Dear Wikify: What Makes a Wikipedia Article "Good"?

Friends, family, frienemies, gather round: We've got the greatest installment of Wikify yet ready to go, and you're going to absolutely love it. First up, we explore what happens when toxic fandoms (in this case Assassin's Creed acolytes) direct their righteous fury at your favorite online encyclopedia. Next, we tackle an existential question: What, exactly, is it that makes a Wikipedia article good… or bad? We've got definitive answers! Finally, we dive into Wikipedia's naming conventions, especially w/r/t Middlemarch-length Fiona Apple album titles.?

Strap on your seatbelts and get ready for the ride of your life…

Fandom-led edit wars

Wikipedia bills itself as "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", which sounds great as a tagline. But that promise of inclusiveness occasionally leaves the site open to sudden swarms of engagement from outside groups determined to reshape the content of relevant articles. This surge in activity inevitably produces "edit wars" between established editors and fanatical newbies.?

A great example of this is a recent push from fans of the video game franchise Assassin's Creed to reshape the Wikipedia entry of a historical figure, Yasuke , who lived in Japan during the 16th century and inspired a black samurai character who appears in the franchise's most recent installment, Assassin's Creed Shadows. Some fans have complained that, contra the game's depiction of him, Yasuke was not a "real" samurai and that, furthermore, it was inappropriate for the game's developers to so prominently feature a character who isn't Japanese in a game set in feudal Japan. A subset of these fans have taken their outrage to Wikipedia and tried to strip away references to Yasuke's samurai status.?

Since details about the game were revealed on May 15, the Yasuke article has been edited more than 200 times, as some editors push to remove mentions of his samurai status and others add it back. These back-and-forths have produced? some truly entertaining edit descriptions:

The Yasuke Wikipedia article is a great example of how fandom-led editing impacts a Wikipedia page. Although the article has been developed over the past two decades (starting in 2005), a look at the editing history statistics shows two big spikes in editing: one in 2021, when Netflix released its animated TV series, Yasuke, and one following the Assassin's Creed Shadows news. Both spikes were driven by "IP editors" who haven't registered a Wikipedia account and are thus labeled by their IP location instead of a username.?

Although the latest flurry of editing has been intense, the page content has not wildly changed. If you look at the page before and after , the overall structure remains in place and the general details are the same. What is especially interesting is that the scrutiny on the page has led editors to refine the content, trimming in some spots and providing more details (or changing existing wording) in others. If you have the inclination and patience to compare versions, here's a link showing the differences.

The takeaway from this example is that it’s extremely difficult for an online fandom to massively change a Wikipedia page if (a) the existing content is well-sourced and structured, and (b) experienced Wikipedia users are watching for edits.

What factors make a Wikipedia article good?

According to Wikipedia, a good article is well-written, neutral, verifiable, broad in coverage, stable, and illustrated by images or other multimedia elements. These descriptors are familiar to Wikipedia editors but can be difficult to unpack if you're unfamiliar with the site's guidelines and lingo. Here's what these criteria mean in plain English:?

The Good

According to Wikipedia, a good article is well-written, neutral, verifiable, broad in coverage, stable, and ilustrated by images or other multimedia elements. These descriptors are familiar to Wikipedia editors, but can be difficult to unpack if you're not familiar with the site's lingo. Here's what they mean in plain English:?

• Well-written: Wikipedia wants article prose to be clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience. Article content should also align with the site's editorial and structural guidelines.?
• Verifiable: A good Wikipedia article is brimming with citations from fact-based and trustworthy thirty-party sources, meaning newspapers, magazines, academic journals, et cetera. Every factual claim in an article should be backed up by a citation, usually in the form of a footnote. The full list of cited sources can then be found in the references section at the bottom of the article. If you skim this list and see press releases and company blog posts, that can be a warning sign that the article's content is not properly sourced.?
• Neutral: Wikipedia prides itself on its neutrality and presentation of information in an unbiased manner. A good article, then, lays out factual claims in a straightforward fashion and steers clear of personal opinions or subjective viewpoints (unless said perspectives are necessary to properly contextualize a topic—e.g., noting that a film was widely panned or praised upon its release).?
• Comprehensive: A good Wikipedia article offers a comprehensive overview of the main points necessary to understand a topic.?
• Stable: The content of an article should not arbitrarily change over time (especially, say, Monday to Friday) unless recent news developments or editor research efforts dictate such changes.?
• Illustrated: Photos, logos, illustrations, and other media files can improve an article and should be included when it makes sense to do so.???

