Wikipedia:Ownership of articles

This page is about control over an article's text. For the ownership of copyright in an article, see Wikipedia:Copyrights.

This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.

Shortcuts: WP:OWN WP:OWNER WP:OWNERSHIP WP:OWNS WP:NOTYOURS

This page in a nutshell: No one owns an article or any page at Wikipedia. If you create or edit an article, others will make changes, and, within reason, you should not prevent them from doing so. Any disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page.

The Five Pillars
Conduct policies
Civility Consensus Edit warring Editing policy No personal attacks Ownership of articles

All Wikipedia content^[1] is open to being edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, and regardless of their standing in the community, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article.

Overview

Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against all others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist— perhaps you are an expert or perhaps you just care about the topic. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you may be overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.

Once you have posted it to Wikipedia, you cannot stop anyone from editing text you have written, as each edit page clearly states:

• If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.

Similarly, if you do not want your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) challenged or developed by others, then do not submit them.

If you find yourself in an edit war with other contributors over deletions, reversions, and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later. Or, if someone else is claiming "ownership" of a page, you can bring it up on the associated talk page, appeal to other contributors, or consider the dispute resolution process.

Even though people can never "own" an article, it is important to respect the work and ideas of your fellow contributors. Therefore, when removing or rewriting large amounts of content, particularly if this content was written by one editor, it is more effective to try to work with the editor than against them—even if you think they are acting as if they "own" the article. (See also Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.)

Provided that contributions and input from fellow editors are not ignored or immediately disregarded, being the primary or sole editor of an article does not constitute ownership. Editors familiar with the topic and in possession of broad relevant reliable sources may have watchlisted such articles and may discuss or tailor others' edits. Provided this does not marginalise valid opinions of others, and is adequately justified, it too does not equal ownership. Often these editors can be approached and may offer assistance to editors unfamiliar with the pages. The template {{Maintained}} may be used by such editors on the article talk pages.

Types of ownership

There are two common types of ownership conflicts between users: those involving one editor and those involving multiple editors.

Single-editor ownership

An editor who appears to assume ownership of an article should be approached on the article's talk page with a descriptive header informing readers about the topic. Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of any editor. If necessary, ignore attacks made in response to a query. If the behavior continues, the issue may require dispute resolution, but it is important to make a good attempt to communicate with the editor on the article talk page before proceeding to mediation, etc.

In many cases (but not all), single editors engaged in ownership conflicts are also primary contributors to the article, so keep in mind that such editors may be experts in their field or have a genuine interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy. Editors of this type often welcome discussion, so a simple exchange of ideas will usually solve the problem of ownership. If you find that the editor continues to be hostile, makes personal attacks, or wages revert wars, try to ignore disruptive behavior by discussing the topic on the talk page. If the ownership behavior persists after a discussion, dispute resolution may be necessary, but at least one will be on record as having attempted to solve the problem directly with the editor. A common response by an editor confronted with ownership behavior is to threaten to leave the project. Since the ownership policy encourages such editors to take a break, it may be wise to let them leave and return when they are ready.

Multiple-editor ownership

The involvement of multiple editors, each defending the ownership of the other, can be highly complex. The simplest scenario usually comprises a dominant editor who is defended by other editors, reinforcing the former's ownership. This is often informally described as a tag team, and can be frustrating to both new and seasoned editors. As before, address the topic and not the actions of the editors. If this fails, proceed to dispute resolution, but it is important to communicate on the talk page and attempt to resolve the dispute yourself before escalating the conflict resolution process.

Resolving ownership issues

While it may be easy to identify ownership issues, it is far more difficult to resolve the conflict to the satisfaction of the editors involved. It is always helpful to remember to stay calm, assume good faith, and remain civil. Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack. Address the editor in a civil manner, with the same amount of respect you would expect. Often, editors accused of ownership may not even realize it, so it is important to assume good faith. Some editors may think they are protecting the article from vandalism, and may respond to any changes with hostility. Others may try to promote their own point of view, failing to recognize the importance of the NPOV policy.

Examples of ownership behavior

Actions

1. An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article. (This does not include the routine correction of egregious formatting errors.)
2. Justified article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.
3. An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the article altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it (see Nos. 1 and 2 just below).
4. Putting your name into the article as the author. Since no one "owns" any Wikipedia content, content should not be signed. The exact contributions of all editors are seen with their names on the page history. On the other hand, when adding comments, questions, or votes to talk pages, it is good to "own" your text, so the best practice is to sign it by suffixing your entry with "~~~~".

Comments

1. "Are you qualified to edit this article?"
2. "You obviously have no hands-on experience with widgets."
3. "I/he/she/we created this article" (in a manner implying some kind of inappropriate right or status exists because of that).
4. "Hi! I notice that you are a new contributor to the widget article. Thank you sooo much for your ideas. It is wonderful to know that so many novices like yourself have taken an interest in widgets. Anyhow, I have made some small amendments to your changes. You might notice that my tweaking of your wording has, in effect, reverted the article back to what it was before, but do not feel disheartened. Please feel free to make any other changes to my article if you ever think of anything worthwhile. Toodles! :)"
5. "Hello, and welcome! I saw your edit to this article, and I appreciate your help, however I am an expert on the subject, and for the accuracy of this article, I have reverted your edit. If you have any suggestions, please put them in the talk page and I will immediately proceed to ignore them."

On revert

1. "Do not make such changes or comments until you have significantly edited or written work of this quality."
2. "Unless it is wrong or has errors, please do not make such changes or comments without my/his/her/our approval."
3. "We don't need this. Thanks anyways."
4. "I haven't had time to confirm what you wrote. I have other obligations besides wikipedia, you know."
5. "I don't own that book, so I can't confirm your source."
6. "You didn't have consensus because I was offline."
7. "I'm going to add a better one when I have the time."
8. "I have spent hours editing this article. You are vandalizing my work!"
9. "Please clear this with project X first."

Ownership and stewardship

Shortcut: WP:OAS

Do not confuse stewardship with ownership. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert unconstructive edits in order to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not in itself constitute ownership, and will normally be supported by an explanatory edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Where disagreement persists after such a reversion, the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership. In this way, the specifics of any change can be discussed with the editors who are familiar with the article, who are likewise expected to discuss the content civilly.

Featured articles

While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ) are open for editing like any other, they have gone through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and compliance with image policy and with Wikipedia's Manual of style. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership. The {{articlehistory}} template on the talk page will contain a link to the Featured article candidacy and any subsequent Featured article reviews.

User pages

Traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier.

Other users and bots may edit pages in your user space or leave messages for you, though by convention others will not usually edit your user page itself, other than (rarely) to address significant concerns or place project-related tags.

See also

• Template:Maintained
• Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
• Wikipedia:No vested contributors
• Wikipedia:User page
• WP:CONLIMITED – local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline.

Essays

• Wikipedia:Advocacy
• Wikipedia:Activist
• Wikipedia:Divisiveness
• Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus"
• Wikipedia:IPs are human too
• Wikipedia:Old dogs and new tricks
• Wikipedia:Tendentious editing
• Wikipedia:Words of wisdom

Notes

1. ^ Wikipedia content includes articles, categories, templates, and others.

External links

• AuthorshipModel – a discussion of authorship of Wiki pages on the CommunityWiki

Related information