Help:New Article
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
I thought this was supposed to be RationalWiki |
![]() |
About |
Help |
RationalMedia Foundation (RMF) |
Moderation |
So you want to create a new article? Great! But before you rush off to do this, it's a good idea to stop for a moment, to think and plan. I know it's a pain, I know it feels like a waste of time but but it's one of those things which save time and effort in the long run — honest! First off, let me say this bit; if you have questions or desire assistance — feel free to ask a moderator. It's (partly) what they're there for!
Preparation[edit]
- If you're stuck for ideas, check out our 'To do list', as well as our Articles requiring attention article and drafts one. RWians who spend their time/energy updating, proofreading, checking/rectifying link rot and debloat/rebuild[note 1] mainspace articles are invaluable (but oft underappreciated) members of our community. In short; you don't have to create 'new articles' to get kudos (for what it's worth) here.
- Once you've hit upon an idea, check that it doesn't already exist in some form: search. Or that it's not a section of a related existing article. Don't forget to check other relevant namespaces before re-searching to ensure you snag the draftspace etc also.
- Read and understand RW's standards and What is an RW article?. If you don't understand, or desire clarification, hit up the moderators with your suggestion. Their views are in no way law around this place but generally speaking, their experience and involvement in the project makes their 'off the cuff' responses worth listening to.
- Consider whether RationalWiki needs this article. Is it 'missional'? If it isn't missional, is it 'informational' (as in helping understanding) for our missional articles? If it is informational, is it already covered elsewhere online to a decent quality which we can simply link to? There is no point in spending all those hours creating an article which as already been done (most likely better) by Wikipedia et al.. If it is about an individual or organisation, consider whether they are in fact notable enough to be covered.
- Consider whether you have the subject knowledge base to write the article. If you do not; do you have the time/energy to gain this knowledge? While RationalWiki does not expect all our contributors to be subject experts, we do at least expect contributors to have at least a general idea on the topic. There is no point in creating an article if it is made from cut/pasted Wikipedia[note 2], AI prompts and/or general rambling because it will be sent back to draftspace or simply deleted. Plagiarism is not allowed on RationalWiki, and self-plagiarism is frowned upon.
- Start looking for references to aid you in your work. While RationalWiki is not obsessed with having to reference every single comment like Wikipedia does, we do like to see some reliable references as you go along — in effect, to back up your narrative with evidence. This 'desire for evidence' is all the much stronger if you are critiquing a living person and/or existing organisation — some of which are very lawyer-happy. There is no point in spending all those hours creating an article only to discover you have no decent references to back up your arguments and discover the page is promptly deleted or sent into draft/essayspace.
- Lastly, consider if you have enough time/energy to actually do this. Making a new article from start to finish will take you several hours and you're unlikely to get help doing this either (on the other hand, after it's been completed, it's likely at least one 'someone' will review your work).
Production[edit]
- There's more than one way to produce your article. Some like to do it as a sandbox[note 3] or draft, while others prefer to work directly in mainspace.[note 4] Some others like to make it all using a word processor programme and then simply cut/paste it all in one edit. Some will swear blind with the 'write it all as one body of text, then put in the references' school while others argue that building it with the references as they come is more efficient. Do you write the introduction first, or last? There's no real 'wrong' way to do it, basically whatever works best for you (though it's recommended working directly on mainspace if you plan to build it piecemeal; you might come back to find someone had 'done something' to it in your absence!)
- More details are to be found Manual of style and Mistakes, but here's a heads-up for the most frequent mistakes/questions. English variant: American English for American-focused articles, British English for British-focused articles and so on. On international/non-geographic topics you can choose in a new page, but conform to existing choice in existing page. Just be consistent, and no variant editwars. Spelling: RationalWiki does not have an inbuilt spellchecker, so get your own (or use a programme which has one). Words: use a dictionary (of some form) to make sure you are using the correct words, and (perhaps more importantly) are not inadvertently using unnecessary localisms, slang or jargon. Paragraphs: use them. Please. Ideally, make them somewhat short (better for mobile mode). Capitalisation; only capitalise proper nouns. Internal linking is case sensitive.
- Consider not just the 'ideal reader' (the imagined primary target for your writing) but also the 'minimum reader' (the person just above finding your page unintelligible). A good general benchmark is to set the latter as a curious fourteen year-old in the Anglosphere of average reading age and educational level. In that their vocabulary is large enough and reading level good enough to follow a general argument correctly and has enough background knowledge to not need schooling on basic facts. Yet; they will be unfamiliar with any jargon, they haven't done much reading and their critical thinking skills will be rather basic. This might seem to be demeaning to all of RationalWiki's adult readership, but it has to be remembered that 85% of Americans have a 'reading age' of twelve or below, while the popular 'mid-brow' British newspaper Daily Mail has an age of eleven.[1][2] So write the pages with this reader in mind; such as running your drafts through readability tools to highlight not just 'reading age' but overly-long sentences and complex/jargony terms (as well as localisms which you didn't know were such).
