Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-08-31/Essay


 * This is an interesting essay. I'd never thought to apply the concept of walled gardens to Wikipedia, so I appreciate Adam introducing that perspective. Ward's wiki dealt with walled gardens in the early 00's and their discussion on the subject might be of interest to those who want to look deeper. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You obviously never stumbled across longevity articles, which I did in late 2010. That was the poster child of walled gardens on Wikipedia for years, it took over a decade to cut that down to reasonable size. Deleting massive amounts of junk was essential to cleaning that up. WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity was in 2010/2011, and that was only the very beginning of the second (and, after 8 more years, finally successful) massive effort to get that disaster area contained. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 02:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, the bulk of the longevity dispute seems to be from before I became active. I'd seen references to the case but never looked too closely at it, so that's something I'll need to dig through. Thanks for the additional lead (and for your work cleaning it up). — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you made the argument better throughout the rest of the article, but starting with this just created an inherent contradiction from the get-go:
 * "Sometimes, an article comes up for AfD (“Article for Deletion”), which, though its subject may be notable, has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Perhaps its only source is a promotional, questionable website. Perhaps its material seems to be completely made up from thin air."
 * If an article is notable, then reliable sources would exist for it to showcase that notability and it also wouldn't be made up. I understand that you meant that the article subject was notable, but the existing article didn't represent or use anything that is a part of that notability, but I feel like that was poorly laid out in this introduction. It just creates confusion on what notability even means if the article lacks notability in its representation.
 * Also, if a subject is notable (which would only be representable via proper reliable source coverage that has a significant amount of information), then I find it hard to see how any argument other than Stubbify/Re-write a stub paragraph from scratch is viable. That one act alone is what should be done in all cases of a notable article subject that has the issues you are pointing out, but is a notable topic. End of story, that is the action to take. And AfD isn't it if the person nominating knows the subject is notable, they should be the ones stubbifying/rewriting it themselves. Silver  seren C 00:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not entirely accurate; if Wikipedia is better without the current article, and no one is willing to write a better one, then the article should be deleted or redirected. Ideally, there would be someone willing to write a better one, but we don't live in an ideal world. BilledMammal (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A single paragraph with a minimum of a single reliable source is not a high bar to reach. Anyone who is willing to put in the effort to create and go through an AfD should be equally willing to stubbify and write 3 sentences for an article. Having a single paragraph article with a proper reference is even more so better than having no article on a topic. Silver  seren C 01:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, and would have added a comment to the effect of this comment if someone else had not already made it. Bahnfrend (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There's been a trend of "stubbifying" that's come up after 2008, and, yes, it helps deal with the issue. I decided the main essay shouldn't be overly changed, but I added the last section - alternatives to deletion - for the republication since we have more options now. I do think that upmerging can be better than stubbifying, as context is often more helpful.
 * It's probably also worth noting that what I was editing in 2008 included a lot of pseudoscience pages, where you would get, for example, 300 articles on, say, Ayurveda, including a bunch of barely-sourced "medicines", which you could readily prove existed, and cover from an ayurvedic viewpoint, but WP:MEDRS required non-alternative medicine sources for, and those didn't exist. Basically, a degree of specialisation that no reliable source was going to cover if they hadn't bought into the concept already. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 17:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm really not seeing this supposed contradiction, but your response seems to be based on some inferences that contradict the points in the essay.
 * An article can't, itself, "be notable" or not. The subject can be notable, but there's no such thing as a "notable article".
 * Well, not just "meant" that, the essay said exactly that. And it's certainly possible for an article on a notable subject to contain falsehoods or fabrications. It's also possible for that article to lack any reliable sources — even if those sources exist (which, as you say, they must), that doesn't matter if the article doesn't employ any of them. It's precisely the articles filled with unsourced, fabricated, distorted, self-serving nonsense, that the essay is targeting; the ones that get "keep" votes purely on the grounds that "subject is notable", therefore we "must" have an article about it. (Even if it's a disaster?) FeRDNYC (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The options are not just keep in that form or delete it. My point was that an AfD discussion is inherently the problem. Because the point of an AfD is to determine notability of a subject. And if the article subject is already stated to be notable, then the entire AfD was pointless from the get-go. Complaining about Keep votes is entirely missing the point, since Keep is the proper response when asked about the notability of a notable topic. Which is why I pointed out that the automatic response to an issue of an article not properly representing the subject it's about should always be stubbify from scratch, not attempt to delete it. So I guess I am arguing against the central premise of the essay, in that it's fundamentally wrong. Since, yes, the point of Wikipedia is that if a subject is notable, we should have an article on it. Period. The end goal is to have articles on all notable subjects. The way to fix a "disaster" is as I already mentioned. Silver  seren C 04:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not quite true. Articles that have been on notable subjects, were fully sourced, and for that matter were quite popular with the readers, can and have been deleted at AFD under WP:NOT. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Under what part of WP:NOT? Because what that covers would inherently not be notable subjects in the first place (since, for example, dictionary words aren't subjects in the first place). Silver  seren C 04:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:INDISCRIMINATE: merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. That has been interpreted broadly to mean that if enough people don't like a particular subject area, articles on that subject area can be barred from Wikipedia. See Articles for deletion/Justin Bieber on Twitter for an example. This decision gave real teeth to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The options are not just keep in that form or delete it. My point was that an AfD discussion is inherently the problem. Because the point of an AfD is to determine notability of a subject. And if the article subject is already stated to be notable, then the entire AfD was pointless from the get-go. Complaining about Keep votes is entirely missing the point, since Keep is the proper response when asked about the notability of a notable topic. Which is why I pointed out that the automatic response to an issue of an article not properly representing the subject it's about should always be stubbify from scratch, not attempt to delete it. So I guess I am arguing against the central premise of the essay, in that it's fundamentally wrong. Since, yes, the point of Wikipedia is that if a subject is notable, we should have an article on it. Period. The end goal is to have articles on all notable subjects. The way to fix a "disaster" is as I already mentioned. Silver  seren C 04:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not quite true. Articles that have been on notable subjects, were fully sourced, and for that matter were quite popular with the readers, can and have been deleted at AFD under WP:NOT. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Under what part of WP:NOT? Because what that covers would inherently not be notable subjects in the first place (since, for example, dictionary words aren't subjects in the first place). Silver  seren C 04:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:INDISCRIMINATE: merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. That has been interpreted broadly to mean that if enough people don't like a particular subject area, articles on that subject area can be barred from Wikipedia. See Articles for deletion/Justin Bieber on Twitter for an example. This decision gave real teeth to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * As Wugapodes said, this is an interesting essay. Is anyone aware of previous efforts to identify these "walled gardens" or "collective orphans" within Wikipedia; I would be very interested in looking through them. BilledMammal (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You could start with beauty pageants and their contestants. Have a gander at Miss Denmark 2022 (orphan) for starters. Or anything listed in template Miss Universe 2013 delegates, or 2014, or 2015. I took a swing at the problem with Articles for deletion/Lexi Wilson and it was a complete whiff. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There would doubtless be a network theory way to do this just by analyzing the network of pages and their interwiki links to identify either full splinter networks (a set of pages that only link to each other) or edge isthmuses of the main network that only sparsely link across (especially if the only links are to extremely central nodes indicating possibly trivial links to pages like USA or similar). T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 00:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Very interesting essay but nothing is going to change as long as there are editors who have an interest in keeping a "bad" article. One example was an AfD discussion regarding a BLP where every citation was primary and/or highly exaggerated - likely the work of a "yourwikipediabio.com" group. Multiple editors rallied in defense and it stayed as "No consensus". Another was an AfD about a defunct small business that would normally fail WP:CORP.  Again, there was an editorial rally from those who didn't want the shop's memory to die and another article stays as "No consensus".  Second, our setup allows any editor to instantly make a new article go "live".  We moderate and review after publication.  A really bad article about yet another Titanic rebuild flew under the radar with zero RSs and COI for years before it was finally deleted. Blue Riband► 02:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course many articles at AfD should be deleted. However there is a percentage that are borderline where good arguments can made either way - that's why they aggregate at AfD and not speedied. These can result in difficult discussions. This does not mean people are unreasonable about deleting. It just means not everything is totally clear in every case. It never can be, never will be. Following the 80/20 Rule (which holds true on Wikipedia very well), about 20% of them are going to be fairly controversial. Of those 20%, another 20% will be ever more. And so on until you get to the really big ones that use up everyone's time and attention. --  Green  C  03:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've overhauled a lot of poorly-referenced or completely unreferenced articles, and while they may have some value for the reader if they are factually accurate (but who's to know?), unsourced articles have zero value for the content writer. The best way is always to rewrite completely, following the same process as writing a new article from scratch. It is much easier that way because you have your sources organised and right in front of you. Chasing up facts one at a time is time largely wasted. WP:PRESERVE: As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research. [emphasis mine]. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting choice of photo. It reminds one of this on any day of the week, especially on Monday mornings. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this attitude does a disservice to entertainment content. Sure, it's possible to have a wrong article about a Mortal Kombat character, but this looks like a perfectly fine fiction/entertainment/pop culture article... and yet, consensus apparently was legitimately to merge. It seems counterproductive and nonsensical to be de facto deleting content like this when there is so much other nonsense out there. Deletion, in other words, is largely driven by the whim of whomever decides to start deleting a sort or class of articles, and has never been, (except for maybe the BLPPROD project), focused on the worst or most potentially harmful of content. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * While that's true, consider the case of, say, pseudoscience. It's valuable for Wikipedia to document pseudoscience, but we can't possibly maintain hundreds of different articles which deal with the pseudoscience at increasingly fine detail. And a POV-pushing article on pseudoscience is much worse than an inaccurate entertainment article.
 * In 2008 I was dealing with pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and other such things a lot more than entertainment, and the essay likely reflects that. But there is an upper limit to how much of a topic we can do well, and, yes, passionate editors who work well can raise that limit. Still, we should stay in that limit. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 03:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking there's an actual balance between universal rules, and situationally appropriate common sense. I don't think Wikipedia is good at the latter, as we tend to attract folks who like a Byzantine labyrinth of policy. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I expected this article to drive debate more than be universally accepted: An essay is meant to express one view; it's not a guideline, it's just one opinion, and there's plenty of room for contrary opinions. I think you do a good job at raising valid objections. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 05:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I wish your intuition had been correct. I think the pendulum has swung too far, such that "throw it out and start over" (when there's no evidence anyone is ever going to be inclined to do that) is sufficiently popular to be an existential threat to Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You say that like it's a bad thing. If there's "no evidence anyone is ever going to be inclined" to write or update an article, then IMHO that article should not exist, because the community is either unwilling or unable to adequately curate it. I also think that's rather the whole point of this essay in the first place. -- N Y  Kevin   05:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Efficacy of homeopathy It works! It's amazing! I've worked as a homeopath for years and think everyone should try it! (etc.)
 * I'm generally not a fan of deleting an article where editing can fix it - and by "editing" I include blanking the entire thing and starting again. It requires no special permissions to stubbify an article, and if consensus to do so can be reached on the article's talk page - perhaps with an RfC to gain a wider range of opinions - there's no need for it to go anywhere near AfD. In my opinion, AfD should only be about whether an article should exist on the subject; the actual content of the article is another matter entirely. Actually deleting an article that could instead be stubbified only serves to remove a bunch of contributions from general view, which in my mind goes against the openness of Wikipedia. Sometimes we focus too much on the pedia and not enough on the wiki. WaggersTALK  15:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In my view, if a subject's notability has been established, which requires suitable references to reliable sources, there can never be a justification for deletion. Those references are valuable to our readers even if the article has been reduced to a minimal stub, and they can aid future editors who wish to write a better article.--agr (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Realise that I'm a lot less involved in deletion discussions anymore, but a common thing that used to happen was that someone would find three or four sources during the discussion, when there were no good sources in the article. How good these sources were varied; sometimes they really didn't support the notability, sometimes they very weakly did, sometimes they were good - but they weren't in the article under discussion, and occasionally - with the more POV-pushing kind of article - directly contradicted everything actually in the article.
 * This led to awkward conversations of the sort where the article was something like:
 * And someone votes "Keep. These sources show that the efficacy of homeopathy is a matter of academic discussion." But the sources are all about how homeopathy doesn't work. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 02:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I predicated my comment on the the assumption that the subject's notability has been established by reliable sources. If those sources completely contradict the content of the article, that is an editorial problem that should be solved by the usual editorial mechanisms, tagging (citation needed, dubious, etc.), bold edits, talk page discussion, dispute resolution, page protection. Our readers need to hear that sources dispute its efficacy. Deletion reviewer shouldn't act as super editors.--agr (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You have a point, but I will say that there are nuances there. The idea that you can tell other editors "Write an entire new article, here's some sources, otherwise the fraudulent article stays" is problematic - we're all volunteers here; no-one gets to tell someone they must do something, or hold the encyclopedia hostage with fraudulent articles unless they do. Especially if the sources that person provided aren't actually that good. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 17:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would flip your argument around and say we should not remove a set of sources that establish notability and force any volunteer recreating the article to go find them again. Tagging a substandard article takes no more work than PRODing it and trimming it to a stub doesn't seem much harder than a full deletion nomination and discussion. That stub with its sources is valuable to our readers whether other volunteers expand in the future or not.--agr (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That does rather presume A. the sources are decent, B. the article isn't some form of POV fork of a better article, and C. that there's enough usable material to even get a stub. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 17:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A. Yes, I'm presuming that, otherwise notability becomes an issue. B. A POV fork can be redirected to the main article, ideally adding a section on that POV, if it isn't there and isn't totally fringe. C. If A, then for sure C. However, I suspect we may be arguing about thin air. How often does an article with enough good sources to establish notability come up for deletion? If you see one, let me know. I'll be happy to stubbafy it.--agr (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I gave one example up above. Another type is where the article has been deleted as a copyvio. In the case of RAF Shepherds Grove (and several other articles on RAF bases) I petitioned an admin to restore the article for me with nothing but the infobox and the references. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)