Wikipedia:Competence is required

This is an explanatory essay about the disruptive editing guideline.

This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

Shortcuts

Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack.

This page in a nutshell: Sometimes editors have good intentions, but lack subject-matter competence and political skills, or misuse their priveleges

Wikipedia is a big place, with many editors, all with their own opinions on how to do things. It seems surprising that we are able to work together functionally, but somehow this is what usually happens.

One of our core Wikipedia guidelines that facilitates this is assume good faith. It is good advice, reminding us that, when we disagree, everyone involved is (usually) trying to do what they think is best. Sure, we get people who intentionally damage the project as well, but they are usually quite easy to deal with. They can be blocked from editing, as needed, with little fuss and generally no controversy.

The Problem as We See it

Where we often see big controversies, though, is with editors, policy enforcers, and administrators who are unintentionally and often unknowingly disruptive while trying to help. Our emphasis on WP:Consensus can also lead to groupthink and can penalize subject-matter competent writers and contributors, on allegations WP:Incivility. This is where we sometimes see an unintended side effect of our (generally quite useful) notion of assuming good faith. Many editors have focused so much on this principle that they have come to believe that good faith is all that is required to be a useful contributor. But this is not the case. Competence is required as well.

What is to be Done

A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. For that reason, it can become necessary for the community to intervene when an editor has shown, through a pattern of behavior, the likelihood that they are not capable of contributing in a constructive manner.

Everyone has a limited sphere of subject matter competence. For example, someone may be competent in the subject of nuclear physics but incompetent in ballet dancing or vice versa.

Some otherwise competent people may lack the skills necessary to exercise a managing-editor level role in Wikipedia. Rather than labeling them as "incompetent" in the pejorative sense, we should ease them out of that role, that article, or that topic as graciously as possible, with their dignity intact.

What is meant by "Competence is required"?

Basically, we presume that people who contribute to the English-language Wikipedia have and are willing to further cultivate the following competencies:

the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively.
the ability to read sources and assess their reliability. Editors should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's guidance on identifying reliable sources and be able to decide when sources are, and are not, suitable for citing in articles.
the ability to communicate with other editors in edit summaries and talk pages, to cogently argue for acceptance of a WP:Bold contribution, or else abide by previously established consensus,
the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up.
the ability to acknowledge WP:Verifiable facts, even when adduced by an adverse party in the context of a good-faith WP:Content dispute
the ability to admit ones own errors and correct them.
the ability to analyze contributions by other editors, preserving the encyclopedic and constructive elements, while discerning subtle or minor errors and refining them

What "Competence is required" does not mean

Shortcut

WP:CIRNOT

It does not mean "come down hard like a ton of bricks on someone as soon as they make a mistake". We should cut editors (particularly new ones) some slack, and help them understand how to edit competently. Mistakes are an inevitable part of the wiki process.
WP:Don't bite the newcomers
It does not mean perfection is required. Articles can be improved in small steps, rather than being made perfect in one fell swoop. Small improvements are our bread and butter.
It does not mean one must be a native English speaker. There is no expectation that editors have high English skills. Minor spelling and grammar mistakes can be fixed by others. If poor English prevents an editor from writing comprehensible text directly in articles, they can instead post an edit request on the article talk page.
- An editor with mid-level English fluency can still work very well in maintenance areas.
It does not mean we should ignore people and not try to help improve their competence.
It does not mean we should label people as universally incompetent. Always refer to the contributions and not the contributor, and find ways to phrase things that do not put people on the defensive or attack their character or person.
It does not mean that Wikipedia's civility policy does not apply when talking to people about required competence. Rude and uncivil comments are discouraging, and can raise psychological barriers against recognizing one's mistakes or improving one's skills.

Responding to suspected lack of competence