Wikipedia:Dark side of Wikipedia
|This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
Just as there are some excellent articles on Wikipedia, there is also a dark side of the project. By "dark side", I am not referring to a split personality or to the existence of certain editors who go to the "dark side of the Force"-level "WikiHate". Instead, I am using the metaphor of the "Dark Side of the Moon", the side which we cannot see from the Earth. An alternate title might be "The dark corners of Wikipedia".
In the "dark side" or the "dark corners", there are some articles which do not quite reach the standard of an encyclopedia: well-researched, neutral articles which summarize the main points set out in reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Normally, the Wikipedia procedures of improving the quality of an article work quite well, from Pages needing attention and Find or fix a stub to the NPOV dispute or even Votes for deletion.
However, in some cases, these procedures may fail. If an article is orphaned, and has no links to it, and if the article topic is obscure, an editor may be able to pen an article that is filled with Original Research, synthesis, POV, bias, weasel words, and peacock terms. The article may, for all intents and purposes, resemble a website chat page post.
This is a page dedicated to these hopeless cases and only those should be listed here. There may be various reasons for this hopelessness: sometimes there may be only adherents to one particular view around on Wikipedia who are willing to write about a subject, or the subject is so highly controversial that every touch of the article will immediately result in an edit war, frustrating all the people involved. Maybe the subject is so difficult that only a few experts on earth could treat it adequately but these people have not yet discovered Wikipedia ;-)