finiki:Editing guidelines

finiki is the product of a number of editors' contributions, each one bringing something different to the table, whether it be: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess or tidbits of information, but most importantly a willingness to help. Even the most viewed articles should not be considered complete, as each new editor can offer new insights on how to enhance the content in it anytime.

finiki can always use more editors, so be bold about become a contributor. The wiki syntax may seem daunting at first, but it isn't very difficult to learn the basics.

Neutral point of view
finiki is guided by Wikipedia's policy of maintaining a neutral point of view (NPOV) which is one of the five pillars and founding principles of Wikipedia. This policy says that they accept all the significant viewpoints on an issue. Instead of simply stating one perspective, they try to present all relevant viewpoints without judging them. The aim is to be informative, not persuasive. The policy does NOT mean that our articles are expected to be 100% "objective," since in any dispute all sides believe their view to be "true."

There is one key difference. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, but finiki is not. finiki is a collaborative work that utilizes the knowledge of the individual investors in the Financial Wisdom Forum (FWF), is written from a Canadian perspective, and is presented in an easy-to-navigate and searchable format.

Adding to finiki

 * See also: Starter's Guide

finiki is here to provide information to people; generally speaking, the more information it can provide, the better it is. Please boldly add information to finiki, either by creating new articles or adding to existing articles, and exercise particular caution when considering removing information. However, it is finiki policy that information in finiki should be verifiable and must not be original research. Please show that information is verifiable and not original research by referencing reliable sources. Unsourced information may be challenged and removed, because on finiki a lack of information is better than misleading or false information. To avoid such challenges, the best practice is to provide an "inline citation" at the time the information is added (see: WP:Citing sources sources for instructions on how to do this, or ask for assistance on the article talk page).

Although reliable sources are required, when developing articles on the basis of sources, avoid copying or closely paraphrasing a copyrighted source. finiki respects others' copyright. You should read the source, understand it, and then express what it says in your own words.

Another way editors can add information to an article is by finding a source for existing unsourced material. This is especially true if you come across statements that are potentially controversial. You do not need to be the person who added the information to add a source and citation for it.

A work in progress, not perfection
Perfection is not required: finiki is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.

Seriously though, a wiki lives and breathes, ie, it evolves naturally as it goes along. Part of the process is editing/re-editing/discussion/consensus/agreement to disagree.

It's a collaborative effort so initial sketchy beginnings usually lead to a solid work. For example, the content of Cross-border and expatriate issues started out as a link to an FWF topic. yielder did a cut and paste of Norbert's opening topic in that paste. Then did a minor clean up of some URL formatting. At this point it can be seen that the format didn't fit finiki format. Checking back just later, you can see others were diving right in and improving the article.

Try to fix things
Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing cleaned up on the spot, or tagged if necessary. If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do it, but preserve any content you think might have some value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage. The editing process tends to guide articles through ever-higher levels of quality over time. Great articles can come from a succession of editors' efforts.

Instead of deleting text, consider:
 * rephrasing or copyediting to improve grammar, more accurately represent the sources, or balance the article's contents
 * correcting inaccuracy, while keeping the rest of the content intact
 * moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new)
 * adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced
 * requesting a citation by adding the tag
 * doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself
 * adding appropriate cleanup tags to sections you are unable to fix yourself
 * repair a dead link if a new URL for the page or an archive of the old one can be located
 * merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge

Dispute resolution
Stay cool and use Wikipedia's dispute resolution for guidance.