Jump to content

Main menu Navigation ●Main page ●Contents ●Current events ●Random article ●About Wikipedia ●Contact us ●Donate Contribute ●Help ●Learn to edit ●Community portal ●Recent changes ●Upload file

●Create account ●Log in ●Create account ● Log in Pages for logged out editors learn more ●Contributions ●Talk

(Top) 1 Don't help too much 2 Examples of helping too much 3 When and where it's okay to help 4 Disclaimer 5 See also 6 References

Wikipedia:Don't help too much

●Español Edit links ●Project page ●Talk ●Read ●Edit ●View history Tools Actions ●Read ●Edit ●View history General ●What links here ●Related changes ●Upload file ●Special pages ●Permanent link ●Page information ●Get shortened URL ●Download QR code ●Wikidata item Print/export ●Download as PDF ●Printable version From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcuts

WP:DHTM

WP:TOOMUCHHELP

This page in a nutshell: Help newcomers when they need it, but don't spoon feed them - if they didn't specifically ask.

Don't help too much[edit]

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

Anne Isabella Thackeray Ritchie^[1]

Though it is perfectly fine to help new editors edit pages, don't correct them every time they do something wrong. Let them figure it out themselves, or wait until they ask for help. If they give up, you can fix the error they made and tell them what they did wrong. But if they keep trying to solve the problem, there's no reason to solve it for them. Leaving a courtesy clue is enough in problematic cases. If someone else solves the problem for you, you didn't learn anything, and are less likely to keep using Wikipedia in the future.

Examples of helping too much[edit]

'Swooping in': If you see a bunch of new edits being made by a new editor trying to solve an error, don't fix the page yourself and walk away, as it makes the new editor feel left out and unneeded.
Insults: You shouldn't insult a new editor in the first place, and doing so tells them to step away and let someone else solve the problem for them.
Unhelpful messages: Even if you are nice to the editor, they will have learned nothing if all the message says is that there is an error or the error has been fixed. Show them how to fix it in the future!

When and where it's okay to help[edit]

When they've been trying for days: If the editor can't seem to solve the problem, but is trying very hard to, you can fix the error. However, send them a message showing them the steps needed to solve the problem, and they will have learned something from it.
Through messages: If you really can't help it, then follow the steps directly above. However, if you think more would be learned by the editor if you left them solve it by themselves, you don't have to leave them in the dark. Send them a message telling them that you have noticed how hard they have been working, and if they have any questions to contact you.
When they've given up: If they have seemed to stop editing that page they were struggling on, send them a message saying you have fixed the problem, show them the steps, and that they can ask you for help in the future.
When they ask for it: When a new editor asks you for help, you definitely need to help them, if you are confident with Wikipedia skills. The rule is to not help too much, not to not help at all.
When time is short: If an new editor's article has wound up at Articles for deletion, and you can make a convincing argument that the article is notable enough to stay, you should make the pro-retention argument for them if they're unable to make a convincing enough one themselves due to inexperience. You'll be making Wikipedia more friendly to its users.

Disclaimer[edit]

Don't abide by this rule blindly. Assume good faith when deciding whether or not to help new editors, and review this essay if you are unsure. Wikipedia editors are usually good at following this rule, so don't worry and just edit like you usually do.

References[edit]

^ wikt:give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime

Wikipedia essays (?)

