→See also: Added "patent nonsense" link |
Tijuana Brass (talk | contribs) rm image; it's wonderfully fascinating but doesn't contribute to the policy |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
{{shortcut|[[WP:BALLS]]<br>[[WP:CB]]}} |
{{shortcut|[[WP:BALLS]]<br>[[WP:CB]]}} |
||
The [[Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines|policies]] of Wikipedia state that articles must be [[WP:V|verifiable]] and stated from a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]. This strongly implies that they must also be '''true'''. Sometimes articles arrive at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] which have only the most tenuous connection to reality: they are, to use a British term, ''Complete [[Bollocks]]''. |
|||
Giveaway signs of ''complete bollocks'' are phrases such as '''emerging theory''' and '''widely disputed'''. |
Giveaway signs of ''complete bollocks'' are phrases such as '''emerging theory''' and '''widely disputed'''. |
Revision as of 22:28, 20 July 2006
The policies of Wikipedia state that articles must be verifiable and stated from a neutral point of view. This strongly implies that they must also be true. Sometimes articles arrive at articles for deletion which have only the most tenuous connection to reality: they are, to use a British term, Complete Bollocks.
Giveaway signs of complete bollocks are phrases such as emerging theory and widely disputed.
Articles puffing non-notable websites are often complete bollocks, in that they make wholly spurious claims to notability (e.g. claiming to have originated some new process, neologism or phenomenon which is either not verifiably existent or, conversely, blindingly obvious). These articles very often start with the name of the site, properly capitalised, as a weblink. Whereas Geogre's Law posits incorrect capitalisation as a hallmark of vanity in biographies, abundant capitalisation and/or trademark signs (sometimes weblinked at every single instance) is often a hallmark of complete bollocks in articles about websites.
A confirmatory sign of complete bollocks is a set of circular articles, or a self-contained nest of articles, such as three articles that only reference each other and are themselves composed of nonsense, particularly if the set is started by one author or a set of authors (or IP addresses) who all contribute to the same set of articles. In wiki parlance this is a walled garden.
Probably the most prolific source of complete bollocks is the bored student fraternity. As UncleG put it, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day.
There is no shortage of bad ideas for articles, and some of them elevate themselves to the giddy heights of really stupid ideas for articles. It's this latter category which is likely to be complete bollocks.