Wikipedia:Duty to comply

This is an essay on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and the Wikipedia:Edit filter guideline.

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

This page in a nutshell: Editors have duties to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Editors have a duty to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, unless the policies and guidelines would not allow an action, where Wikipedia:Ignore all rules would apply. Policies and guidelines that have strong consensus are often the most strongly enforced. Edit filters are in place to enforce these duties. Prohibited behaviors, such as vandalism, sockpuppetry, and edit warring, are usually driven by emotion. Users who commit these behaviors may be blocked, banned, or both.

Reasoning

Wikipedia's policies and guidelines govern how users must edit. Policies tell users what they must do, and guidelines tell them how to handle situations. Editors have duties to comply with these policies and guidelines, except in unusual circumstances, where Wikipedia:Ignore all rules would apply. Edit filters are in place to enforce these duties and to find patterns in harmful behavior. Kantian ethics dictate that duties come from deontological ethics, and following duties results in good behavior.^[1]^[2] If a user were to apply Kantian ethics, the policies and guidelines exist to facilitate building an encyclopedia, and the edit filters exist because of the policies and guidelines.

In a legal sense, willfulness is "the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty",^[3] and it is "intentional, or knowing" instead of unintentional.^[4] Wikipedia's policies, such as those involving vandalism and sockpuppetry, show that these violations involve intent. In addition, the principle of Ignorantia juris non excusat holds that nobody is excused from not knowing policies, and that policies guide behavior.^[5] Policies and guidelines are available for people to read. This supports the principle of constructive knowledge, even if a user cannot prove that another user actually knew the policies and guidelines at hand. If a user makes a disruptive edit, another user typically reverts that edit and uses a warning template, such as Template:Uw-disruptive1, telling the user to look at the policies and guidelines, and to ask for help from the user who posted that message. The fact that this template and similar templates have these notes and links supports the maxim that users are presumed to know the policies and guidelines, and users who reasonably believe that other users posted disruptively can prove that those other users should have known the policies and guidelines, but chose not to search for them or read them.

For citing reliable sources, editors should try to cite academic journals first, as they have the most rigorous review processes and cite many sources.^[6] Template:Talk header lists examples of sites editors can look for academic journals on, such as Google Scholar and JSTOR. Extended-confirmed users may have access to the Wikipedia Library, provided their accounts are older than six months. Other reliable sources include academic books, trade sources, and periodical articles, such as those from magazines and newspapers.^[7]

Prohibited actions

Actions Wikipedia prohibits include, but are not limited to, the following.

Vandalism, because the intent would be to damage the encyclopedia.
Censoring Wikipedia, as this is a form of ideological vandalism.
Disruptive editing.
Spam, because the intent would be to advertise or promote oneself.
Edit warring instead of using the talk pages to discuss controversial edits, because the intent would be to win. Wikipedia is not a battleground.
Sockpuppetry, because the intent would often be to influence votes, win edit wars, and circumvent policies and guidelines.
Failing to cite reliable sources.
Original research.
Using talk pages as forums.
Writing about oneself.
Conflict of interest editing. If that happens, an editor with the conflict of interest should ask another editor to write or edit the topic instead.
Copyright violations, as Wikimedia takes them seriously.
Personal attacks.
Harassment.
Willfully triggering edit filters.
Willfully not adhering to the Manual of Style, as this manual aims to standardize article format and appearance.
Choosing defamatory, impersonating, profane, libelious, offensive, or otherwise harmful usernames.
Not adhering to neutral point of view.
Not being here to build an encyclopedia.
Consistently performing poorly in certain subjects instead of letting more knowledgeable people handle those subjects.
Willfully providing false information.
Attempting to own pages.
Threatening legal action, because the intent is to avoid civility and treat Wikipedia as a professional service rather than a volunteer one.

These behaviors are usually driven by emotion, such as pride, selfishness, ambition, or deception.^[8] Any editor who persistently engages in these behaviors may be blocked, banned, or both. That editor is consequently blocked or banned because of what that editor did, and that editor cannot blame other users. Other users can incite that editor to act, but ultimately, that editor chooses to act.

References

^ Misselbrook, David (April 2013). "Duty, Kant, and Deontology". British Journal of General Practice. 63 (609): 211–211. doi:10.3399/bjgp13X665422. ISSN 0960-1643. PMC 3609464. PMID 23540473.
^ "BBC - Ethics - Introduction to ethics: Duty-based ethics". BBC. Retrieved February 12, 2025.
^ Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (Supreme Court of the United States 1991).
^ United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389 (Supreme Court of the United States 1933).
^ Rowell, Arden (2019). "Legal Knowledge, Belief, and Aspiration" (PDF). Arizona State Law Journal. 51 (1): 225–291 – via Academic Search Complete.
^ Library, A. C. Buehler. "A.C. Buehler Library: Source Evaluation and Credibility: Journals and Magazines". library.elmhurst.edu. Retrieved February 12, 2025.
^ "How to Identify Reliable Information". Stevenson University. Retrieved February 12, 2025.
^ Yip, Jeremy A.; Lee, Kelly Kiyeon (December 2022). "Emotions and ethics: How emotions sensitize perceptions of the consequences for self and others to motivate unethical behavior". Current Opinion in Psychology. 48: 101464. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101464.

[1] Misselbrook, David (April 2013). "Duty, Kant, and Deontology". British Journal of General Practice. 63 (609): 211–211. doi:10.3399/bjgp13X665422. ISSN 0960-1643. PMC 3609464. PMID 23540473.

[2] "BBC - Ethics - Introduction to ethics: Duty-based ethics". BBC. Retrieved February 12, 2025.

[3] Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (Supreme Court of the United States 1991).

[4] United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389 (Supreme Court of the United States 1933).

[5] Rowell, Arden (2019). "Legal Knowledge, Belief, and Aspiration" (PDF). Arizona State Law Journal. 51 (1): 225–291 – via Academic Search Complete.

[6] Library, A. C. Buehler. "A.C. Buehler Library: Source Evaluation and Credibility: Journals and Magazines". library.elmhurst.edu. Retrieved February 12, 2025.

[7] "How to Identify Reliable Information". Stevenson University. Retrieved February 12, 2025.

[8] Yip, Jeremy A.; Lee, Kelly Kiyeon (December 2022). "Emotions and ethics: How emotions sensitize perceptions of the consequences for self and others to motivate unethical behavior". Current Opinion in Psychology. 48: 101464. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101464.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

Reasoning

Prohibited actions

See also

References