Ever tried to edit Wikipedia and gotten accused of spam?
Usually, it comes down to one of two reasons.
First, maybe you really are one of the most despicable people on earth who makes a living creating spam. More likely, though, you simply used another Wikipedia page as an example for your own contribution.
Here is the real issue. Wikipedia has so many rules and guidelines that almost no one can just show up and make an edit. In practice, you need years of experience first. So people read an existing article and copy its approach instead. That seems sensible, yet it often causes trouble. And honestly, that is Wikipedia’s fault.
What is Other Stuff Exists on Wikipedia?
Outside the Wikipedia bureaucracy, few people have heard of a rule called “Other Stuff Exists.” In spirit, the rule stops people from arguing that their article should survive simply because a similar one already exists on Wikipedia.
On paper, that is a good policy. In practice, though, it trips up anyone still learning how to create articles and edit Wikipedia. Established editors are quick to use it to scold newcomers for pointing out that similar articles already exist. Yet instead of removing those “bad” articles, the same editors seem happy to leave them in place.
It is almost like baiting people into mentioning them, just so an editor can slap down the “other stuff exists” policy like a poker player laying down a full house.
Good in Theory, Harmful Because of Laziness
So why is it a dangerous rule? Because “other stuff exists” is only good in theory. In reality, Wikipedia editors rarely take the next step and clean up the “other stuff.” Instead, they leave it alone and use the rule to shun new editors.
I have seen this play out many times in deletion discussions. The creator of an article points to other, similar Wikipedia articles, hoping to persuade editors not to delete their work. Almost immediately, other editors cite the other stuff exists policy. Often several of them pile on to shun the creator for even raising it.
Normally that would be no big deal. However, the same editors who are quick to cite the policy almost never visit those articles to clean them up or delete them.
So newcomers keep pointing to weak articles that others clearly used as templates. Rather than fix the problem, the bureaucracy would rather scold them for noticing it. Think about it: if the example articles were better, that is, if editors actually deleted the junk, new contributors would have better models to follow. Instead, they copy what is already there, inherit whatever the bureaucracy failed to delete or correct, and get shunned for it anyway.
Final Word on Other Stuff Exists
So if you are part of the bureaucracy, take a hard look at the examples new editors give you before you try to shun them. You may be surprised. They are often not spammers at all, and many will stick around to help out with other articles.