In addition to the considerations above, we also look for "back-end" factors when assessing an article—namely, that (a) the article has been developed in collaboration between multiple Wikipedia editors of good standing, (b) the article's Talk page and edit history suggests a consensus about content, and (c) recent edits capture relevant news and updates.?

The Bad

A bad Wikipedia article resembles a dilapidated structure, lacking the foundational support of reliable sources and marred by warning flags that signify its shortcomings. Here are some indicators of a subpar Wikipedia article:

• Sparse Citations: A bad Wikipedia article is characterized by a dearth of citations, leaving readers adrift in a sea of uncertainty as to what information in the article is real, and what is hoopla. Without verifiable sources to substantiate its claims, the article's credibility is called into question.

• Tags: Perhaps the most glaring indicator of a bad Wikipedia article is the presence of warning tags peppered throughout its content. These tags serve as beacons of caution, highlighting areas where citations are lacking or sources are deemed unreliable.
• Biased or Incomplete Information: Bias and incompleteness are the Achilles' heel of a bad Wikipedia article. Whether due to a lack of editorial oversight or intentional manipulation, these articles fail to present a balanced view of the subject matter, skewing perceptions and distorting reality. Articles like these will typically have a "written like an advertisement" tag added to them.
• Overreliance on Primary Sources: While primary sources can occasionally provide valuable information (such as the size and revenue of a company), an overreliance on them can compromise the integrity of a Wikipedia article. Without secondary sources to corroborate and contextualize the information, the article may lack depth and perspective.
• Lack of Engagement: Unlike their well-maintained counterparts, bad Wikipedia articles often languish in neglect, devoid of active engagement from the editing community. This neglect perpetuates inaccuracies and misinformation, perpetuating a cycle of degradation. Click on 'Edit history' to check out how many edits have been made to the page since it was uploaded.

Now that you've gone through this rundown of the characteristics of a good article versus a bad article, you'll be able to identify which is which as you peruse the site. (At worst, your new ability will serve as a decent party trick.)

Wikify Glossary: Common name

Abraham Lincoln's Wikipedia article is titled, well, Abraham Lincoln. This would seem straightforward enough, but allow for a moment that it could conceivably be called something else: Abe Lincoln or Honest Abe or Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States. The specific reason it's Abraham Lincoln is that articles are titled according to the subject's common name .

Most common names are self-evident. It would be strange and misleading if, say, Timothée Chalamet's article was titled Timmy Chalamet. That's not what most people call him, and not how he's credited in movies. But the common name concept becomes more clearly important when applied to subjects with long official names, or official names that hardly anyone uses. Take, for example, Fiona Apple's 2012 album The Idler Wheel Is Wiser Than the Driver of the Screw and Whipping Cords Will Serve You More Than Ropes Will Ever Do. Wiki editors have mercifully shortened that to The Idler Wheel…. The article for the striped carnivore is titled Tiger, not Panthera tigris. Conversely, a Crohn's disease and plaque psoriasis medication you may have seen sold and advertised under the brand name Skyrizi, is listed by its scientific name , Risankizumab, presumably because that's more widely applicable, even if Skyrizi has better name recognition.

If you feel like your brand is known by one name and goes by another on Wikipedia, it might be worth bringing up to editors on the article Talk page. But you'd best come prepared with plenty of sourcing that backs up the name change you're seeking. "That's what we call ourselves around the office" won't quite suffice.

Ready to learn more about Wikipedia? Check out our book!

Thanks for reading Wikify! Don't forget to tell a friend.