WikiProjectMed:Policies and guidelines

The pillars of editing form the foundation of reliable and collaborative content, which establish the standards that encourage consistency, fairness, and credibility across every contribution. They also guide editors in their collective responsibility to maintain accuracy, build trust, and make thoughtful decisions. Each pillar embodies a core principle essential to the reliability of shared knowledge: neutrality reinforces fairness by striving for balance; clarity promotes understanding by presenting information in a way that is accessible to all readers; collaboration fosters inclusivity by welcoming diverse perspectives and joint commitment; citation integrity upholds the precision and credibility of sourcing, ensuring references are both valid and reliable; and verifiability anchors every claim with evidence, enabling readers to assess and confirm the validity of the information for themselves.

Quality of citations matters more than quantity, and lead sections benefit from carefully chosen references that reassure readers of editorial judgment and neutrality. Excessive citations can be overwhelming or distracting. A single, authoritative source can establish credibility without clutter. By prioritizing quality over quantity, writers ensure that lead sections remain clear, accessible, and persuasive, setting the right tone for the rest of the article. The clear placement of citations prevents confusion, preserves the longevity of text, and ensures that even in cases of conflicting sources, content remains trustworthy, balanced, and transparent. Editing rests most firmly on the pillar of verifiability, for without reliable sources placed precisely where they substantiate each statement, content risks becoming opinion rather than knowledge.

Ultimately, the careful use of citations empowers readers to verify claims independently, fostering trust and encouraging deeper engagement with the material. Citations hold editors accountable, ensuring that contributions can be traced back to reliable sources. They also serve as a safeguard against bias, speculation, or disinformation. By upholding these principles, editors contribute not only to the reliability of individual articles but also to the integrity of the collaborative project as a whole. Strong editorial pillars ensure that knowledge remains durable, adaptable, and relevant across time, even as new sources and perspectives emerge. Together, these pillars establish a framework that transforms editing from a technical task into a commitment to clarity, integrity, and the enduring pursuit of knowledge.

Pillars of editing

The pillars of editing establishes the foundational standards for maintaining clarity, neutrality, and verifiability in collaborative writing. All editors are expected to uphold these principles to ensure that content remains trustworthy, accessible, and enduring.

Neutrality: Articles should present information fairly, without bias, and reflect significant viewpoints proportionally.

Clarity: Content should be written in concise, accessible language. This means using clear, straightforward words and sentence structures so that information is easily understood by a wide audience.

Collaboration: Respect the collaborative nature of editing. Revisions should improve accuracy, readability, and neutrality, not introduce personal opinion.

Citation integrity: Quality of sources matters more than quantity. Editors should prevent citation ambiguity by aligning references with specific claims.

Verifiability: Every statement should be supported by a reliable source. Citations should be placed directly after the claim they substantiate to avoid ambiguity.

Editorial standards regarding sourcing

The strength of MDWiki depends on consistent sourcing. Every statement should be backed by a reliable reference. Upholding article standards requires adherence to core content principles, which emphasize that all material should be attributable to trustworthy, published sources. In practice, this means any added information should be supported with citations that make verification both possible and practical. The most effective way to achieve this is through the use of inline citations.

Citations are essential for ensuring that information is not simply invented. To preserve an unbiased perspective, every article should remain verifiable—particularly in cases where sources conflict. Even small edits, such as altering a single word, can transform a properly sourced statement into one that no longer meets verification standards. Without a citation close at hand, such errors may go unnoticed. Failing to provide sources when they are available undermines the ability to fact‑check and weakens neutrality, ultimately reducing the encyclopedic value of the work.

The credibility of an article relies not only on the presence of citations but also on their placement. When citations are misplaced, they create confusion and make it harder to confirm the accuracy of claims. Aligning citations directly with the statements they support strengthens verifiability and follows established footnote guidelines. Conversely, leaving a claim uncited—or rendering the citation invisible—weakens verifiability and may cause readers to assume the material is unsourced. On MDWiki, content that appears unsourced is vulnerable to being treated as original research and, in certain cases, removed.

Controversial statements generally need only a single citation, though adding more can reduce the likelihood of disputes. However, piling on numerous weak references may create the illusion of authority without strengthening the claim—a form of citation overkill. The goal is not quantity but verifiability: use as many sources as necessary to confirm accuracy. In practice, one strong citation for each statement is usually enough to meet verifiability standards.

Citations enhance article content

Citations strengthen the quality of an article by grounding its content in reliable evidence. They provide readers with clear pathways to verify information, which enhances trust and transparency. Proper sourcing also protects neutrality, ensuring that claims are not mistaken for opinion or original research. By linking statements to authoritative references, citations elevate articles from mere assertions to credible, encyclopedic resources.

