Wikipedia talk:Most ideas are bad

Communal editing of essays
Recently, all attempts to make good faith edits to improve this essay have been reverted. I would like to start a dialogue about improving this essay. WP:Essays states that "[y]ou do not have to be the one who originally created an essay in order to improve it. If an essay already exists, you can add to, remove from, or modify it as you wish, provided that you use good judgment." Some of the various issues that have been discussed indirectly during the editing process are:
 * 1) Should other cases be listed
 * 2) Should the key points be further explained with examples
 * 3) Should the essay be illustrated

The proposal to add policy and guideline violations was reverted on the grounds that consensus already covers this. This misses out that there can be ideas which are not violations of policies or guidelines, but which do go against article-level or project-level consensus (e.g., there may be an article-level consensus on an article like Heavy metal music that "band XYZ is not a heavy metal band." There is also a project-level consensus for film articles that Rotten Tomatoes' Top Critics scores should not be used in articles.)

The key points could do with explanation. Elsewhere in the essay, points are elaborated with examples. It can be argued that this helps the reader to understand the points.

Further attempts at providing an acceptable "bad idea" illustration will be attempted. Perhaps the Edsel? Thank you OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 20:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You are, of course, allowed to contribute to any essay in project space, and I appreciate your efforts, but I have not found your edits to be an improvement on the essay. To wit:
 * The Apple Newton is often cited as a good idea, that merely came before its time. The Edsel image I will leave for now; I'm not convinced of its utility, but it doesn't do much harm.
 * The list of "why ideas may be bad" is not meant to be all-inclusive, or to address specific wiki practices. It is meant as a concise summary of the kinds of reasons for an idea's downfall. As such, both content matters and policy/guideline matters are adequately covered by the "consensus" point, and it is appropriate to merely hint at other types of problems with an "etc". To extend this section to cover every sort of mistake an editor might make would detract from its intended impact. This essay is not meant to be about identifying bad ideas (which has been covered better elsewhere already), but about responding to them constructively.
 * Essays are not like articles; content forking is acceptable. If you have strong opinions about what sort of essay you want to see, you are perfectly welcome to start your own essay. —Swpbtalk 22:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

How is this article formatted?
Where is the table of contents? (Ethan369 (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)) I have found there is not one. Could someone please add one? Thanks.


 * Or is this not posibble? Ethan369 (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What? It's right there, after the lead. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)