Wikipedia:Fact stuffing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page. |
- See also: Wikipedia:No One Cares and Wikipedia:Essays are not policy
[edit] Disclaimers
The Wikipedian community will take note if you refer to this essay while requesting others cite facts. It is best to use it when you have had time to separate yourself from the conflict, or better yet, withdrawn from the edit war.
[edit] Devil's advocate
The good faith editor sometimes assumes the role of a contrarian, popularly known as the devil's advocate, to assure neutral points of view are achieved. In effect, this editor stays cool when the fact wars start.
[edit] The inevitable
Some editors exhaust all the good faith anyone can possibly expend on them, and will reject any proffered olive branch. They may argue for the inclusion of utterly useless information all over an article. Such behavior is disruptive behavior, but usually does not rise to the level that will incur a sanction. These people may use the following tactics:
- Insist that everyone knows all Greek gods live on Mount Olympus. But, since Poseidon does not live on Mount Olympus, every article on Athena requires a special effort to dispel this common misconception.
- Insist that in the article on Roman Catholicism, it is not clear that the Pope is Catholic, and refers you to Wikipedia:The Pope is Catholic.
- Insist that in an article on France, the term Paris cannot possibly be clear, and the only way to resolve this confusion is by invoking the essay Wikipedia:Paris is in France.
- Ask for citations to the generally accepted principle that a bear sleeps in the woods. Bruins do but polar bears don't. The Bruins in Pauley Pavilion would probably require multiple citations, revisions and mediation.
These are all examples of fact stuffing. It does not help Wikipedia, but waste everyone's energy. A good editor will rise above the fray and wait for cooler heads to prevail. Rather than be a single Nemesis, the good editor will invite consensus through whatever means available.
