Help:Protocols

Of course, every wiki will have its own "house style." On Wikipedia, there is the Manual of Style. Chemwiki doesn't yet have such a page, so we will generally follow the Wikipedia format for articles. The following rules should be used as a guide to house style and to behavioral norms. Note that not all of these rules are appropriate for online coursework, research work, etc.

House editing style

• You can use American English or British English, but be consistent. The first author of an article on Wikipedia usually gets to define which one will be used. Wikis are truly worldwide, so don't go switching colour to color or trying to fix the location of quotation marks in "this phrase". (This format for quotation marks is the wiki standard!)
• Section headings in articles should be brief and not contain links (in talk pages it's OK). They should have only the first word capitalized, unless the heading is a proper noun (as in United States or George W. Bush). Take a look at the headings on this page - we have "Wiki protocols" not "Wiki Protocols."
• Article names follow the same rules as headings. They should normally be in the singular form ("Acid" not "Acids")
• Most articles begin with an overview section, which does not have a header. The first time the title occurs, it is put in bold, as in, "An acid is a chemical compound which...."
• Links are generally only included the first time the link is needed, after that plain text is used. In a longer article it is OK to put an important wikilink in a key place in a later section.
• Inline references are generally preferred over general references. We'll look later at some of the Wikipedia citation formats, which require sophisticated templates not available here yet. Other material that was not used in writing the article but which may be useful for the reader is included under "See also" (for material on the same wiki), "Further reading" (usually books) or "External links."
• If there is a sub-article on one aspect of the topic being discussed, then a link is included at the start of the appropriate section of the main article, using italics. For example, in an article on the United States, there may be a section with the heading "History." This section would begin, Main article: History of the United States. The main article only carries a brief summary of the topic, not the whole sub-article; this is known as summary style.

Some basic rules

Content

Wikipedia (WP) does not include personal opinion or original research. Whilst discussion pages in online courses should contain personal opinions, papers should do so only rarely. Mind POV means that you cannot say, "XXXX is an idiot", instead you must say, "A recent survey^CITATION found that 68% of Americans believe that XXXX is an idiot." If there is a consensus view held by most experts in the field, that should be the main viewpoint of the article. If there is a significant minority view, this should be represented without prejudice using a statement such as: "However, around 2.3 million christians^CITATION, most notably creationists, do not accept the theory of evolution because of religious convictions."

This sort of approach is helpful in most wikis, unless the wiki is being used as a surrogate blog or a research tool.

Ignore all rules is not as anarchic as it may sound! Wikipedia states, "Ignore all rules was, paradoxically, our first rule to consider." The complete "rule" is in fact: If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. What this means in practice is that you should not become bound by rules, because the rules are simply there to help get the job done more effectively. If they don't help, you should feel free to ignore them.

Behavioral norms

You are expected to be reasonable and flexible, open to other views, and you should not have a "hissy fit" if people criticise you. Generally try to get along with other people, and find compromises when disagreements occur. This can be hard at times, because people may disagree on what "NPOV" (neutral point of view) on a topic really means. It can really hurt when someone takes a hatchet job to the article you were so proud of, but that's what collaboration involves. If your writing is so much better, then let someone else revert the hatchet job. The official policies that define this sort of thing on WP are:

• "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" — for example, don't revert person X's edits just because they reverted yours inappropriately in another article, etc.
• "No personal attacks" — if you start calling someone a dick, the chances are you are behaving like one.

Openness is a very distinctive feature of many wikis. You must respect this if joining a wiki community, and accept that the work you contribute should be given without reservation. If you write a Java script, it is assumed that you will make the source code openly available. A corollary of this is that many wiki contributors are very hostile to any attempt to link things into commercial activities or to proprietary standards. If Wikipedia were to be floated on the Stock Exchange it would be worth billions (a recent online survey found it ranked fourth in the world in brand name recognition, just ahead of Starbucks), but if it were floated on the stock market the entire community would leave immediately and it would fall apart.

Community is an important feature of active wikis. The community is not a hierarchy based on real-world paper qualifications, but is instead based on respect for (a) hard work and (b) work well done. If someone is seen to write lots of superb articles on American Civil War topics, it doesn't matter whether the person is a talented high school student or an Ivy League professor. If you are an Ivy League professor, you have to earn the respect of the community like anyone else, you can't try and throw your qualifications around. Someone who has earned respect will often become an administrator or arbitrator. If a new person appears to go against what you think is reasonable, the community can usually find a compromise, and the weight of opinion will usually convince the new person. If this new person is consistently unwilling to listen to the community, they will become isolated and eventually they may simply find themselves unable to work on the wiki.

Consensus may be difficult to achieve, but it is essential. WP allows voting, but the result is not usually decided by a simple vote count; instead, a respected person or admin will make the final call, based on the weight of opinions given. One person, called Mark, has decided for several years which articles are promoted to become "featured articles" on WP; he does a good job, that's the only qualification needed.

Disputes can be most often

• "Revert wars" where B edits something A likes so A reverts, then B reverts A's revert, then A reverts again, well you get the idea. Wikipedia has the "three revert rule". Fortunately there is a talk page for every user and article, and that's the place to debate these things, with respect, otherwise people end up being banned from editing.
• "Wheel wars" are like revert wars among administrators. Admin A decides to delete a set of templates, then admin B undeletes them, etc. This can lead to admins being banned.

Take a look at this dispute I was involved with, to see how this sort of thing can be handled. Note that I requested comments from the chemistry community, and thankfully many chose to comment. That way I could convince the editor that I was not simply giving my opinion, but rather representing the opinion of the community. One of the people commenting then edited things and a compromise was reached amicably. I'm not totally happy with the entire article, but this particular aspect was resolved very well.