User:Bloodofox/Cryptozoology

Imagine opening a perfectly mainstream and easily available encyclopedia only to find geology articles dominated by "Creation science", pieces on mental health focused on gay conversion therapy, or the book's climate science section dominated by climate change denialism. Wikipedia does not have these problems, but in other areas promotional coverage of pseudoscientific concepts continue. For example, as Wikipedia editors who seek to improve Wikipedia's coverage of folklore-related topics know all too well, the platform has a major problem with overcoming the promotion of the pseudoscience of cryptozoology on the platform.

In part due to Wikipedia's historic lack of academics involved in folklore studies (folklorists), cryptozoologists have dominated Wikipedia's folklore coverage from an early period. In turn, rather than sober and scholarly discussion of the development, implications, and complications of figures and entities from the folklore record, readers find wild-eyed fringe theories. Because this issue encompasses thousands of articles, category listings, and templates, solving this problem requires organization and an underlying understanding of associated topics, some of which are complex.

As with other examples of fringe and pseudoscientific material on the platform, this issue is compounded by Google's intention to use Wikipedia to counteract the influence of fringe theories on Youtube. This document explains the problem and offers solutions. Please note that as efforts continue to improve Wikipedia's coverage of folklore-related topics, the information on this article will become less relevant.

History
For much of the project's history, Wikipedia appears to have had little to no input or involvement from folklorists. In their place, cryptozoologists produced a tremendous amount of articles, templates, and categories classifying entities from the folklore record.

In turn, where one would expect to find articles featuring sober and informed discussion regarding a specific entity from the folklore record (including the being's historical development, associated motifs, and social relevance), one often finds instead wild-eyed entries on what cryptozoologists call cryptids (literally 'hidden animals', a word coined by cryptozoologists to imply that, for example, behind mentions of a water monster lurks a remarkably sneaky dinosaur).

Over the years, cryptozoologists have essentially turned Wikipedia into their personal Pokédex, a guide to monster hunting focused on "sightings", complete with templates bearing fallacious taxonomies (often listed by way of this infobox), extensive categories, and arbitrary illustrations (often designed to make an entity appear to be as or, in some cases, ). Imagine if Young Earth creationists or flat earthers dominated Wikipedia's coverage of geology topics, or if germ theory denialists were given free rein with Wikipedia's medical coverage, and you'll have an idea of where we're at with a significant percentage of Wikipedia's folklore coverage.

Yes, cryptozoology is a pseudoscience
Academic sources have established that "the zoological community does not use the term 'cryptid'" because "animals studied in cryptozoology are not scientifically plausible".

While the term "cryptid" may be sometimes used by perfectly reliable news sources or web sites influenced by cryptozoology, newspapers and pop culture sites aren't the relevant expert community Wikipedia looks to for how to cover fringe cryptozoology subjects. The best possible sources are those published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses.

And a majority of such sources agree that cryptozoology is rightly marginalized on the outer fringes of mainstream science, and more often than not, explicitly labeled as a pseudoscience. Well-known paleontologist Donald Prothero expressed this scientific consensus quite bluntly, "cryptozoology as it exists today is unquestionably a pseudoscience". With such high quality reliable sources to back them up, editors interested in improving articles about mythical creatures should not have any reservations about marginalizing or eliminating fringe cryptozoology views or sources when they come across them.

Structural problems and improving coverage
Structurally, Wikipedia continues to favor the plight of cryptozoologists over academics. For example, while Wikipedia hosts a Wikiproject Cryptozoology (founded in 2006), the platform only gained a WikiProject Folklore in 2018. The focus on cryptozoology over an academic approach has a long history on the site. For example, Wikipedia had a "list of cryptids" a year (2002) before the site hosted its lists of legendary creatures (2003).

It's high time Wikipedia users stripped away the pseudoscience and developed Wikipedia's folklore-related articles to become the incredible tertiary sources that they have every possibility to be. Wikipedia users can improve Wikipedia's coverage of folklore-related articles by removing pseudoscience and undue emphasis on fringe sources and topics (WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE, respectively). Sometimes the process is as simple as removing inappropriate categories listing entities from the folklore record as cryptids or removing the spam-like application of an instance of a cryptozoology template at the bottom of a page. In other instances, however, cryptozoology may be so ingrained in an article that it is very difficult to tell where the pseudoscientific talk of "cryptids" end and where any extant folk belief may begin. In these instances, stubification is almost always necessary.

As an example, compare these two article revisions: before and after. In the first instance, a writer has presented the entity from the folklore record as a "Plesiosaur-like cryptid", invoking the potential for a living, hidden dinosaur. This is deep fringe territory. In the second version, a user has taken the time to reference reliable sources, yielding solid information for curious readers. The fringe is gone.

Sourcing folklore-related articles on Wikipedia
Wikipedia editors new to folklore-related topics can find themselves confused about how and where to find reliable sources and what to avoid. If you're wondering whether or not to draw from a source, it helps to ask yourself the following questions:


 * Cryptid: Does it use the word cryptid or does the site or publication's name have any variation of crypto- in it? If yes, this is a red flag. As mentioned in a note above, the term cryptid is used solely by cryptozoologists and amateur works influenced by cryptozoology. Cryptid is not used by academics. Unless you're writing about the topic of cryptozoology, avoid this source.
 * Academic press or peer-reviewed journal: Is the work published by an academic press or peer-reviewed journal of some variety? If yes, this is a good sign. If it comes from, say, a biology piece, consider instead the next question.
 * Folkloristics: Is the work authored by a folklorist, an academic in some way academic in the field of folkloristics? If yes, then you've probably got a keeper. These individuals are authorities on the topic of folklore.

Depending on where you are in the world and what type of access you have, you have a variety of options for identifying solid sources. First, try to avoid search engines as a general rule of thumb. Instead, skip the internet merchants and cast your net via scholarly databases. For folklore-related topics, the most commonly used sites on Wikipedia include:
 * Google Scholar
 * Google Books
 * JSTOR (Generally requires a login, usually provided by an academic institution or library)

By following these practices and keeping these facts in mind, we can turn Wikipedia's coverage on folklore-related topics around, and eventually hold Wikipedia up as the finest tertiary source on folklore-related topics the world has ever seen.