- Leading on from this, it also means to assume the reader has clear access to and ability to operate competently, Wikipedia and search engines. Therefore, do not bother to replicate material easily discovered elsewhere. In fact, it's recommended to link to other reliable sources instead of simply reproducing (at a time/energy cost to oneself) material.[note 5]
- Bear in mind your writing style, your 'voice'. Yes, we hear you; 'but I already know how to write' etc. But tell us this; how much long-form writing have you done where you didn't have a captive audience? The teachers at school didn't personally want to read your essays, no more than your boss wanted to read your report or an academic wants to read your paper. What's more, we are taught bad habits by these; we emulate bad writing because we're taught 'this is the right way to do it'[note 6]. Issue is; there is no compulsion for RationalWiki readers - that if your work is stilted, turgid, windy and/or simply dull your page will be closed rather quickly. In this we have much more in common with journalists than academics; people who know that their audience can — and will — leave them with a flick of a dial or click of a tab. So hit up the Internets and read up on some journalistic tips and tricks.
- Think of a good title. Rule of thumb; use the most commonly used, neutral term for the subject (such as 'transgender' than 'transgenderism'), the current generally-accepted term ('climate change' than 'global warming') and spell out the full name rather than simply using an acronym ('United Kingdom Independence Party' than 'UKIP') even if it is better known by it's acronym. Wikipedia is usually a good judge on this kind of thing.
Polishing[edit]
- Links are good for references and explanations, but there are rules for this. Don't redlink (link to RationalWiki pages which don't exist), don't repeatedly link to the same thing (just do it the first time it comes up) and don't go overboard with them — does it help the reader by linking 'economy' simply because you used that term once? Also check whether the link actually goes to the correct article — for example, Green Party simply goes to a fork page.
- Consider the use of quotes and images to improve the article's quality. However, be picky — only put it in if you believe it significantly raises the quality. Quotes need to be reasonably attributable and any image used must have its copyright established before it is uploaded to RationalWiki for use. The best starting-point for images is Wikimedia Commons — which is filled with not only legally usable multimedia but also can be used on RationalWiki without having to upload the files here.
- Place your article in a category. This is simple: add as many of these: [[category:the relevant cat]] as required, down at the end of your page. A list of categories is at Cat list. You should try to be as specific as possible when including categories. For example, your article on France should not go in Category:Countries, Category:Geography, and Category:Europe—it should go into Category:European countries. However, you'll want to do this after it is out of your sandbox/draft. Otherwise your (incomplete) article will show up in the sidebar navigation templates. Any categories added should have evidence for such a category in the main body of the page.
- Perform a full proof-read of your article. You need to ensure that not only is your article accurate but also readable as a piece of writing. Make sure you have not used any weasel words, avoidable jargon (if you are using unavoidable jargon, consider putting in an elaboration of it as a note reference)[note 7], foreign terms or assuming too much prior knowledge of the reader. Sometimes, if you've built the article in sections, they may not 'flow' very well together as a single text. Clearly, check and double-check for spelling, punctuation, grammar, correct use of tenses, terminology slippage etc. Yes, there are folks who will check again but it's simply not done to leave them a jumbled mess to somehow clean up.
- Check for bloat. If you have worked on the article for some time, you may have ended up repeating yourself. And/or you may have accidentally added waffling which does not improve the quality of it. Another sin is that of 'information overload'; that in your desire to make the article as accurate as possible you have added correct but non-vital details. This in itself is not a sin, but cumulatively it becomes one; because it can easily double or more the length of an article for no real good reason.
- Consider putting in a 'Further reading' section at the end of the page. For example, if you have produced a biography page and know of a good book/television programme/public lecture on the topic for readers who are desiring to go deeper into the topic.
- Once you've cleared all the above, then finally click 'save changes' and watch your baby go.
Final Notes[edit]
- There is no need to hit the 'save' button after every single little edit (during this stage, at least). If you are that concerned about outages (and resulting loss of work) I suggest either copy/pasting the contents of this field for backup elsewhere (a simple plain file, .txt extension, can do this) and/or doing the bulk of the work on say, a word processor programme first.
- On a similar issue, make use of the 'Show preview' button next to the 'Save changes' one. So you can what the page will look like (which isn't always obvious in the editbox) without having to save it and then (perhaps) re-edit it.
- It is customary for the first mention of the subject within the body of the article to be in bold type. Use three apostrophes before and after it to do this: word for bolding: word for bolding.
- Once you have completed your page (and it's a new page) and saved it in mainspace; put in cross-links. Perform a search to find other pages which have mentioned your topic and turn them into links, think of all the reasonable synonyms/different terms and put in redirects to your page (for example UKIP redirects to United Kingdom Independence Party).
- If citing something behind a paywall, something transient[note 8] (such as social media), and/or something you'd prefer not to give the extra traffic, use a static saved version from the Wayback Machine or archive.today, the latter of which is sometimes better at archiving sites such as Twitter.
Notes[edit]
- ↑ That over time, repeated piecemeal additions have either made the article too long and/or difficult to read as a single piece of text.
- ↑ Even if you are the creator of said Wikipedia content.
- ↑ In order to make such a page search for User:Your username/sandbox and create the page.
- ↑ The easiest way to create the page is to 'search' for the title using 'Go' and click on 'create this page'.
- ↑ Backlinking SEO tactics are still valid even now. So by linking to other reliable (and well-regarded) sites shall improve the 'authority rating' of both sites just a little.
- ↑ However, there are some folks in this world who say RationalWiki is 'not reliable' because we do not use the stilted/turgid/dull style we have been taught 'is the correct form' for factual information.
- ↑ Like this. But don't go overboard!
- ↑ Known as 'ephemera'; works not designed to be preserved or of use after the fact.
References[edit]
- ↑ Content Readability Michigan Technological University.
- ↑ A Guide To Transforming Your Survey Writing With Red Top Newspaper Tactics Potentia.