User:Valjean/My article creation process

My presuppositions

"If I go looking for info, and Wikipedia doesn't have it, then Wikipedia has failed." — Baseball Bugs

Bam! That is so important. Literally everything should at least be mentioned or alluded to here. Some things we never actually mention will still be covered under their general topic area.

Our purpose here is to give free access to "the sum of all human knowledge" that is mentioned in reliable sources, and editors must not leave or create holes in our coverage. Editors must not exercise censorship, as it seriously undermines that goal. They must present all significant sides of any controversy, document opposing points of view, and not shield readers from such views regardless of tone or bias. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less.

• "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." — Jimmy Wales[1]
• "A free encyclopedia encompassing the whole of human knowledge, written almost entirely by unpaid volunteers: Can you believe that was the one that worked?" — Richard Cooke[2]
• "In particular, the goal of the Wikipedia is to produce the best encyclopedia encapsulating the sum total of human knowledge.... [It] offers the possibility of everything being written into history, with all of mankind sharing knowledge and information in a way that enables everyone to profit from it." — John Jerney

That literally means all information, not just facts. That includes opinions, beliefs, lies, conspiracy theories, rumors, delusions, pseudoscientific nonsense, etc. We take "not censored" seriously, so we document the existence of it all, with no exceptions. There is no type of topic that by its nature we will not cover if it is notable enough for its own article or mention in an existing article. We are inclusionist by nature. We should have more, not fewer articles.

If it has been said or written in a RS, it becomes potential content here. That doesn't mean we will include it, just that we should consider its suitability for inclusion, and the nature of the topic is not a factor in determining suitability. It is RS coverage that determines that. It might be suitable for one spot, but not another. Not all knowledge is created equal, so although we don't treat different types of "human knowledge" in the same way, we should still document the existence of that piece of knowledge.

When I say that editors "must not leave or create holes in our coverage", that means that every hole that exists is a "not mentioned in RS" hole or an "only mentioned in unreliable sources" hole. Only if a topic is never mentioned in any RS is it not notable enough for an article or mention here.

A topic that meets all of our General notability guideline (GNG) criteria has earned the right to its own article (even if it's just a stub), no exceptions, and there is no excuse for denying it that right:

"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Anyone who disputes that GNG "presumption" does not deserve to be called a "Wikipedian" as they are denying what makes an encyclopedia, its articles. They are WP:NOTHERE because they are allowing their personal beliefs, rather than GNG, to influence what we cover. Every editor should seek to include as much as our PAG make possible. We are not paper, so that includes the size of articles, not just their existence. "People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." — George Bernard Shaw

My approach to creating an article

Each editor has their own methods for creating articles. I think it's a mistake to start with an imagined ideal scenario for how an article should appear, and then strive to create that appearance. Although our MOS has recommendations about basic outlines and formats, they have little to do with the actual content slant in each section of the article. Even with people who share the same public office, like presidents, each article should be very different for different people. At any given time in history, RS will say very different things about a topic, so articles will develop differently.

How do I approach this? I start with a topic we do not cover and then start collecting every single RS I learn of, sometimes hundreds of them. I use searches and tips found in sources pointing to other sources. Although I start with everything I can possibly find in RS, that doesn't mean it will all be used in the final product, but it means that I become knowledgeable about the entire topic. That is essential, because starting with partial knowledge can lead to a misleading article. I have to read huge amounts. I then copy the precise content (paragraphs or sentences) in the source that mentions the topic. Later I will paraphrase the essential points made by the author, or, if controversial, will use exact quotes and attribution.

All of this stuff is like a pile of puzzle pieces to a puzzle picture I do not possess. I have no idea what the final picture will look like. The sources determine that. Then I "spread out" all those "puzzle pieces" and seek to determine if there are any common themes and duplication. Those pieces get put into the same pile because they are on the same aspect of the whole topic. Many piles of pieces may form, and they become article sections. Because the source material may be highly different, the sections will also be different. Some may become prose, some history, some lists, some timelines, some evaluations, some criticism, etc. Using a variety of styles and many smaller sections makes an article more interesting and easier to consume. Especially long articles are easier to read when built up in this way.

My job is to be faithful to the content and not allow my own POV to influence my work. Yes, I know that's an impossible ideal, but those are the limitations every single editor works under. We do our best to stay neutral, and later other editors get involved in the process. They should AGF that the original author was doing their best to follow PAG. We all have blind spots, never possess all information, and others may have bits of information they have found which help to create a fuller picture.

I refuse to create a picture that I'd "like" to see, because I don't start with that idea. I let the sources create the picture and narrative they are telling. Then I document that picture. I don't let "other things", like how other articles about similar types of people (other presidents, for example) be a guide for how I should write the new article. Again, it is the available RS which dictate the picture, and the new article should be different than all others, as long as it fits the basic MOS guidelines.

So I start with a lot and pare it down to the basic story or narrative, if such exists. That can take a lot of time, because I tend to work on a topic for a while, take pauses, gather more information, and return to the task, ad libitum. If it's a topic where there is no clear narrative or "red thread" to follow, I just document the facts and opinions related to the topic.

A real danger from lying by omission

A real danger occurs in this "paring down" process. By leaving out some information from primary reliable sources, a partial picture can be misleading, and the final article can push a false narrative. Some topics are not of much interest to journalists and authors, so some facts in primary sources are just not mentioned in secondary sources, yet they are important parts of the narrative. This is a dilemma Wikipedia needs to acknowledge and deal with. I'm not sure if local consensus will always deal with this properly, as partisan POV pushers like to whitewash some information out of articles by wikilawyering this point.

When I look at a finished article that only uses some of the evidence its draft started with, it should not conflict with its background in all the evidence, even if some of that is no longer mentioned. The only things that should be left out are elements that are not significant. The "paring down" process deserves special care and knowledge of all the original sources. Lying by omission can be just as serious as lying by commission.

An exemption

Sadly, a non-policy compliant and unwikipedian exemption exists. For example, if one looked at a section (in each biography article) on the subject of Obama's and Trump's relationship to truth and facts, they would be radically different because those two men have radically different understandings and practices, and that's the picture painted by RS. I have researched the subject and it's fascinating.

Right now, even a few sentences on that topic in a short paragraph in the Trump article is pretty much forbidden. (That situation has been changed with the creation of the False or misleading statements by Donald Trump article), but that has not stopped some editors from fighting to prevent the inclusion of anything negative about Trump, no matter how good the sourcing. Yes, sanewashing exists at Wikipedia, not just in the media.

The dominant view here is that Trump should be given a much longer rope than anyone else and be protected from what RS say. He has that much power here. That's the way it is, and too many admins support that view. An article with lots of properly-sourced negative content about Trump would be labeled an "attack page" by certain editors, even though it's only a documentation of what RS say. RS are supposed to dictate our content, but the "Trump exemption" (endless wikilawyering) has become a de facto policy here.

When creating an article or other content that mentions Trump, one must factor in the Trump exemption. Frequent practice regarding Trump shows a clear use of this exemption. I knew it existed, but proof of its existence was finally formalized by this edit, which is a redirect to WP:IAR. It was a clear admission that, when dealing with Trump, it was allowable to ignore all of our PAG and let what some editors think is common sense trump our rules and purpose here. Censorship is allowed if it protects him.

Here is a real-life example of it happening at Wikipedia and here is how it was dealt with.