To contest content on Wikipedia, the most effective and universally recommended first step is to engage directly with the editors involved on the article's talk page, clearly explaining your concerns and supporting them with reliable sources.
Understanding Wikipedia's Collaborative Nature
Wikipedia is built on the principle of collaborative editing and consensus. This means that disagreements over content are expected, and a structured process exists to resolve them, prioritizing open discussion and evidence-based arguments. When you wish to contest information, remember you're participating in a community-driven effort to build a free, reliable encyclopedia.
Step-by-Step Guide to Contesting Content
Successfully contesting content on Wikipedia involves a series of escalating steps, starting with direct communication and moving towards broader community involvement if necessary.
Step 1: Discuss on the Talk Page (Crucial First Action)
The first and most important action to take when you object to specific edits or content is to approach the editor or editors concerned. Clearly explain which of their edits you object to and articulate why you object.
- Where to Discuss:
- Article Talk Page: This is the primary venue for discussing improvements to an article. Every Wikipedia article has an associated "Talk" page (e.g., for an article titled "Example," the talk page would be "Talk:Example"). This keeps discussions public and centralized.
- User Talk Page: If your concern is specifically about the behavior or a series of edits by a particular user across multiple articles, you might consider their user talk page. However, for specific article content, the article talk page is usually more appropriate.
- How to Discuss:
- Be Civil and Polite: Maintain a respectful tone, even when disagreeing. Personal attacks are strictly forbidden.
- Assume Good Faith: Always assume that other editors are trying to improve Wikipedia, even if you disagree with their methods or conclusions. This fosters a productive environment.
- Explain Your Objections Clearly: State precisely what content you find problematic and why. Reference Wikipedia's core policies (like Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research) and provide links to reliable sources that support your position.
- Sign Your Posts: End your comments on talk pages with four tildes
~~~~to automatically sign your username and timestamp.
Example:
"I noticed that the section on 'Historical Impact' states X. However, according to [link to reliable source A] and [link to reliable source B], it seems Y is a more accurate representation. Could we discuss adjusting this to reflect the consensus in scholarly literature?"
Step 2: Seeking Broader Community Input (If Talk Page Discussion Fails)
If direct discussion on the talk page doesn't lead to a resolution, you can seek input from the wider Wikipedia community.
Request a Third Opinion
For straightforward disputes between two editors where discussion has stalled, a Third Opinion can be helpful. A volunteer editor, uninvolved in the dispute, will review the discussion and offer their perspective.
- When to use: Simple disputes between two editors.
- Process: Request it on the Third Opinion noticeboard after talk page discussion.
Initiate a Request for Comment (RfC)
A Request for Comment (RfC) is a formal process designed to solicit broader community input on a specific content or policy issue. This is used for more complex disputes or when many editors are involved.
- When to use: Complex disputes, issues affecting multiple editors, or when broader community consensus is needed.
- Process: Post a neutral summary of the issue on the article's talk page and list it on the RfC page. Other editors will then weigh in.
Engage with Noticeboards
Wikipedia has various noticeboards dedicated to specific types of issues. These are excellent places to get expert opinions or flag policy violations.
- Reliable Sources Noticeboard (RSN): For disputes about whether a source is reliable or how it should be interpreted.
- Neutral Point of View Noticeboard (NPOVN): For disputes about whether content maintains a neutral perspective.
- Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard (BLPN): For urgent issues concerning living individuals.
- Conflict of Interest Noticeboard (COIN): If you suspect an editor has a conflict of interest impacting their edits.
Step 3: Formal Dispute Resolution (Advanced Steps)
These are more formal and less frequently used steps, typically reserved for intractable disputes or behavioral issues.
Mediation
Mediation is a voluntary process where an impartial mediator helps disputing parties reach a consensus. Both sides must agree to mediation.
- When to use: When other methods have failed and all parties are willing to compromise with the help of a neutral third party.
- Process: Request mediation after consensus-building attempts have been exhausted.
Arbitration Committee
The Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) is Wikipedia's highest-level dispute resolution body. It handles disputes that have resisted all other attempts at resolution, often involving persistent behavioral problems rather than just content. ArbCom's decisions are binding.
- When to use: As a last resort for chronic, severe disputes, usually involving editor conduct rather than specific content.
- Process: File a request for arbitration, providing detailed evidence of the problem and prior resolution attempts.
Key Principles for Successful Contestation
When contesting content, adhering to certain principles will greatly increase your chances of success:
- Be Civil and Respectful: Always maintain a polite and collaborative tone.
- Focus on Content, Not Contributors: Discuss the content and sources, not the editors involved.
- Provide Reliable Sources: Back up all your claims and proposed changes with links to high-quality, independent, published reliable sources.
- Understand Wikipedia Policies: Familiarize yourself with core content policies like Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research.
- Be Patient: Dispute resolution can take time. Consensus building is a gradual process.
- Be Open to Compromise: You might not get everything you want, but a mutually agreeable solution is the goal.
Dispute Resolution Avenues Overview
| Stage | Description | When to Use | Key Principles |
|---|---|---|---|
| Talk Page Discussion | Direct communication with involved editors on the article's discussion page. | First step for any content dispute. | Civility, assume good faith, explain objections, provide sources. |
| Third Opinion | An uninvolved editor offers an opinion on a dispute between two editors. | Simple disputes between two editors where talk page discussion stalls. | Neutrality, specific content focus. |
| Request for Comment (RfC) | Formal process to solicit broader community input on content or policy issues. | Complex disputes, broader consensus needed. | Neutral framing, clear issue statement, community participation. |
| Noticeboards | Dedicated pages for specific policy issues (e.g., reliable sources, neutrality, BLP). | Expert opinion needed on a specific policy application. | Policy-focused, evidence-based, community oversight. |
| Mediation | Voluntary process with an impartial mediator helping parties reach a consensus. | When other methods fail and all parties agree to mediate. | Voluntary, confidential, consensus-driven. |
| Arbitration Committee | Highest-level dispute resolution, typically for persistent behavioral issues. | Last resort for chronic, severe disputes, often behavioral. | Binding decisions, evidence-based, focus on conduct and policy. |
