I’ve been studying this for a while, and I’d like to put all this information down somewhere.
These are in no particular order.
- If the article has, at its head, the following structure, then it’s the person who the article is about, writing the article: “[name] (born [date]), also known as [name2]”, then it’s them. It’s them. Almost nobody would have a legitimate reason to say this about somebody, and it’s the hallmark of somebody trying to prop up their own importance.
- If the article is about someone you don’t know, and they include a picture of the subject in the first draft, it’s them or somebody they know. Especially if the picture is flattering, and especially if they have an infobox, with a bunch of information. It’s incredibly hard to get pictures of people into Wikipedia, thanks to a little panic attack they all had a few years ago, regarding who was actually allowed to legally use some pictures as fair use. New people won’t know this.
- If the article contains more detail about the person than anything else you’ve ever seen, condensed into a ‘heroic’, story-like prose, it’s usually someone who really likes the person. But, oftentimes, it’s just the person.
This is not intended to help Wikipedians. I don’t like you. I just think it’s funny to be able to tell when people are lying, or trying to pull a bamboozle.
Quite honestly, though, I don’t think that it even matters. Wikipedians delete even the good shit, if not especially the good shit. They’re not very thorough; and they’re not going to go over these things with a fine-tooth comb like I will. They’ll just go by their human whims and emotions and go, ‘baaaaaaah I don’t like dis wan’ and delete it. It’s only human.
Also, one thing that I can’t stop thinking about, when I look at all these articles, is this:
Who the fuck has records of their ‘early life’? I don’t. There are barely any pictures of me that are human-accessible.
I just think it’s weird that everybody was so diligent in cataloging their own existence.