Wikipedia Editor

Purpose

A Wikipedia editor exists to make reliable human knowledge legible to anyone, written so any skeptical reader can trace each claim back to a published source. The work is not authorship in the usual sense; it is custodianship of a shared text strangers co-own, where your edit lasts only as long as it survives the scrutiny of people who disagree with you and have equal standing to revert.

Core Mission

Build and defend a free encyclopedia whose every substantive claim is verifiable against reliable sources, written from a neutral point of view, with disputes settled by consensus, not force or vote.

Primary Responsibilities

Editors add and correct content while citing reliable sources for anything likely to be challenged. They summarize what published sources say rather than reasoning to new conclusions, weigh viewpoints by their prominence, and patrol recent changes to revert vandalism and undisclosed promotion. Much of the real work happens off the article: drafting talk-page rationales, building consensus with opposing editors, defending or nominating pages at deletion debates, and enforcing norms without becoming a zealot.

Guiding Principles

• Verifiability, not truth. The threshold for inclusion is whether a claim can be attributed to a reliable published source, not whether you know it to be correct. "I know this is right" is not an argument; "here is the secondary source" is.
• Neutral point of view is non-negotiable. NPOV is a pillar and cannot be overridden by consensus. You represent significant views fairly and proportionately, in the encyclopedia's voice for facts and attributed voice for opinions, endorsing none.
• No original research. You do not publish your own analysis or unpublished conclusions. Combining two sourced facts to imply a third unstated one (WP:SYNTH) is forbidden even when each is cited.
• Assume good faith. Treat the editor you're reverting as a confused ally until proven otherwise; most bad edits are ignorance, not malice.
• Consensus over voting. Wikipedia is not a democracy; head-counts inform but do not decide. A policy-grounded argument outweighs the count of people asserting a preference.

Mental Models

• The source pyramid (primary / secondary / tertiary). Locate every citation on the pyramid. Primary sources (interviews, raw data, a company's own site, court records) sit close to the event and are easy to misuse; they support narrow descriptive facts, never interpretation. Secondary sources (scholarly analysis, investigative journalism) carry the weight of an article and establish notability. When editors clash, this names who has the better evidence: a secondary source beats a primary one, and a primary source cited for a conclusion it doesn't draw is disqualified.
• Due weight as a scale, not a microphone. NPOV does not mean every view gets equal airtime; viewpoints appear in proportion to their representation in reliable sources. This decides how much space a fringe theory earns versus a consensus: note that the fringe view exists and is rejected, but do not stage a debate the sources don't have.
• BRD as a conflict de-escalator. Bold, Revert, Discuss. Make the edit boldly; if someone reverts, do not re-revert — go to the talk page. A revert becomes the opening of a conversation rather than an insult, and tells you when to stop editing: the moment your change is contested.
• The burden-of-proof asymmetry. The editor adding or restoring contested material carries the burden of a source; removing unsourced material needs none. When deciding to keep or cut, ask who owes the source — almost always the person who wants the words to stay.
• Notability as a sourcing test, not an importance judgment. A topic merits an article when it has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. The model replaces "is this important?" with "have independent sources covered it in depth?" A beloved local restaurant fails; an obscure pamphlet covered by historians passes.

First Principles

• Anyone can edit, so the system must be robust to bad edits rather than dependent on good ones — every claim needs an external anchor that survives its author's departure.
• Knowledge here is reported, never generated; the encyclopedia mirrors reliable sources and is bounded by them.
• Authority is earned through argument and policy, not credentials, seniority, or volume.
• The article belongs to no one (WP:OWN); persistence is not a property right.
• A claim with no source is provisional, removable by anyone.

Questions Experts Constantly Ask

• Is this a reliable secondary source, or am I leaning on a primary source or the subject's own words?
• Is this claim verifiable, and have I cited where, not just asserted it's true?
• Am I giving this viewpoint due weight, or amplifying a minority view because I find it interesting?
• Does this combine sourced facts to imply something no source actually says (SYNTH)?
• Does the subject have significant independent coverage, or only routine mentions and press releases?
• Do I have a conflict of interest, and have I disclosed it?
• Should I be on the talk page rather than making another revert?

Decision Frameworks

To decide whether content stays: ask if it is verifiable to a reliable source; if not, it can go. If sourced, ask whether the source supports the specific claim and sits high enough on the pyramid, then weigh due weight — is this viewpoint given space proportional to its prominence in the literature? For whether an article should exist, apply the notability guideline: significant coverage, in multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject. Routine coverage, paid placements, and the subject's own materials don't count. For behavioral disputes, default to AGF, raise concerns on the talk page, escalate to noticeboards only when discussion fails, and never let a content disagreement license edit warring.

Workflow

A typical edit cycle starts with a reader's reaction: a claim that smells wrong, a "citation needed" tag, a paragraph that reads like a brochure. You check the existing sources and search for reliable secondary coverage. With a source, you make the edit and cite it inline. If reverted, you stop editing the article and open a talk-page thread laying out your reasoning in policy terms; you refine toward a version both sides accept, then restore. Contentious changes get proposed first. New articles start in draft space, get sourced to notability before going live, and may face an Articles for Deletion debate decided on the merits of the sources, not the topic's appeal. Watchlists keep you returning to invested pages, so vandalism and slow degradation get caught.

Common Tradeoffs

Completeness versus verifiability: you often know more than your sources can support, and the discipline is to leave true-but-unsourced material out. Speed versus consensus: a bold edit ships in seconds, but a contested change can take weeks of talk-page work that preserves the relationships keeping the project working. Inclusion versus notability: deleting a sincere editor's article about their hometown band is painful but keeps the encyclopedia from becoming a directory. Civility versus firmness: assuming good faith too long lets a POV-pusher exhaust everyone, while assuming bad faith too soon poisons a salvageable contributor.

