Hacker News Reader

Comment by kyle-rb | Hacker News Reader

Interesting, but something about this article is weird. Overall it doesn't feel like it's in the Wikipedia style and some parts are very editorialized, e.g.

> As extreme ironing has branched off, the conditions can gain in extreme activity. For example, a branch of ironing has been developed that includes both bungee jumping and well-pressed clothing. Bungee ironing is what some would call the ultimate in the thrill of extreme ironing.[8]

That citation leads to https://averyj12.weebly.com/extreme-ironing.html, which was clearly copied wholesale from Wikipedia (all its links and citations go directly back to Wikipedia).

Looking at the history, there have been a lot of edits since that text was added in 2007, so it's surprising that someone hasn't rewritten it since then.

View on HN

Slightly related question:

Does anyone know what to do when finding a Wikipedia page that's just an ad in disguise?

I've found a few and Wikipedia has a lot of pages about vandalism/verifiability which often recommends just changing the parts that don't fit or placing a warning on the user's page but what if the whole page is about a made up term that exists to link to the authors blog/company?

I can't outright delete a whole page right? I'm also pretty new to contributing Wikipedia and even though they specifically recommend just trying and learning when some action wasn't appropriate I'd still feel more comfortable if I could contact someone with a bit more experience/reputation to discuss such an instance.

I don't have a ton of experience, but you can add a "may not meet notability guidelines" banner, or a "proposed deletion".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Articles_...

Don't delete it. Deleting an article has the lowest effort:effect ratio, so lots of automatic policies are in place to speedily allow an author to restore a page that's been deleted.

If the article itself shouldn't exist, mark it with {{qd|spam}} . `qd` is quick deletion.

If the article should still exist but has substantial content that's advertising, mark it {{npov}}

In both cases someone else will come along and fix it. If the author who put the ads up in the first place removes your template, just put it back up.

For doing these sort of things quickly, try getting the Twinkle gadget (enwp.org/WP:TWINK) — you get a giant searchable list for tags to add. Heck, you can put a BUNCH on at a time!

Also, {{advert}} is a thing.

Joke articles (and let's face it, this is a joke sport) tend to attract joke edits.

> That citation leads to https://averyj12.weebly.com/extreme-ironing.html, which was clearly copied wholesale from Wikipedia

Welcome to Wikipedia where the line between FUD and knowledge disappears.

Citogenesis in the wild? [0]

[0] https://xkcd.com/978/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com