Peyton Hall Documentation:Editing policy

The beauty of this documentation system is that anyone can edit the pages here. This is good, since the administrators may not be aware of all of the tips and tricks that the users know and use every day, and also may not be aware of other outside resources for information or assistance. Some times, the best way to get help is to ask your peers what they do in similar situations, and now you can share that information with future members of the department without them having to come ask. While we encourage people to edit pages when they have knowledge to share, there are a few things to keep in mind.

It doesn't have to be perfect

If you're quite knowledgeable about a topic, and can write a complete and cohesive article on it, that's great! Not only does it save others from having to edit the article later, but it makes an instant and excellent addition to what is here. However, if you only have a nugget of information to share, that doesn't mean you can't add it. Go right ahead, and use a template to mark that the article or section needs some help from someone who can expand on the topic further (such as {{stub}}, {{cleanup}} or {{update}}). The act of adding the core of the information to these pages may help some people get an idea of what you're trying to get across even if it's not fully expanded and described, and someone else who has more time (or knowledge of the idea) can clean it up later on. This doesn't mean that you should just add a little bit when you're the best person to explain it, because you don't feel like it - that will just add clutter to the pages and make for more work later on to clean it up. But if you don't think you can describe the idea properly, you should at least put the basics in place for others to see.

Editing styles

Many people have different editing styles, and differ in how they would present information to others. Some would prefer a bulleted list, others a narrative describing all the steps in the process. Just because you think that one is better than the other, isn't necessarily a reason to change the article to fit that view. The process that I've tried to use throughout is that short descriptions can be narrative, while a longer process should be some kind of list - the idea being if the page is printed out and the user is following the steps one by one, it's easier to follow if they can check off each step as it is completed. So there is a point in a description where changing styles dramatically like that is a good idea, and that's a matter of personal preference. When in doubt, you can always put a note on the article's talk page and discuss your ideas.

There may be cases where you feel an entire article or section needs a major rewrite. While none of the articles here are owned by anyone in particular (see Ownership of articles), whomever spent their time and energy setting the article up the way it is may take offense at the change to their work; again, a good idea to leave a note on the discussion page and bring up your ideas instead of just making major changes. We don't want to discourage people from adding information in the future!

So should I update or discuss?

That really depends on the scope of the changes. If you're considering a minor update, such as rephrasing a paragraph or adding another solution to a problem, go right ahead. If you found something to be factually incorrect, that's also worth changing - though you may want to note the change on the talk page so that whomever wrote it in the first place will see why it was changed (and it doesn't hurt to cite the source of the fact). If you think the page just looks bad and want to re-do the layout, that would be a good candidate for discussion first. Of course, if the article that you're updating was just a stub to get the information out there but not really presented, then there's little need to discuss it - that's the point of the system.

See also

• Wikipedia:Editing Policy, where much of the inspiration for this document originated.