Jump to content

Wikipedia:Don't overwhelm the newbies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ypnypn (talk | contribs) at 22:13, 11 December 2012 (Unrelated, but important). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Before reading this essay, please read WP:BITE, WP:ARGH!, and WP:NOCLUE. For information about essays, see WP:WES, WP:VALUE, and WP:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays. If you are new to Wikipedia, please read WP:5P, WP:ABOUT, WP:NOT, and WP:FAQ. Also see the general disclaimer.



Joining Wikipedia can be like wading into the water at an oceanfront beach. At first, it seems pleasant, so you go further out, into deeper and deeper waters. Suddenly, a big wave appears, and gets bigger and bigger until it crashes onto you. That wave is WP:List of policies and guidelines. A helpful Wikipedian places the {{Welcomeg}} on your talk page, and you diligently start to read. Five years later, you give up.

Don't overwhelm the newbies!

There are many policies, guidelines, and essays. They're all worth reading, eventually. But there's no need to tell a newbie to read them all, now. If you need to tell a newbie about the need for notability, link to WP:N, or a more specific policy (such as WP:Notability (authors)), but don't link to WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:COI, and WP:NOR as well. Whenever possible, link to simpler pages, such as WP:Referencing for beginners. Better yet, just tell the newbie the problem, so he doesn't have to read the entire policy himself.

Biting vs. Overwhelming

There has long been a guideline known as Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. The guideline suggests being extra-civil, and explaining a lot. These are extremely important rules. But the guideline does not prohibit bombarding a newbie with an abundance of policies, which the newbie will often he must read in their entirety. A newbie may receive a very friendly message with many links, which can drive away the newbie as quickly as insulting him. So don't bite, but don't overwhelm either!

Examples
  • "Your so-called references to the subject's website don't prove anything, as per RS. If you're not here to contribute facts, you don't belong here."

The above (made-up) example is a bit extreme, but the following conversation (minus the names) really occurred, in the Teahouse - where one should be extra-careful.

Very basic summary of what original research is please?

I read the article and it was quite hard to understand.

Hi Newbie! Original research is material that you cannot back up with reliable published sources (because such sources do not exist). Say, you know for certain that "such and such has a dog", so you add it to the corresponding article; but no reliable, published sources exist to back up that statement: it will have to be removed. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability —the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

This may not seem too much for an experienced Wikipedian, but a newbie may find even one or two long policies too much. In the above case, a Teahouse host responded to someone who didn't understand WP:OR by recommending a look at WP:V. That's not so helpful!

See also

Unrelated, but important

Template:Multicol

Template:Multicol-break

Template:Multicol-break

Template:Multicol-break

Template:Multicol-break

Template:Multicol-break

Template:Multicol-end

There are also over a thousand essays in Category:Wikipedia essays. While you do not need to follow every essay, you should still read all of them.