Editing tips for academics new to Wikipedia (working draft)

This essay is a work in progress intended for folks with an academic background in the humanities who want to contribute to Wikipedia. Its aim is just to help mitigate against pointless disputes that sometimes result from the very different cultures of academia and Wikipedia.

On multiple occasions, I've witnessed obviously knowledgeable editors show up—only to disappear in exasperation over disputes about sourcing or other norms where Wikipedia is at odds with what is common sense to many subject-matter experts. (This would include, for several years, myself.)

Suggestions are most welcome on the talk page! I have not written a Wikipedia essay before, and I expect to keep it in my userspace for development for some while. Anything that you've experienced or observed that might improve the essay would be appreciated. Cheers, Patrick (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Avoid primary sources

The biggest difference between normal academic writing (i.e., a term paper, a journal article) is the relative weight accorded to primary versus secondary sources. Wikipedia actively discourages reliance upon primary sources, and edits based only upon primary sources are considered to be impermissible original research. This ban on "WP:OR" is a core policy that other editors will actively defend, and your position will not prevail if you attempt to argue on such terms.

This might appear to be altogether backward, especially for fields such as philosophy where disagreement among experts is the norm. If you decide to hang around, however, you will see the rationale—even if you do not ultimately agree with it: because anyone can edit Wikipedia, editors with the best of intentions sometimes wildly misinterpret primary sources. Requiring that at least someone with institutionally recognized expertise endorses an interpretation is the best way Wikipedia has found to at least somewhat manage the chaos.

Also, it's generally very easy to provide high-quality sources (i.e., something peer-reviewed or published by an academic press) to support any true claims or legitimate viewpoints that belong in an encyclopedia.

Edits without supporting references or edits supported only by primary sources can be, and frequently are, deleted without explanation. Claims supported by strong secondary sources, however, are generally defended by other editors demanding a rationale supported by stronger secondary sources. So, even if you think prioritizing secondary sources is a bad policy, you should probably either follow it or devote your time and knowledge someplace else where it will not be wasted.

Do not lean on your credentials

Bringing up your academic credentials in a content dispute will only hurt you. Demonstrate your expertise by demonstrating your command of the secondary literature. It's fine to include information about your background on your userpage, but I would suggest not doing so until you have an established track-record of productive contributions.

Exercise great care in editing articles about other scholars that you know. Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy is unusually expansive. If at all in doubt, disclose your connection on the article talk page before editing. The same applies to citing your own work, which is rarely a good idea.

Under no circumstances attempt to create an article about yourself. This is insanely easy to spot and will likely result in your being permanently blocked from editing.

General etiquette

If you plan to make major changes to an article, describe your plans on the talk page before beginning. Some articles have stewards who might wish to discuss proposed changes in nearly real time. There are other articles, however, that any observers will be happy to give you the space to rewrite entirely for months on end. (Even in the latter case, however, it is still best practice to document changes on the talk page and attempt to solicit input from other editors.)

You should likewise make an effort to clear in advance any non-trivial edits to the lead (sic) of the article, which is supposed to be a synopsis of of the body of the article as it currently exists. This is all that many editors care about, and you will earn no good will by altering it unilaterally.

The previous two points notwithstanding, the general Wikipedia editing procedure goes by the acronym WP:BRD: Boldly edit the article, if Reverted by another editor, go to the talk page to Discuss. With just a few odd exceptions, you do not need advance approval to change anything.

Always leave an edit description. Every article has "watchers" who are notified of changes. Make it easy for everyone to see what you are doing to improve the article.

Minor edit has a technical meaning on Wikipedia. Don't check the box unless you're just fixing an obvious typo. Err on the side of caution.

Don't waste your time trying to correct Wikipedia's sometime bonkers conventions about punctuation. Follow them as you learn them, but don't worry at all about not having studied them. Just assume that anyone moving around your punctuation marks is basically fine and should be left alone.

Other issues

Disproportional coverage

One common source of editorial disputes about well-developed articles is the relative space given to the various sections of an article. In its ideal form, the relative proportion of the coverage of a subject's various perspectives or aspects would mirror that of high-quality overview sources. Examples of these would include an introductory textbook or an "Introduction to..." or "Companion to..." written or edited by a subject-matter expert. The relevant policies are WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION.

If a talk-page dispute about this reaches an impasse, be aware that Wikipedia has a policy on dispute resolution the explains how to manage the situation. Know in advance, however, that Wikipedia disputes can easily eat up a lot of time without accomplishing anything more than raising everyone's blood-pressure. If it's not actually that important, I would strongly consider just stepping away to do something more enjoyable. Speaking from experience, it is very easy to over-invest your ego in prevailing in a debate about an insignificant change.

High-quality sources that have been superseded, but not retracted

Dealing with a bad source that nevertheless meets Wikipedia criteria as a high-quality source.

Other useful resources

(suggestions welcome on talk page)