Avoiding Common Wikipedia Editing Mistakes

Wikipedia is one of the most important websites to ever go up on the internet. In fact, Wikipedia is probably one of the most important accomplishments of teamwork based information sharing. The website has become home to a compendium of knowledge that cannot be compared to anything else on the planet. No written word or printed book will ever be as up to date and tacitly informational as Wikipedia is. In order to stay this strongly ahead of the pack the encyclopedia needs the help of as many volunteer editors as possible. Though the workforce is all doing their job pro-bono, it doesn’t mean that expectations are any more slack.

Common Mistakes for Wikipedia Writers on getyourwiki.com
Wikipedia editors are required to follow a rigid set of rules as laid out in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. The Manual of Style, or MoS, sets the standard for what Wikipedia expects out of its almost countless amount of contributors. From grammar rules to formatting instructions, the MoS is exhaustive and reaches every corner of the editing world. Users are understandably going to have a hard time following every rule or making it through the gigantic document so we decided to point out a few of the most common mistakes for Wikipedia editors.

The Neutral Point of View.
The most common mistake of most newer editors is that they forget they are working on Wikipedia and begin to use their own normal writing voice. This causes their article work to become biased and unusable in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia demands a Neutral Point of View be used at all time. This allows the content to speak for itself without caving to any sorts of biases. The NPOV also stops viewers from making judgement calls about the content due to the way that it is written.

Lack of proper citations.
Wikipedia flourishes because its content is both correct and verified by other unbiased sources. When an editor can’t find appropriate citations, as laid out in the MoS, the articles suffer and all of the content is called into question. Readers use these sources to further their reading and when they are lackluster it makes the entire article lose steam. Proper citations should have longevity, be from reputable locations, and should not be prone to intrinsic biases. A good, proper source, could be considered something from a .gov or a .edu as it will likely be vetted information.

Leave a Reply