Wikipedia:Avoid political banners

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.

Because it is one of the most popular websites, it is tempting to use Wikipedia's platform as a means to advocate for a cause that you believe in. Perhaps the cause is one that supports a free and open Internet, or perhaps it is one that might affect the day-to-day workings of Wikipedia. The Wikipedia community could, for example, run a banner using the CentralNotice system or using watchlist notices, encouraging users to contact policymakers in an effort to change public policy. In the past, there have been numerous proposals for involving Wikipedia and its community of editors in this kind of direct action, and these proposals have tended to be controversial.

In general, political banners should be avoided on Wikipedia.^[a] Relevant policy considerations include the principle that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and the principle that Wikipedia should be written from a neutral point of view. Even if the content of our encyclopedia articles does not explicitly take a side in a political debate, a conflict of interest is introduced when the editorial community deliberately and publicly takes a side in a political debate elsewhere. This conflict of interest jeopardizes Wikipedia's ability to maintain a perception of neutrality with respect to that issue.

Neutrality is one of Wikipedia's most fundamental principles. It is not supposed to be negotiable.^[b] It is a part of Wikipedia's mission to provide readers with a space where they can have a topic explained to them without getting the feeling that someone is trying to sway their viewpoints in a particular direction. This is a mission that is different from the mission of the editorial boards of other publications, such as newspapers and magazines. Perhaps this mission is "inherently political" in some contexts, but on its own, this fact does not justify engaging in or taking sides in political debates as a project. There is a certain degree of hypocrisy when we disregard our own mission in our efforts to protect it.

If you are considering a proposal to introduce a political banner on Wikipedia, you should be absolutely certain that the issue in question is worth compromising our neutrality (and thus possibly our editorial integrity in the eyes of our readers). Historically, editors have been more sympathetic when an issue is widely perceived as posing a fatal or severely compromising threat to the day-to-day functioning of the project. However, even these proposals have been controversial for the reasons discussed above. Consider whether a better approach would be to improve the Wikipedia article about the subject.

Footnotes

^ For the sake of clarity, a "political banner" in the context of this essay refers to any widely publicized statement which intends either to draw attention to a specific political issue or to encourage its audience to take a specific action related to a political issue.
^ The neutral point of view policy states (as of December 2019): This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

[1] For the sake of clarity, a "political banner" in the context of this essay refers to any widely publicized statement which intends either to draw attention to a specific political issue or to encourage its audience to take a specific action related to a political issue.

[2] The neutral point of view policy states (as of December 2019): This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

[a]

[b]

See also

Footnotes