The strength of an article lies in the reliability of its citations, not in how many are used. A few well‑chosen, authoritative sources do more to enhance accuracy and credibility than a long list of weak references. Prioritizing quality over quantity ensures that content remains verifiable, neutral, and genuinely informative.

Including well-placed citations in the lead section adds substantial value and improves the reading experience. Citations in the lead reassure readers and editors that the content is neutral and not original research, even when sources are already included in the body. Since readers cannot be expected to always check the body for verification, lead citations serve as a direct safeguard. They also help readers and editors to find related supporting material in other parts of the article that draw on the same sources. This practice is especially important in contentious articles, where lead citations strengthen credibility and reduce disputes. This careful curation helps establish trust, sets the tone for the rest of the text, and demonstrates that the content is grounded in verifiable evidence rather than sheer quantity of citations.

Positioning of citations

When multiple sources support different parts of a paragraph, each citation should be placed precisely where it verifies the specific claim. If new material is inserted into a paragraph and cites a different source, poorly placed citations can create confusion about which reference supports which statement.

Even simple claims can become difficult to check when citations are clustered at the end of a sentence or paragraph. To avoid this kind of citation ambiguity, it is often clearer to attach each citation directly to the claim it supports.

The example below illustrates how placing citations at the end of a paragraph makes verification more difficult.

Less helpful: Dengue is an arboviral illness resulting from the dengue virus, most prevalent in tropical regions. Since 2000, reported cases have risen sharply, reaching 5.2 million in 2019, with about 70% occurring in Southeast Asia, the Western Pacific, and other parts of Asia. Clinical outcomes vary widely, from mild fever to severe dengue shock syndrome, which can be life‑threatening—especially in individuals experiencing a secondary infection. Dengue flavivirus is transmitted by mosquitoes and is among the most widespread and dangerous viral infections in humans. Each year, more than 400 million cases are reported globally, with an estimated 22,000 deaths. The disease is prevalent across tropical and subtropical regions in over 100 countries. While no specific treatment exists, early diagnosis, preventive measures, public awareness, and appropriate medical care can decrease mortality.^[1]^[2]

By contrast, when a citation is placed immediately after the statement it verifies, readers can confirm the source more easily and avoid ambiguity.

More helpful: Dengue is an arboviral illness resulting from the dengue virus, most prevalent in tropical regions.^[1] Since 2000, reported cases have risen sharply, reaching 5.2 million in 2019, with about 70% occurring in Southeast Asia, the Western Pacific, and other parts of Asia.^[1] Clinical outcomes vary widely, from mild fever to severe dengue shock syndrome, which can be life‑threatening—especially in individuals experiencing a secondary infection.^[1] Dengue flavivirus is transmitted by mosquitoes and is among the most widespread and dangerous viral infections in humans.^[2] Each year, more than 400 million cases are reported globally, with an estimated 22,000 deaths.^[2] The disease is prevalent across tropical and subtropical regions in over 100 countries.^[2] While no specific treatment exists, early diagnosis, preventive measures, public awareness, and appropriate medical care can decrease mortality.^[2]

↑ ^1.0 ^1.1 ^1.2 ^1.3 Kothari, Dimple; Patel, Niralee; Bishoyi, Ashok Kumar (March 2025). "Dengue: epidemiology, diagnosis methods, treatment options, and prevention strategies". Archives of Virology. 170 (3). doi:10.1007/s00705-025-06235-3. PMID 39915348.
↑ ^2.0 ^2.1 ^2.2 ^2.3 ^2.4 Pourzangiabadi, Masoud; Najafi, Hamideh; Fallah, Arezoo; Goudarzi, Aida; Pouladi, Iman (January 2025). "Dengue virus: Etiology, epidemiology, pathobiology, and developments in diagnosis and control – A comprehensive review". Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 127: 105710. doi:10.1016/j.meegid.2024.105710. PMID 39732271.

Practical checklist

Place citations immediately after the claim they support.

Use high-quality, reliable sources rather than piling on weak references.

Ensure neutral phrasing: avoid loaded or promotional language.

Break down complex passages into clear, verifiable statements.

When sources conflict, present each fairly and attribute them clearly.

Avoid over-citing content; one strong source is often sufficient.

Strategically placed lead citations strengthen neutrality and credibility.

Revise collaboratively: prioritize accuracy, clarity, and verifiability over personal style.

Pillars of editing

Editorial standards regarding sourcing

Citations enhance article content

Positioning of citations

Practical checklist

Further reading