User:Siroxo/Ref dump

A ref dump or refdump can be one of several related things, none inherently good nor bad. Each instance of ref dumping can be good, bad, or neutral.

What is a ref dump?

You'll generally know it when you see it. But again, it's not inherently good or bad.

1. A ref dump can occur in a new article when lots of sources are provided early on.
   • Sometimes this is a good faith attempt to provide verifiability.
     • This can be good, if the references are helpful
     • Or it can lead to too much duplication of reference, for example if multiple news sources publish the same or very similar articles.
     • Or it can dilute good references with bad ones.
   • Other times this is an attempt at making a promotional article look more legitimate to readers or even to other editors. See also WP:REFBOMB
   • Other times it is something in between, an attempt at reducing scrutiny on a topic of borderline notability.
2. A ref dump can occur when an editor brings a bunch of good faith references for evaluation in a discussion, often in a talk page or in an articles for deletion discussion.
   • Sometimes such a ref dump is positive, including multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage.
   • Sometimes such a ref dump is positive in a different way, giving a collection of the best references the editor could find, helping to establish lack of verifiability or notability.
   • Other times it can be negative, as in lists of sites made of user generated content, press releases, or other less usable sources. In this case other editors either have to sift through the bad references, or the discussion gets derailed as editors give up on evaluating references.
3. A ref dump can occur in an article after an AfD discussion starts, or when a proposed deletion template is removed.
   • This can be positive, as the article may improve with good sources that provide verifiability and establish notability.
   • This can be negative, if the article is flooded with unreliable, non-independent sources or many sources with trivial coverage. See also WP:REFBOMB

Effect

Many Wikipedians are wise to the WP:REFBOMB. So sometimes a good faith refdump can be misinterpreted. Consider explaining the value of each reference to help other editors understand what you're communicating.

See also, WP:THREE, a helpful essay that applies in many circumstances.

How many references constitute a ref dump?

This is very subjective. But, at the very least, more than three which has become a rough consensus for a reasonable amount of references any editor could examine.

Ref dumps are just references

One thing to note is that even in the best of cases, a ref dump doesn't inherently improve the content of the article. It might improve verifiability. It might establish notability. It might lead editors or readers to more information for their own understanding. But it's not actually summarizing the information from the sources into the article. This is ok (WP:IMPROVE), but it's good to understand that it's only one step.