User:UndercoverClassicist/FAQ

How do I correct a mistake on a page?

The short answer is to click the "edit" button and crack on.

The slightly longer answer depends on what sort of flaw it is. If it's a typo, or another error that can be fixed without any possibility of dispute, it's usually best to just go ahead and change it (see WP:BEBOLD). If, however, it's something more contentious, like an error of fact, or (even greyer) a question of whether the article has got the emphasis or balance right, it might be worth discussing on the Talk page first. In general, if you can provide good, scholarly sources to back up any change, and cite them in the article, you should be fine, but the process where such edits are controversial is for another editor to revert them, then a discussion to be started (usually by the first editor) on the Talk page. If you're not sure whether an edit is likely to be challenged, proposing it on the Talk page first, with sources and rationale, can be a good way to find out.

How do I handle a content dispute?

In general, the process for handling contentious edits is be bold, revert, discuss -- so, once your edit is reverted, post on the article's talk page with the rationale and seek consensus for it. If you need more input, there are options like seeking a third opinion or entering into dispute resolution. Simply restoring the reverted material without a discussion is likely to end up as edit warring, which is disruptive and doesn't solve the issue.

Why can't I edit this semi-protected page?

WP:Example is semi-protected, which means that it can only be edited by users whose accounts:

• Are at least 4 days old, and
• Have at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia.

Articles are normally semi-protected because there has been a lot of disruption or vandalism to them from new or unregistered users, or to prevent sockpuppets of blocked or banned users from editing; it's particularly common for biographies of living persons who have had a recent high level of media interest.

If your account doesn't meet the criteria to edit directly, you can can request edits to a semi-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.

Should I write an article about myself?

The usual advice is that writing your own Wikipedia page is a bad idea. One of the key principles of Wikipedia is keeping a neutral point of view, which means that it's discouraged to write about anything where you have a conflict of interest. Articles also need to be based on what's published in reliable sources rather than necessarily what's true but unwritten, and it's almost impossible to have a detached perspective on the difference when you're the subject. Once the article is written, it's open to anyone to edit, and many people who have written their own biographies have ended up very dissatisfied with how they've turned out, or when the community decides to delete them -- there are various standards and criteria as to which subjects can have a stand-alone article. The received wisdom is to wait for someone else to get there first: if it's obvious to everyone else that a person should have a Wikipedia article, eventually someone who isn't them will see that and write one.

Should I write an article for my band?

If you mean creating a new article for a rock band, there are certain criteria that the band has to meet before it can have one. In general, these all circle around being discussed at length in major publications, so if you can find pieces about the band in music magazines, major websites, newspapers and so on, you're probably good to go. On the other hand, if the only people writing about the band are in it, or connected with it, or bloggers, social media and similar, it may not be eligible for an article just yet. Seperately, it's generally considered a bad idea to write an article about your own band -- if it's notable enough, someone else will come along and do so eventually.

Should I write an article for someone I know?

Fair warning first, it's generally very difficult to write about people you know personally, for various interlocking reasons. There's also a very real risk of the article ending up not to your taste, particularly if you do (or indeed don't) particularly like the person it's about.

With that said:

• In principle, there's no reason why you can't update the page of someone you know, as long as you make sure all of your edits are neutral in their point of view and verifiable from good sources. In particular, make sure you avoid promotional or vague language.
• In general, a person's own website is not a useful source -- there are some exceptions, such as verifying absolutely trivial information (like a date of birth, dates of employment and so on) or if it's useful to quote their own views on a topic (for example, how somebody describes their own areas of academic research).
• You won't be able to include anything that can only be sourced from speaking to the person, but that might help you if a source is unclear, or if two of them appear to be contradictory.

I hope this is helpful -- in all honesty, it is meant to sound slightly discouraging, but do let me know if I can help with this or another project on here.

How do I know which sources are reliable?

When evaluating the reliability of a source, there are a few general rules:

• Most importantly -- what quality-assurance process has the source been through? Something in an elite academic journal will have undergone a lot of editorial oversight, peer review, strict selection and so on, while a blog or social media post can be published without a second person ever seeing it. The more experts have been able to check over it, the better.
• Look at who the author is -- are they known to be an authority in the field? Do they have professional standing, qualifications and expertise? Being written by an established expert counts in the source's favour.
• Look at the publisher. University presses, (most) government agencies, established highbrow news organisations and so on are generally considered trustworthy; predatory journals, tabloids and gossip magazines generally aren't.
• Are there any obvious conflicts of interest? Is the author closely linked to the subject at hand, or is it published by an organisation with a clear agenda? Does the tone of the piece suggest a political or ideological alignment? Biased sources aren't automatically disqualified, but need to be handled with care.

You can also check the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, look at their list of much-discussed sources, and raise a query there if you're not sure about a particular source.

How do I write a page?

The best way to get started with an article is via the Articles for Creation process. The advice and volunteers there can guide you through the process and provide you with feedback on your draft as it develops. The first step is to work out whether the subject is eligible for its own article ("notable", in Wikipedia-speak), and that usually means finding several good, reliable published sources (books, journal articles, reputable websites etc) that discuss it at length. It's also advised not to work on articles about yourself, your employer, or people and subjects with which you're involved in the real world.

Why was my BLP declined at AFC?

An article needs enough references to sources independent of the subject to demonstrate that this person meets the criteria for a Wikipedia article. Generally, this means a reasonable number of independent, quality publications, not written by the subject or anyone connected to them (e.g. an employer), which discuss the person and their importance. In theory, everything in the article should be cited to a source like that, so that we can establish that it is verifiable. If you're closely connected to the subject, the further warning applies that writing about yourself or a friend is rarely a good idea, and often something that people come to regret, since the article leaves their control the moment it is published.

Biographies of living people are held to fairly high standards of verifiability -- it's important that we only write what we can substantiate when it is about a person who can be affected by it. I would suggest finding some reliable sources and adding them into the article -- you can find an explanation of how to do this here. Reliable sources tend to be things like academic books, respectable newspapers, reputable websites (e.g. government organisations, the BBC, or the Associated Press) and so on.

I hope this helps -- let me know if you need any help with any of that