Wikipedia:Increase your chances

You have never, or rarely, edited Wikipedia, but you have seen something wrong in an article that you wish to have addressed. Perhaps you have seen a tweet or some other post about how the article is wrong, and maybe the poster even asked you to join in the discussion to support their cause. Here's how to increase your chances of the change actually being made.

Wikipedia discussions are not votes

See also: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a democracy

It is a common misconception that if enough people show up on an article talk page to ask for a change to be made, it will have to happen. This is not the case. Changes are only made if there are good reasons, and such reasons must be based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There are a ton of them, many of which are very long, so this may feel daunting to you as someone who has never edited, but fear not! This page will walk you through it, and where I link to policies or guidelines I will link you to much shorter versions that give you just the most important bits.

The statement that ought to be changed has a citation

You will need to base your argument around our guideline on reliable sourcing (overview). You will either need to make the point that the existing citation is not a reliable source, or show that there are contradictory sources.

... but there are contradictory sources

1. First, gather your sources. If you need help finding some, check out Help:Find sources for some popular types of sources and resources to find them.
2. Check that your sources directly contradict the statement in the article, without any inference or interpretation required on your part. The mere fact that a source does not include a particular statement does not automatically mean that the source contradicts that statement. For example, a source about the sky might not mention that the sky is blue, but this is not grounds for saying that the sky is not blue. Even a source which says that the sky is grey does not contradict "the sky is blue", since those statements are not mutually exclusive.
3. Check that your sources are reliable. The list of commonly used sources is a good starting point, and the reliable sources noticeboard can be searched for discussions of a given source's reliability.
4. Consider balance, taking in consideration WP:GEVAL and WP:MNA. If you have reliable contradictory sources and the sources used in the article are also reliable, it may be that both views should be presented as opinions. If the balance of sources favors one view over the other, however, this should be made clear; the majority view should be given due weight. This includes the space and prominence given to each view. Depending on the article subject, a small minority viewpoint might merit little or no mention.

... but the citation is unreliable

A good starting point for checking citation reliability is our list of commonly used sources. If the source cited to support the statement is listed there as "generally unreliable" or "deprecated", you probably have a solid argument in that alone. If the source is listed as "no consensus", carefully read the adjoined explanation. If you do not think the source is reliable for the statement in question, explain why on the article talk page.

If the source does not appear on the list, search the reliable sources noticeboard to see whether it has ever been discussed. When a source's reliability is unclear, a closer reading of the full reliable sources guideline may be worth the time and effort.

If it appears that the cited source is considered reliable, and you do not have a reliable source which contradicts it, read on.

... and you can't find any sources to contradict it

This may be a problem. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources have to say, and if there aren't valid sources supporting your viewpoint, the article must continue to reflect what reliable sources do plainly say. Even if the statement seems obviously wrong, or if your viewpoint can be inferred by compiling various sources, we need a reliable source which specifically supports the change. For more information on this, see our policies on original research (overview) and verifiability (overview).

... and you disagree that the citation is reliable

If you read through the "but the citation is unreliable" only to find that the source you thought was unreliable is actually generally considered to be a reliable source by the Wikipedia community, read on.

If this is based in your belief that the source is biased, you may have found yourself under the common misconception that Wikipedia requires all sources to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources), and sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject (Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources).

If you believe that something has changed about the source since the community consensus was reached, you can start a new conversation at the reliable sources noticeboard to revisit the reliability of the source. Please note that you should not attempt to skip that step and immediately take this to a specific article talk page; the whole point of our reliable sources list is that we don't have to repeatedly revisit reliability discussions about very common sources wherever they're used.

... but you don't think the citation supports the claim

If you believe that the citation given does not support the statement, you can simply remove it or ask for its removal on the talk page. Be sure to explain that the removal is because the statement does not support the claim.

If you are unsure about whether the citation supports the statement, you can ask for help on the talk page. The more explanation you can give as to why you are unsure, the more likely you are to get a quick response.

The statement that ought to be changed does not have a citation

In this case you can generally just ask for the unsupported content to be removed (or remove it yourself). If someone responds by adding a source to support the statement, then refer to the above section.

One thing to note: If the uncited content is in the lead section (that is, the bit that shows up above the table of contents or section headers), first check that it is not cited somewhere else in the article. Some articles follow a convention of omitting all inline citations in the lead and citing them further on in the article.

How to suggest the change

Location of the talk page tab (here, on the page Encyclopedia)

Now that you have gathered your sourcing and formulated your argument, go to the article talk page. First, check to see whether the content in question has already been discussed. If there is a related discussion on the active talk page, you can simply add your thoughts by editing that section and leaving your comment at the very bottom. If there is no such discussion underway, you can create a new section. Remember to be civil with other editors even if you disagree. Don't forget to sign your post by typing ~~~~ at the end.

Making a change yourself

When the page settings allow for it, it is generally acceptable to make a change yourself, provided you do not edit war or continue making similar edits after being reverted. The point here is that some edits are likely to be controversial, so it might be best to begin with discussion. Some pages get little activity, so if you start a discussion and get no response within a few days, it is usually reasonable to make the change and see what happens. Extra caution is needed when the edit would introduce potential BLP, FRINGE, or MEDRS issues.

See also

• WP:FIXBIAS