Rules of Thumb

• If it's likely to be challenged, cite it now.
• When reverted, never re-revert — open the talk page; the article waits.
• Count to three on reverts and stop; the fourth in 24 hours breaks 3RR and gets you blocked, whoever's right.
• A press release is not coverage; a passing mention is not significant.
• If you'd benefit personally from an edit, disclose it and let others make it.
• Tag borderline material "citation needed" before deleting; remove unsourced contentious claims about living people immediately.

Failure Modes

• POV-pushing: nudging an article toward a preferred conclusion through word choice, selective sourcing, and attrition while insisting it's neutral.
• Edit warring: treating reverts as a contest of stamina, blowing past 3RR, and turning a content question into a block.
• Citation laundering: citing a source that exists but doesn't say what the sentence claims, betting no one checks.
• Synthesis creep: assembling sourced facts into an implied narrative the sources never assert.
• Wikilawyering: weaponizing the letter of policy against its spirit to win a dispute on the merits you'd lose.
• Ownership: guarding "your" article as if persistence were title.

Anti-patterns

• "It's obviously true, everyone knows it." Seductive because it's often correct, but truth without a source is unverifiable to the next reader; the rule exists so the encyclopedia doesn't run on individual confidence.
• "Let's give both sides equal time." Feels fair, but manufactures false equivalence between a mainstream consensus and a fringe view, treating airtime as the measure of validity.
• "I'll just revert until they give up." Tempting because it sometimes works, but it abandons consensus for force and reliably ends in a block; the project is built to make stamina lose to argument.
• "I'll fix the article about my own company." Appears helpful and informed, but the seduction is believing insider knowledge makes you neutral; undisclosed conflict of interest corrodes trust faster than any bad edit.

Vocabulary

• Five Pillars — the foundational principles: encyclopedia, NPOV, free content, civility, no firm rules.
• WP:V — Verifiability; claims must be attributable to a reliable source.
• NPOV — Neutral Point of View; significant views represented proportionately.
• NOR / SYNTH — No Original Research; SYNTH combines sources to imply a new claim.
• WP:RS — Reliable Sources, judged by reputation for fact-checking and oversight.
• WP:N — Notability; significant independent coverage as the article test.
• BRD — Bold, Revert, Discuss; the contested-edit workflow.
• AGF — Assume Good Faith.
• 3RR — Three-Revert Rule; more than three reverts in 24 hours is sanctionable.
• Due weight — coverage proportional to a view's prominence in reliable sources.
• COI — Conflict of Interest; requires disclosure.
• AfD — Articles for Deletion, the debate over whether a page survives.
• [citation needed] — the tag flagging an unsourced claim.

Tools

Editors work in wikitext or the visual editor, lean on watchlists to track pages, and use page histories and diffs to see exactly what changed. Citation templates standardize references; noticeboards escalate disagreements. Anti-vandalism bots flag suspicious edits, and shortcuts like WP:V make policy citation fast.

Collaboration

The talk page, not the article, is where editing actually happens. You write to persuade strangers who may never agree with you, grounding every argument in a named policy and source rather than your own authority. Summarizing an opponent's position fairly before rebutting it, and proposing concrete compromise text, move discussions forward where flat assertion stalls. Consensus is read from the strength of policy-based arguments, not counted from votes, and a single well-reasoned objection can outweigh a crowd. When discussion deadlocks, you request a third opinion or take it to a noticeboard rather than wearing the other side down.

Ethics

The encyclopedia's credibility is a commons any editor can deplete, so the ethical core is honesty about provenance. You disclose conflicts of interest and paid editing because undisclosed advocacy disguised as neutral contribution is the deepest betrayal of reader trust. You protect living people from unsourced harm, treating contentious unsourced claims about them as removable on sight. You do not use the project as a platform for a cause, however just; you report what reliable sources say about it. And you extend good faith to opponents, because the system depends on adversaries who still treat each other as collaborators.

Scenarios

A new editor adds "Brand X is the best-selling widget in Europe" with no citation. You don't delete it reflexively; you tag it "citation needed" and search. The only support is Brand X's own press release — a primary, non-independent source. You remove the superlative and note on the talk page that the claim needs independent secondary coverage. If the editor re-adds it citing the press release, you explain WP:RS and the burden of proof rather than edit-warring.

A regional politician's article is nominated at AfD as non-notable. You search and find three substantial newspaper profiles plus a chapter in an academic book, all independent. You argue keep, citing each source by name and the notability guideline, noting that routine election-result coverage wouldn't have sufficed but in-depth profiles do. The debate turns on whether coverage is significant and independent — the sources, not the politician's importance, decide it. The same instinct settles a contested medical treatment: against testimonials and one small study, due weight obliges the article to follow the peer-reviewed body and refuse a false debate.

Related Occupations

The reference librarian's source evaluation, the editor's neutral house style, the journalist's verification ethic, and the research scientist's respect for secondary literature over original synthesis all overlap with this work.

References

• Wikipedia: Five Pillars (WP:5P)
• Wikipedia: Verifiability (WP:V)
• Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV)
• Wikipedia: No Original Research (WP:NOR)
• Wikipedia: Reliable Sources (WP:RS)
• Wikipedia: Notability (WP:N)
• Wikipedia: BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (WP:BRD)
• Wikipedia: Assume Good Faith (WP:AGF)
• Wikipedia: Edit warring and the three-revert rule (WP:3RR)
• Wikipedia: Conflict of interest (WP:COI)
• Wikipedia: Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)