Source Entities:Ownership

All Source Ents content - articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages - is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page. Some contributors feel possessive about material they contribute to Wikis, a few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about - perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on VDC.

Once you have posted it to the site, you cannot stop anyone from editing text you have written. As the message at the bottom of the edit interface clearly states: If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. That includes even erasing it, if it is bad.

Similarly, by submitting your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc), you allow others to challenge and develop them.

Provided that contributions and input from fellow editors are not ignored or immediately disregarded, being the primary or sole editor of an article does not constitute ownership. Editors familiar with the topic and in possession of relevant reliable sources may have watchlisted such articles and may discuss or amend others' edits.

Examples of ownership behavior
If an editor consistently demonstrates behavior similar to that shown in the following examples in a certain article talk page, then they probably have issues with page ownership. These are not definite indicators of an ownership problem but could be part of a pattern.

Actions

 * Disputing minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article.
 * Reverting a change simply because the editor in question finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.
 * Repetitive refusal to provide rationale for reversions to pages.
 * Any comments made with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions.

Statements

 * "You obviously have no hands-on experience with this topic."
 * "I created/wrote the majority of this article."
 * "I saw your edit to this article, and I appreciate your enthusiasm; however, I am an expert on the subject, and for the accuracy of this article, I have reverted your edit. If you have any suggestions, please put them in the talk page and I will review them."
 * "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all."
 * "Do not make such changes or comments until you have significantly edited or written work of this quality."
 * "Unless it is wrong or has errors, please do not make such changes or comments without my approval."
 * "I haven't had time to confirm what you wrote. I have other obligations, you know."