 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Some Advice and Tips to Frustrated New Users edit
A commercial encyclopedia like Encyclopedia Britannica has a staff of paid editors to decide whether or not an article or some particular material will or will not be included in their encyclopedia. We obviously don't have that, but to maintain our mission as an encyclopedia, and not just a random conglomerate of articles about anything anyone cares to write about, we have to have some kind of screening mechanism. That mechanism comes through Wikipedia's rules concerning verifiability, notability, and reliable sources. In short, before a person, place, thing, organization, or idea can be included in Wikipedia it must have:
- already been recognized
- as important or significant
- by objective, independent, and provable third party sources
- with a established reputation for fact-checking
- which are independent of both the subject of the article and of Wikipedia itself.
All of those are an hugely-abbreviated summary of the "real" rules set out in the rules I linked to above and of dozens, if not hundreds, of additional pages and discussions refining them, so please don't try to use them to judge whether or not a particular article or edit can be included here, refer instead to the actual, detailed rules. (But don't worry about the hundreds of additional pages and discussions; you can dig into them when and if you need to do so.)
One consequence of those rules is that there are subjects and information which are of considerable interest or importance to people or to segments of our society which simply cannot be included in Wikipedia because the facts about them cannot be established through sources which meet Wikipedia's high standards for reliable sources.
Wikipedia bills itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and it's often said that you can "contribute to Wikipedia without needing to know what the rules are", but the true fact of the matter is that if someone is going to spend much time here that it's awfully difficult for them to do so without conflict and frustration unless they obtain a good working knowledge of the rules.
The problems and difficulties which you have been having, along with the number and sincerity of your edits, suggest that you would benefit from taking some time at this point to study and consider the rules which serve as the framework and foundation of how Wikipedia works. In that light, let me make a few suggestions (not all of which are directly related to what I've said here):
- Before taking the time and going to the effort to study the rules, you might want to read an essay I wrote for new users called Wikipedia, Bicycles, and Wagons. I don't think that it applies to you, but just in case...
- You ought to read, if you've not already, the Verifiability, Reliable sources, Notability, and No original research rules from beginning to end.
- One of the best ways to get a grip on what Wikipedia is and is not is to read the What Wikipedia is Not rule.
- You might want to read the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions essay. While the title to that essay refers to deletion discussions, the arguments it discusses will not generally be given much weight in most contexts here at Wikipedia. While it is only an essay, not a rule, it's widely quoted and influential.
- Finally, I refer quite a few new editors to this page. Most won't need this next piece of advice, but if I or someone else has tagged your article with a {{db-g11}} or {{db-spam}} tag (they're different names for the same tag), first you need to read that tag word for word, and second, you need to read the Spam rule from beginning to end.
Good luck with your editing and best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK)