This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ikip (talk | contribs) at 16:16, 26 February 2009 (rv self). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:16, 26 February 2009 by Ikip (talk | contribs) (rv self)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Essay on editing Misplaced Pages | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. | Shortcut |
Wikipuffery is the puffing done by Misplaced Pages editors in mainspace, often in misguided good faith, seeking to exaggerate the notability of article subjects to avoid deletion of the article. Symptoms include use of the adjective "notable" to describe trivial accomplishments, lead paragraphs that proclaim the superiority of the subject to sliced bread, adding lots of footnotes to non-reliable sources or sources that do not mention the subject, and the stilted language resulting when editors stitch together passing references in reliable sources in consecutive sentences to make it appear as if there has been significant independent coverage of the subject. This needs to be distinguished from the excessive adjective use that results from WP:COPYVIO--though the effect is similar.
wikiAntipuffery is the removal of content from an article designed to discourage keeping by making the subject appear less notable: removing some or all of the awards or publication, removing relevant images, shortening the biography. Symptoms include the use of the word "trivial" to describe notable accomplishments, lead paragraphs that omit the mention of the key notability factors, removing footnotes to non-English sources, or to print ones that are hard to find, the stilted language that results when editors omit key phrases from sentences, and the removal of context from references. This needs to be distinguished from the sort of WP:COI that is so modest it just gives the position without the accomplishments--though the effect is similar.
Protection against both can be obtained by checking the history of the article, looking independently for good references, and actually reading the ones that are there.