Sample Page

On Wikipedia, certain topics may be considered unacceptable to write about, whether doing so involves creating a new article about the topic or adding content about the topic to an existing article. This is the case if the topic cannot be written about without violating at least one of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines.

Any purported identification of a person or organization in this section is purely coincidental and fictional. Any person or organization in one example is presumptively not in any other example.

Some living people are notable only for being in industries that habitually lie about personal backgrounds to such a degree that most of the reliable sources report the misinformation distributed by industry representatives. The U.S. entertainment industry (movies, television, music, etc.) seems to be rife with this, for their stars and probably for most people who are trying to become stars. Often, the public does not find out anything like the truth until after the star dies, and then only because someone does in-depth research, often a scholar.

A musician supposedly goes to prison, but maybe he has never done so, and he is simply told by his recording company not to say anything when the company says he has been imprisoned.

One female actor is supposedly discovered while she is at a lunch counter, but maybe that has never happened.

One opera singer says he has flown across Europe and knocked on the door of a famous rock musician and they got along famously and agreed to record together; a nice story and even possible, but for some, it may seem doubtful that this was how they actually got together, as it’s unlikely the opera singer would have flown that far and at such expense, and been as casual about having a chance meeting with a musician who was well-known for travelling frequently on lengthy trips to many countries.

A magazine that publishes short biographies of women who were previously unknown to the public becomes the subject of rumors that it invents the biographies it publishes. The biographies probably have some truth in them, but that’s because it is nearly impossible to write pure fiction of any significant length and find an audience willing to support it. A mixture of indistinguishable truth and fiction is not a reliable source, no matter where it is published.

Under Wikipedia’s policies, we report what reliable sources say. To disagree with those sources without a source to back up our disagreement would be original research, which Wikipedia does not allow. An editor may contradict some of what is in Wikipedia, but if they don’t have sourcing to do it with, they should just not do reporting in that type of situation.

An organization does what appears to be good work deserving of public coverage and is notable, but its principal leader has been sued for conduct that may seem too close to what the organization was against. If the allegations are true, the leader might as well be hypocritical, moronic, or cruel, or all three. A usable source describes the complaint against the leader. However, the allegations would likely be denied by almost any defendant, at least initially after receiving the complaint. And, if a substantial amount of time has elapsed since the lawsuit was reported in a source, it is virtually guaranteed that the suit has been concluded, even including direct appeals, yet no source reports the outcome. Both defendant and plaintiff are likely still alive.

Wikipedia says that we don’t report the lawsuit when the outcome is unknown from secondary sourcing. Not being able to report on the suit would imbalance the article (even though, technically, the article would probably have been considered balanced because it would have reflected what could be reported). That potential and insoluble imbalance may discourage contributors from writing such an article in the first place.

An organization does very good work, while another organization does low-quality work which probably isn’t the worst in the field, but it’s bad enough to make a stark comparison. People who are interested should know that it does low-quality work. It’s notable, so it qualifies for an article. But if both articles are written, and considering a few other facts, whoever creates them could be accused of having a conflict of interest. It seems possible that even proposing that the article be written might lead readers to question the motive behind the article. If the article appears and someone thinks that necessary content is missing, it could normally be added, but again the accusation could arise, so the editor who creates the first article may avoid proposing the second article.

On two people (one living and one dead), the content that could be added from sourcing is probably false, in one case because it is out of date. It is probably true that, without a source that could be used, not even as claims or rumors and sources even for the latter are unlikely to exist.^{[needs copy edit]} Rather than support likely-wrong content, the creation of a new article on one person or the addition of content to the existing article on the other person may be avoided.

Not all situations can be resolved in favor of adding new information to Wikipedia. But some can be, and some methods follow.

Presenting information in a talk topic lets another editor consider it. This has been done when the information was not adequately understood by the original editor, when additional context or definition was needed, or when weight could easily have been exaggerated. A separate talk topic with full sourcing is best.

This is unlikely to happen, but can, especially if the change is relatively minor in the context of Wikipedia as a whole but would permit the proposed editing. Go to the policy’s or guideline’s talk page, see if it’s been discussed before, and make your proposal. The more successful proposals are likely to be specific and likely to preserve most of a policy or guideline except for the narrow change you seek.

While this may take the most work, it may give you the most control, as you don’t have to depend on other people doing the research or not.

• Wikipedia:Notability is not everything (essay)
• Wikipedia:Write for the enemy (essay)