Wikipedia talk:Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia

Attribution

This article is from Logan DW, Sandal M, Gardner PP, Manske M, Bateman A (2010) Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia. PLoS Comput Biol 6(9): e1000941. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000941.
© 2010 Logan et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

This essay is also available as a PDF at File:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia.pdf

Simplicity

I appreciate simplicity. If the policies get too complex, you end up needing lawyers to interpret the policies. Please keep the policies simple so that inexperienced Wikipedia editors, who may very well be experts at the edit they want to make, are not overrun by ignorant editors who are experts in Wikipedia policies. Campoftheamericas (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Attribution to Wikijournal

Hi fellows! I intend to translate this to portuguese, but I'm little confused with the attribution to the article Lysenin from WikiJournal of Science. I did not see the relation with the orginal PLOS paper. Could you help me? Cheers! Ixocactus (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Academic peer reviewed is not displaying the correct info in this article

@Evolution and evolvability: In 2016, you replaced this article's original attribution with {{Academic peer reviewed}} but that template doesn't appear to be working correctly now: I see a reference to "Lysenin" in WikiJournal of Science instead of the correct reference. Do you see what I am seeing, and if so, can you fix it? Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Biogeographist: Aha, thanks for spotting. The template draws its information from wikidata (in this case wikidata:Q21145331), so in the absence of that Q number it was providing the default test Q number rather than indicating an error. I've now fixed! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 22:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Very nice! Thank you! Ixocactus (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

"material you own"

use material you own This should probably be use material you own the copyrights to, but I don't know if it's okay to change this page. Ovinus (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Use the material you own copyrights to Sir Waswa Emmanuel (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok Sir Waswa Emmanuel (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

We need to revise the Rule 1 Register an account

To the Wikipedia staff and users, regarding Rule 1 Register an account.

The line "Although any visitor can edit Wikipedia" needs to be changed to "No visitors can edit Wikipedia" and here's my reasoning for it. Over the past 20 years from the 2000s to the 2020s I've noticed in the news articles about visitors including POV, Pushers with Agendas, online pranksters attacking, and vandalizing Wikipedia articles and it's gotten out of control. The reason why I want to make it a requirement for people on Wikipedia to be required to be account Wikipedia members online is because our Wikipedia articles are more vulnerable to unwanted or misleading information or website spam links. In the future we need to change our Wikipedia policy so that Rule 1 Register an account needs be changed to be Rule 1 Requirement to Register an account. And also, so we can make sure that the signed users are obeying the rules.

Let me know if we can revise Rule 1 Register an account to Rule 1 Requirement to Register an account. because unsigned visitors have not been respectful on Wikipedia article edits lately in the 2020s. By the way I'm sorry I didn't read the rules earlier concerning copyright images the past few years. I'll be careful not to upload copyrighted images on Wikipedia. CrosswalkX (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Having a requirement for an account to edit is a perennial request - and it'll likely never pass. There is no change required here. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Merge

This should be merged with Wikipedia:Eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia.

Immutable copies of papers published elsewhere belong on Wikisource, and can be referenced from the merged essay. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Support merge thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 14:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose merge. While the names may be similar their content is different. Maybe rename one instead. 91.223.100.28 (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

How would renaming address "copies of papers published elsewhere belong on Wikisource"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose merge, same as above. If you were to merge them at least combine the two. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 06:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

"If you were to merge them at least combine the two." This is exactly what "merge" means. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

But sometimes things get left out. I don't want that to happen. (let's say that the two get merged and someone wants to make them 15 simple rules and not 18, then 3 rules would get left out. That is the reason for my comment.) User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 18:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose merge. I intentionally recently suggested someone read this page instead of Wikipedia:Eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia because the latter is not as well-written and it picks a weird subset of concepts that is not as helpful to newcomers in 2024. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose merge

The first one has eight points while the second one has ten points. If the points were to be combined, I could understand the merge but until the game plan is explained, I must oppose. Reader of Information (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)