Pending order strategy

Wikipedia content criteriapossible for readers to verify all content against credible external sources (following the guidance in the Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer that is linked-to at the end of every article);
Wikipedia:Reliable s

A variety of software-assisted systems and automated programs help editors and administrators to watch for problematic edits and editors. Theoretically all editors and users are treated equally with no "power structure". There is, however, a hierarchy of permissions and positions, some of which are listed hereafter:

Anyone can

Vote in certain elections (minimum edit count to receive suffrage varies depending on the election).
Many editors with accounts obtain access to certain

expert credentials are given no additional weight. Wikipedia is also not subject to any peer review for scientific, medical or engineering articles. One advantage to having amateurs write in Wikipedia is that they have more free time on their hands so that they can make rapid changes in response to current events. The wider the general public interest in a topic, the more likely it is to attract contributions from non-specialists.
The MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia retains a history of all edits and changes, thus information added to Wikipedia never "vanishes". Discussion pages are an important resource on contentious topics. Therefore, serious researchers can often find a wide range of vigorously or thoughtfully advocated viewpoints not present in the consensus article. As with any source, information should be checked. A 2005 editorial by a BBC technology writer comments that these debates are probably symptomatic of cultural changes that are happening across all sources of information (including search engines and the media), and may lead to "a better sense of how to evaluate information sources".[4]
ources, which explains what factors determine whethe

re of encyclopedic quality from the start: they may contain false or debatable information. Indeed, many articles start their lives as displaying a single viewpoint; and, after a long process of discussion, debate, and argument, they gradually take on a neutral point of view reached through consensus. Others may, for a while, become caught up in a heavily unbalanced viewpoint which can take some time—months perhaps—to achieve better balanced coverage of their subject. In part, this is because editors often contribute content in which they have a particular interest and do not attempt to make each article that they edit comprehensive. However, eventually, additional editors expand and contribute to articles and strive to achieve balance and comprehensive coverage. In addition, Wikipedia operates a number of internal resolution processes that can assist when editors disagree on content and approach. Usually, editors eventually reach a consensus on ways to improve the article. to help users and researchers do this

Users should be aware that not all articles a effectively, as is an article that summarizes third-party studies and assessments of the reliability of Wikipedia.
opedias. Wikipedia has a very low "publishing" cost

Edit semi-protected articles. tools that make editing easier and faster. Few editors learn about most of those tools, but one common privilege granted to editors in good standing is "rollback", which is the ability to undo edits more easily.
Administrators ("admins" or "sysops") have been app

Main pages: Wikipedia:Vandalism, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
Wikipedia has

Intentional vandalism can be reported and corrected by anyone.
Unresolved disputes between editors, whether based upon behavior, editorial approach, or validity of

general editors tend to acquire knowledge of appropriate writing styles and detailed formatting over time.
These are often abbreviated to WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V

wards can do a few technical things, and one almost never hears much about them since they normally only act when a local admin or bureaucrat is not available, and hence almost never on the English Wikipedia. There are very few stewards.
Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has several special

e court. They deal with disputes that remain unresolved after other attempts at dispute resolution have failed. Members of this Committee are elected by the community and tend to be selected from among the pool of experienced admins.
Stewards are the top echelon of technical permissions. Steroles and privileges. In most instances, however, he does not expect to be treated differently than any other editor or administrator.
Handling disputes and abusea rich set of methods to handle m

remost abuses that commonly arise. These methods are well-tested and should be relied upon.
content, can be addressed through the talk page of an art

due to vandalism or edit-warring, and can only be edited by certain editors.
Anyone with an account that has been registered for four days

come involved in any role s/he may choose, subject to peer approval. Individuals often will choose to become involved in specialised tasks, such as reviewing articles at others' request, watching current edits for vandalism, watching newly created articles for quality control purposes, or similar roles. Editors who believe they can serve the community better by taking on additional administrative responsibility may ask their peers for agreement to undertake such responsibilities. This structure enforces meritocracy and communal standards of editorship and conduct. At present a minimum approval of 75–80% from the community is required to take on these additional tools and responsibilities. This standard tends to ensure a high level of experience, trust, and familiarity across a broad front of aspects within Wikipedia.
edit most of the articles here. Some articles are protected