This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:RTFA is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:
Related Sponsors
 |
This is an essay, a page containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. You may heed it or not, at your discretion. |
Many article talk pages contain links to archived earlier discussions. These discussions often contain relevant information related to commonly contested content and the resolutions to previous content disputes. New editors to a particular article are encouraged to read any archives before posting their questions so that the talk page maintains a good signal to noise ratio, as opposed to one that is filled with repetitive postings. Talk pages that have a good signal to noise ratio are more likely to attract continued participation. An additional benefit to reading the archives is avoiding resurrecting previously settled disputes prompted by commonly-made objections.
RTA is an initialism for the statement "Read The Archives". This instruction is often given editor new to an article in response to a question or objection that has been previously answered or resolved and easily found by reading the article's archived previous discussions, and suggests that the inquirer may be wasting people's time. Alternately, RTFA is an initialism for "Read The Fucking Archives" and is a play on the engineering/computer science slang term "RTFM". In an effort to make the admonition less offending to newcomers, the expletive "fucking" could be translated as "Fine" or "Friendly". "RTFA" is sometimes used as an escalation for those editors who continue to resist pleas to "RTA."
Critics might say that frequent editors who enjoin new editors to first read the archives or use the phrase RTA are simply expressing elitism, and that their attitude drives away newcomers without helping them. Yet many needless, heated debates could be avoided if newcomers availed themselves of the archived discussions prior to raising issues that are commonly seen and whose resolution is a matter of existing consensus. Resurrecting previously-settled issues can reopen past conflicts which in turn can lead to revert wars and ultimately the protection of the article.
Those long-term editors of a particular article or topic may consider adding to the article's talk page a FAQ, pointing new editors to a list of answers to common questions and resolutions to previous conflicts. This information would be culled from the archives, and provide newcomers with a sort of "quick reference guide" to getting started in the article.
Wikipedia content modification information:
- This page was last modified on 18 April 2008, at 07:20.
Wikipedia Authorship and Review
Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.
Wikipedia Usage Guidelines
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Wikipedia:RTFA".
The URL for this specific entry is:
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.