Essays on building, editing, and deleting content

Philosophy	Article content Articles must be written All Five Pillars are equally important Avoid vague introductions Be a reliable source Civil POV pushing Cohesion Competence is required Concede lost arguments Dissent is not disloyalty Don't lie Don't search for objections Editing Wikipedia is like visiting a foreign country Editors will sometimes be wrong Eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia Explanationism External criticism of Wikipedia Here to build an encyclopedia Leave it to the experienced Levels of competence Most ideas are bad Need Neutrality of sources Not editing because of Wikipedia restriction The one question Oversimplification Paradoxes Paraphrasing POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields Process is important Product, process, policy Purpose Reasonability rule Systemic bias There is no seniority Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia Tendentious editing The role of policies in collaborative anarchy The rules are principles Trifecta Wikipedia in brief Wikipedia is an encyclopedia Wikipedia is a community Wikipedia is not RationalWiki
Article construction	100K featured articles Abandoned stubs Acronym overkill Adding images improves the encyclopedia Advanced article editing Advanced text formatting Akin's Laws of Article Writing Alternatives to the "Expand" template Amnesia test A navbox on every page An unfinished house is a real problem Articles have a half-life Autosizing images Avoid mission statements Be neutral in form Beef up that first revision Blind men and an elephant BOLD, revert, discuss cycle Build content to endure Cherrypicking Chesterton's fence Children's lit, adult new readers, & large-print books Citation overkill Citation underkill Common-style fallacy Concept cloud Creating controversial content Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability Deprecated sources Dictionaries as sources Don't demolish the house while it's still being built Don't get hung up on minor details Don't hope the house will build itself Don't panic Don't "teach the controversy" Editing on mobile devices Editors are not mindreaders Encourage the newcomers Endorsements (commercial) Featured articles may have problems Formatting bilateral relations articles Formatting bilateral relations templates Fruit of the poisonous tree Give an article a chance How to write a featured article Identifying and using independent sources History sources Law sources Primary sources Science sources Style guides Tertiary sources Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats Inaccuracy Introduction to structurism Mine a source Merge Test Minors and persons judged incompetent "Murder of" articles Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography Not everything needs a navbox Not everything needs a template Nothing is in stone Obtain peer review comments Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area Permastub Potential, not just current state Presentism Principle of Some Astonishment The problem with elegant variation Pro and con lists Printability Pruning article revisions Publicists Put a little effort into it Restoring part of a reverted edit Robotic editing Sham consensus Source your plot summaries Specialized-style fallacy Stub Makers Run an edit-a-thon Temporary versions of articles Tertiary-source fallacy There are no shortcuts to neutrality There is no deadline There is a deadline The deadline is now Try not to leave it a stub Understanding Wikipedia's content standards Walled garden What an article should not include Wikipedia is a work in progress Wikipedia is not a reliable source Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion The world will not end tomorrow Write the article first Writing better articles
Writing article content	Avoid thread mode Copyediting reception sections Coup Don't throw more litter onto the pile Gender-neutral language Myth vs fiction Proseline Use our own words We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions Write the article first Writing about women Writing better articles
Removing or deleting content	Adjectives in your recommendations AfD is not a war zone Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions Arguments to make in deletion discussions Avoid repeated arguments Before commenting in a deletion discussion But there must be sources! Confusing arguments mean nothing Content removal Counting and sorting are not original research Delete or merge Delete the junk Deletion is not cleanup Does deletion help? Don't attack the nominator Don't confuse stub status with non-notability Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument Follow the leader How the presumption of notability works How to save an article proposed for deletion I just don't like it Identifying blatant advertising Identifying test edits Immunity Keep it concise Liar liar pants on fire Nothing Nothing is clear Overzealous deletion Relisting can be abusive Relist bias The Heymann Standard Unopposed AFD discussion Wikipedia is not Whack-A-Mole Why was the page I created deleted? What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork No Encyclopedic Use

Essays on civility

The basics	Accepting other users Apology Contributing to complicated discussions Divisiveness Don't retaliate Edit at your own pace Encouraging the newcomers Enjoy yourself Expect no thanks High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors How to be civil Maintaining a friendly space Negotiation Obsessive–compulsive disorder editors Please say please Relationships with academic editors Thank you Too long; didn't read Truce Unblock perspectives We are all Wikipedians here You have a right to remain silent
Philosophy	A thank you never hurts A weak personal attack is still wrong Advice for hotheads An uncivil environment is a poor environment Be the glue Beware of the tigers! Civility warnings Deletion as revenge Failure Forgive and forget It's not the end of the world Nobody cares Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals Old-fashioned Wikipedian values Profanity, civility, and discussions Revert notification opt-out Shadowless Fists of Death! Staying cool when the editing gets hot The grey zone The last word There is no Divine Right of Editors Most ideas are bad Nothing is clear Reader The rules of polite discourse There is no common sense Two wrongs don't make a right Wikipedia clichés Wikipedia is not about winning Wikipedia should not be a monopoly Writing for the opponent
Dos	Assume good faith Assume the assumption of good faith Assume no clue Avoid personal remarks Avoid the word "vandal" Be excellent to one another Beyond civility Call a spade a spade Candor Deny recognition Desist Discussing cruft Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Encourage full discussions Get over it How to lose Imagine others complexly Just drop it Keep it concise Keep it down to earth Mind your own business Say "MOBY" Mutual withdrawal Read before commenting Settle the process first
Don'ts	ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI Wikipedia:Because I can Civil POV pushing Cyberbullying Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack Don't be a fanatic Don't be a jerk Don't be an ostrich Don't be ashamed Don't be a WikiBigot Don't be high-maintenance Don't be inconsiderate Don't be obnoxious Don't be prejudiced Don't be rude Don't be the Fun Police Don't bludgeon the process Don't call a spade a spade Don't call people by their real name Don't call the kettle black Don't call things cruft Don't come down like a ton of bricks Don't cry COI Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid Don't eat the troll's food Don't fight fire with fire Don't give a fuck Don't help too much Don't ignore community consensus Don't knit beside the guillotine Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your signature Don't remind others of past misdeeds Don't shout Don't spite your face Don't take the bait Don't template the regulars Don't throw your toys out of the pram Do not insult the vandals Griefing Hate is disruptive Nationalist editing No angry mastodons just madmen No Nazis No racists No Confederates No queerphobia No, you can't have a pony Passive aggression POV railroad Superhatting There are no oracles There's no need to guess someone's preferred pronouns You can't squeeze blood from a turnip UPPERCASE
WikiRelations	WikiBullying WikiCrime WikiHarassment WikiHate WikiLawyering WikiLove WikiPeace

Essays on notability

Humorous essays

About essays

Policies and guidelines

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Don%27t_help_too_much&oldid=1191182681" Categories: ●Wikipedia essays ●Wikipedia essays supporting editor endurance ●This page was last edited on 22 December 2023, at 00:58 (UTC). ●Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. ●Privacy policy ●About Wikipedia ●Disclaimers ●Contact Wikipedia ●Code of Conduct ●Developers ●Statistics ●Cookie statement ●Mobile view

●