User:Herostratus/Snark!
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. |
 |
This page is NOT official policy at all. It is a NEW definition that all users should know about. |
"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice: That alone should encourage the crew." - Lewis Carrol, The Hunting of the Snark
Contents |
[edit] Description
While the term snark has various meanings, a Wikipedia snark refers to a particular achievement in editing. A snark is attained when:
- A Vanispamcruftisement-type article on a non-notable or marginally-notable entity is detected, usually created by the subject or an agent of the subject.
- Research into the entity reveals credible information that the entity has engaged in an activity, not included in the article, which may tend to cast the entity in a less-than-positive light.
- Thoughtful consideration leads one to conclude that this new information, besides being negative, is significant enough to make the entity now notable.
- The new, negative information is incorporated into the article, heavily referenced by valid non-biased sources. The entity has been snarked.
Care must be taken to ensure that the resulting article does not become baised against the entity, per WP:NPOV. The article should be properly balanced, and if positive or neutral information about the entity is the most notable, that should receive the most attention.
Snarks of living individual persons are discouraged, especially if the person isn't a blackguard. If performed, the information must pass an especially high standard of being very clearly notable, verifiable from valid non-biased sources, and referenced in the article. All Wikipedia articles of living persons must meet WP:BLP and should also meet WP:NOT EVIL.
[edit] What is not a snark?
A snark cannot be an article that you create. A snark cannot be applied to an article that is not vanity or spam. Information may be added to an article on an entity that is clearly already notable, but this is not a snark. Adding information that is not notable, verifiable from valid non-biased sources, and referenced in the article is not a snark, it is just bad editing.
[edit] Examples of snarks
A typical snark: Mel Bernie Company. The original article was posted by an editor who has never made any other edits, typical of a vanity or spam poster.
Although snarks of living persons are discouraged, a case may be made for snarking the type of person who is born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.
An example of a snark perfecta: Coit Cleaners. A snark perfecta is achieved when the article is nominated for deletion, is defended by the article creator, and survives; is snarked; and is then nominated for deletion again by the original article creator, and survives.
[edit] Why snark?
Snarking is of course purely optional and depends on the proclivities of the individual editor. But some rationales for snarking are:
- By posting an article about his company, other group, or (rarely) himself that appears at face value to be non-notable vanity, the editor has in effect asked the Wikipedia community to research the entity and improve his article with a well-rounded presentation of facts. That he may not realize that he has done so is not very germane to the case.
- It is a service to our users and to researchers to retain an article which may, with further research, meet our notability standards.
- If over time it becomes manifest that there may sometimes be worse consequences for vanispamcruftisment than simple deletion, this may tend to discourage the practice.
- For those so inclined, it is permissible to take a certain pleasure in presenting a more well-rounded picture of an entity which has attempted to cynically use this project as a platform for free publicity.
