9

Is there a way to make sure that what we write sounds consistent with the style adopted by the majority of editors? I am not sure how people do it, but almost all articles seems to have been written by the same person whenever I pick articles at random just to read them. How do you ensure that the edits you make sound consistent with the style adopted throughout Wikipedia, and what are the other steps that need to be taken in order to ensure that your edits won't be reverted back, because I remember in the old days I did a few edits and a lot of them got reverted back to how it was before somehow (usually after a few days).

  • See rules 2-4 & 9 here. – J.G. Mar 8 at 20:58
6

As you read more widely in Wikipedia, you will find that the style is not as consistent as you might think, particularly on different kinds of topics. Math articles will read rather differently from history articles, for example. Also, prevalent style has changed a bit over time. Staying clear and factual but not overly dry, and completely impersonal, is a good start. There should never be even an implied "I" in a Wikipedia article (unlike on a talk page) Perhaps thew best way is to arrange for a mento on the site. If you are interested, leave me a message at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DESiegel perhaps after looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DESiegel and i'll try to lend a hand.

1

This answer was given to me by an experienced WP editor who doesn't have a Writing Stack Exchange account. They intended it to supplement David Siegel's excellent post.

If you think that style is consistent throughout WP, you haven't visited its murkier recesses!

(1) It's optional, but I recommend creating a named account rather than posting as an IP. That makes it much easier to communicate with other editors.
(2) The most common reason for getting reverted in WP is probably adding unsourced or badly-sourced material. (a) Adding sources in a really professional-looking way is not easy. (OK, it is when you know how.) However, <ref>[url title]</ref> gets the job done. (b) WP needs reliable sources, especially for anything which might be contentious. In particular, self-published stuff (blogs, Facebook, YouTube, etc.) doesn't count. There's a guide at Wikipedia:Reliable sources (don't read it all, just skim the first few paragraphs).
(3) The WP Manual of Style (type WP:MOS into the searchbox) is intimidating beyond belief. Try the page Help:Getting started for something a bit (though not much) more user-friendly.
(4) If you have a special area of interest, find a WikiProject to join. Type WikiProject: into the searchbox (note the colon), and then try to guess the name (Chemistry, History, Films, Music, whatever). You can find a lot of helpful knowledgeable people in those places.
(5) If you're thinking of writing a new article, draft it in your WP sandbox. From there, you can ask an experienced editor to review it, rather than having it torn to shreds or put up for deletion by ravening beasts.
(6) Experienced editors follow WP:DONTBITE.

Happy editing!

  • I would agree with all of that, except that on point 2a, one should at least learn how to get the url into a footnote. Inline external links (links to URLS not in Wikipedia within the body of an article) are often reverted on sight. I would also mention that unfortunately many WikiProjects are now quite inactive. – David Siegel Mar 9 at 20:59
  • @DavidSiegel I edited, it turned out SE did not show the <ref> which my friend had put in the text. – Willeke Mar 9 at 21:20
  • Ah yes, that makes all the difference. That is indeed sufficient as a basic way to source something, although it isn't very hard to learn how to do a better job than that.. – David Siegel Mar 9 at 21:36

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.