentless pushing, without good policy back up, and often including edit warring, they may be an expression of ownership behavior.

"Are you qualified to edit this article?"
"You obviously have no hands-on experience with this topic."
"I created/wrote the majority of this article." (implying some kind of right or status exists because of that).
"I saw your edit to this article, and I appreciate your help; however, I am an expert on the subject, and for the accuracy of this article, I have reverted your edit. If you have any suggestions, please put them in the talk page and I will review them."
"If Bob disagrees with your decision that a given subject is notable, then it's clearly non-notable, isn't it?" (multiple-editor ownership)
"Please clear this with WikiProject X first."
"Undo peanut-gallery editor."
"I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all."
"Do not make such changes or comments until you have significantly edited or written work of this quality."
"Unless it is wrong or has errors, please do not make such changes or comments without my/his/her/our approval."
"You didn't have consensus because I was offline."
"I haven't had time to confirm what you wrote. I have other obligations besides Wikipedia, you know."
"I don't own that book, so I can't confirm your source."
"I have spent hours editing this article. You are vandalizing my work!"
"You hadn't edited the article or talk page previously as a history search shows."
"I left Wikipedia for a good part of the year because the development and promotional/advocacy tone of this article so disgusted me."

External links

AuthorshipModel – a discussion of authorship of Wiki pages on the CommunityWiki (retrieved December 29 2014)

Related information

[1] Many historical essays can still be found within Meta's essay category. The Wikimedia Foundation's Meta-wiki was envisioned as the original place for editors to comment on and discuss Wikipedia, although the "Wikipedia" project space has since taken over most of that role.

[2] There is no prohibition against including appropriate external references to support and explain our policies or guidelines, but such sources are not authoritative with respect to Wikipedia, and should only be used to reinforce consensus.

[3] Office declarations may establish unprecedented policies to avoid copyright, legal, or technical problems, though such declarations are rare.

[1]

[2]

[3]

v t e Wikipedia key policies and guidelines
Overview	Five pillars Policies and guidelines List of policies and guidelines List of policies List of guidelines
Project-wide principles	Consensus Dispute resolution Editing policy Ignore all rules What Wikipedia is not Wikipedia is not a dictionary
Core content policies	Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability
Other content policies	Article titles Autobiography Biographies of living persons Image use
Content guidelines	Citing sources Do not create hoaxes Do not include copies of primary sources External links Fringe theories Identifying reliable sources Notability Patent nonsense
Behavioural policies	Child protection Civility Courtesy vanishing Edit warring Harassment No legal threats No personal attacks Ownership of content Sock puppetry
Behavioural guidelines	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
Editing guidelines	Article size Be bold Disambiguation Hatnotes Set index articles Signatures Subpages Talk page guidelines User pages Vandalism WikiProjects
Style conventions	Manual of Style Contents Accessibility Understandability Dates and numbers Images Layout Lead section Linking Lists
Classification guidelines	Categories, lists, and navigation templates Categorization Template namespace
Deletion policies	Attack page Criteria for speedy deletion Deletion policy Oversight Proposed deletion Proposed deletion (BLP) Proposed deletion (books) Revision deletion
Wikimedia Foundation	List of policies Licensing and copyright Privacy policy Values
Book Category: Policies / Guidelines

v t e Wikipedia key policies and guidelines
Overview	Five pillars Policies and guidelines List of policies and guidelines List of policies List of guidelines
Project-wide principles	Consensus Dispute resolution Editing policy Ignore all rules What Wikipedia is not Wikipedia is not a dictionary
Core content policies	Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability
Other content policies	Article titles Autobiography Biographies of living persons Image use
Content guidelines	Citing sources Do not create hoaxes Do not include copies of primary sources External links Fringe theories Identifying reliable sources Notability Patent nonsense
Behavioural policies	Child protection Civility Courtesy vanishing Edit warring Harassment No legal threats No personal attacks Ownership of content Sock puppetry
Behavioural guidelines	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
Editing guidelines	Article size Be bold Disambiguation Hatnotes Set index articles Signatures Subpages Talk page guidelines User pages Vandalism WikiProjects
Style conventions	Manual of Style Contents Accessibility Understandability Dates and numbers Images Layout Lead section Linking Lists
Classification guidelines	Categories, lists, and navigation templates Categorization Template namespace
Deletion policies	Attack page Criteria for speedy deletion Deletion policy Oversight Proposed deletion Proposed deletion (BLP) Proposed deletion (books) Revision deletion
Wikimedia Foundation	List of policies Licensing and copyright Privacy policy Values
Book Category: Policies / Guidelines

ਵਿਕੀਪੀਡੀਆ:Ownership of content

ਵਿਸ਼ਾ ਸੂਚੀ

Derivation

Role

Adherence

Enforcement

Content

Not part of the encyclopedia