Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. If in doubt, consider discussing changes on the talk page. |
 |
This page in a nutshell: You do not own articles. If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and within reason you should not prevent them from doing so. |
| Wikipedia policy |
|---|
| Behavioral standards |
| Bots Civility Editing policy No legal threats No personal attacks Ownership of articles Sock puppetry Three-revert rule User accounts Vandalism |
Some contributors feel very possessive about material (be it categories, templates, articles, images, essays, or portals) that they have contributed to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all others. It is one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. Maybe you really are an expert or you just care about the topic. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you may be overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.
You cannot stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you have posted it to Wikipedia. As each edit page clearly states:
- If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.
Also:
- If you do not want your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) challenged or developed by others, then do not submit them.
If you find yourself warring with other contributors over deletions, reversions, and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later. Or, if someone else is claiming "ownership" of a page, you can bring it up on the associated talk page, appeal to other contributors, or consider the dispute resolution process.
Since working on an article does not entitle you to "own" the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her—regardless of whether or not he or she "owns" the article. (See also Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.)
Contents |
[edit] Do not sign what you do not own
Since no one "owns" any part of any article, if you create or edit an article, you should not sign it. As for credit, the exact contributions of all editors are seen with their names on the page history. This is the Wikipedia equivalent of a byline.
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 "~~~~"—no spaces, no brackets, no quotes, nothing—just the four tildes anywhere in 'wikitext' will work. On existing pages, you can get an idea of where it is appropriate to add your signature by noting what previous contributors have done. For more editing dos and don'ts, see the brief Tutorial.
[edit] Ownership examples
[edit] Events
- Minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording are disputed on a daily basis by one editor. The editor may state or imply that changes must be reviewed by him/her before they can be added to the article. (This does not include egregious formatting errors.)
- Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor for an extended period of time to protect a certain version, stable or not. (This does not include removing vandalism.)
- 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 revert 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 article necessary to edit it.
[edit] Comments
- "Are you qualified to edit this article?"
- "Revert. You're editing too much. Can you slow down?"
- "You obviously have no hands-on experience with widgets."
- "Do not make such changes or comments until you have significantly edited or written work of this quality."
- "I/he/we created this article."
- "Hi! I notice that you are a new contributor to the widget article. Thank you sooo much for your ideas. It is wonderful to know that so many novices like yourself have taken an interest to widgets. Anyhow, I have made some small amendments to your changes. You might notice that my tweaking of your wording has, in effect, reverted the article back to what it was before, but do not feel disheartened. Please feel free to make any other changes to my article if you ever think of anything worthwhile. Toodles! :)"
[edit] Types of ownership
There are two common types of ownership conflicts between users: those involving primary editors and those involving multiple editors. Another type of ownership dispute that involves admins is discussed at Wikipedia:Wheel war.
[edit] Primary editors
Primary editors, that is to say, one editor who takes ownership of an article, should be approached on the article talk page with a descriptive header that informs readers about the topic. Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of editors. If necessary, ignore attacks made in response to a query. If the behavior 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.
In many cases (but not all), primary 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 and/or have a genuine interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy. 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 revert wars, try to ignore disruptive behavior by discussing the topic on the talk page. If the ownership behavior persists after a discussion, dispute resolution may be necessary, but at least one will be on record as having attempted to solve the problem directly with the primary editor. A common response by a primary editor confronted with ownership behavior is to threaten to leave the project. Since the ownership policy encourages such editors to take a break, it may be wise to let them leave and return when they are ready.
[edit] Multiple editors
The involvement of multiple editors, each defending the ownership of the other, can be highly complex. The simplest scenario usually comprises a dominant primary 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.
[edit] 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 NPOV policy.
[edit] Consequences of ignoring this policy
- Further information: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
-
Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences
If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is not deleted just because somebody doesn't like it. Any editor may add material to or remove material from the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. More than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors.In addition, if your article is found not to be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies, and if you edit war to try and obtain a version of your choosing you may have your editing access removed, perhaps permanently.
Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about. [1]
[edit] See also
[edit] Essays
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[edit] External links
- AuthorshipModel - a discussion of authorship of Wiki pages on the CommunityWiki
