Wikipedia:2023 Wikipedia Razzies

The Wikipedia Razzie award, colloquially known as a "Golden Globe"

It's been quite the year on Wikipedia. The first update to the interface in over a decade, new concerns about language-learning models, and disagreements about donations have all characterized the project's last 12 months. We've had some great triumphs, including over a hundred thousand new articles and hundreds of featured article promotions. But for each triumph, there are many, many failures, and it's those failures that are to be honored at the 2023 Wikipedia Razzies.

The Razzies, officially the Golden Raspberry Awards, are a long-standing Hollywood tradition in which awards for the "worst" accomplishments in film are recognized in a mirror image of the Academy Awards. Keeping in line with its reputation for originality, Wikipedia has adopted this format for its own use, awarding Wikipedia Razzies every year since 2023.

Categories

Worst Editor

Winner: User:ClueBot NG

Edit warring. Refusing to discuss. Ownership of content. No one likes a WikiHound, and no one hounds worse than our resident busybody ClueBot NG. Since 2010, ClueBot NG has "contributed" exclusively by reverting other editors' work and sending them threatening messages on their talk pages. No patent nonsense or carefully inserted swear word is safe from ClueBot's harassment. In a world of fun police, ClueBot NG is running the whole department. It's for this insufferable behavior that ClueBot NG is the worst editor of the year. Congratulations, ClueBot NG.

Runners-up:

• User:192.0.2.16 – For 16 years of failure to achieve.
• User:WMFOffice – For regularly creating drama, for subverting consensus, and for being a shared account.
• User:WP 1.0 bot – For trying to make 1.0 happen. It's not going to happen.
• (removed pending administrative action) – For demonstrating extreme gullibility.

Worst Article

Winner: Main Page

Just look at this mess. Despite clearly being placed in article space, this article completely fails to comply with even basic content policies and layout guidelines. There is not a single citation anywhere in this article, and it's not even clear whether it meets notability standards. Not to mention the horrific undue weight present in the "Did you know" section, the recentism at the "In the news", and overall unencyclopedic nature of whatever "On this day" is. Main Page's defenders seem to be aware of this, even writing an essay entitled "don't delete the main page". As if that's not enough, this article is locked so that most editors can't even improve it! This article is everything that's wrong with Wikipedia, and that's why it is the worst article of the year. Congratulations, Main Page.

Runners-up:

• 2 + 2 = 5 – For long-standing factual inaccuracies.
• Lopado­temacho­selacho­galeo­kranio­leipsano­drim­hypo­trimmato­silphio­karabo­melito­katakechy­meno­kichl­epi­kossypho­phatto­perister­alektryon­opte­kephallio­kigklo­peleio­lagoio­siraio­baphe­tragano­pterygon – For containing long strings of gibberish text that editors refuse to delete.
• Microcerotermes cylindriceps – For being the insect microstub that crossed the line and just became too much.
• Syphilis – For being about syphilis.

Worst Policy

Winner: Wikipedia:Civility

Civility is a policy that only exists to censor the most dedicated editors. How are Wikipedians supposed to be productive if they can't even call each other names or make snide comments? Incivility makes editors more productive: it puts a fire under them and gets them ready for the long haul. If someone does something stupid, the only way to respond is to let them know just how stupid they are. Otherwise how will they learn? Any problem that can be solved with kindness can be solved even faster with incivility. This policy forces editors to treat each other like human beings, slowing down the whole process and making everyone worse off. For this reason, it is the worst policy of the year. Congratulations, Wikipedia:Civility.

Runners-up:

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – For protecting the obvious leftist/centrist/rightist bias on Wikipedia.
• Wikipedia:No legal threats – For disparaging the American national pastime despite the fact that Wikimedia server are hosted in the United States.
• Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure – For hassling good, decent people that were minding their own business, trying to make an honest living as entrepreneurs.
• Wikipedia:Username Policy – For being a buzzkill. User:Sexgod_COVIDisaHOAX (WMF), we hardly knew ye.

Worst Essay

Winner: Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose

Not only does this essay have nothing to do with Wikipedia, but it went and gave a bunch of people the idea of stuffing beans up their nose. Now we've got to deal with injured Wikipedians undergoing bean removal procedures, cutting down on productive editing time. You shouldn't warn people not to do something that they didn't even think of, because then you're just putting ideas in their heads. Now that's a good idea for an essay. It's for this reckless spread of bad ideas that this essay is the worst essay of the year. Congratulations, Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose.

Runners-up:

• Wikipedia:Fart – Obvious vandalism.
• Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas – For putting bad ideas in people's heads (there should really be an essay about not doing that).
• Wikipedia:No, you can't have a pony – For its stance on ponies.
• Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great – For hurting the feelings of Wikipedians everywhere.

Worst Portal

Winner: All of them.

As they do every year, all portals tied for last place. Congratulations, portals.

Worst Site Feature

Winner: Talk pages

Talk pages may have sounded like a good idea when they were implemented. A dedicated place for editors to collaborate while working on an article? Brilliant! But it quickly became apparent that this is not what they are for. Talk pages have been usurped by the so-called "editors" who use them only to complain about "sources" and "neutrality". Talk pages stop you from making the edits that you want to make, even when you know that the information is correct. It would probably be best for the project if talk pages are shut down entirely and editors are asked to fight it out in good old-fashioned edit warring. For now, they just get in the way. It's for this disruption that talk pages are the worst feature of the year. Congratulations, talk pages.

Runners-up:

• Special:CreateAccount – For handing out accounts to unqualified users.
• Fundraising banners – For asking for money.
• Vector 2022 – For adding too much white space and causing a general hubbub.
• Visual Editor – For dumbing down editing.

Worst Noticeboard

Winner: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Was there ever any doubt? There's a reason why WP:CESSPIT, WP:DRAMABOARD, and WP:Slough of Despond all redirect here. Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is the dark underbelly of Wikipedia. It is the abyss into which we look. It is the portrait which reflects our sins. It is the ninth circle of Hell. It is where we learn that Wikipedians are not respected professionals, but self-styled "amateur encyclopedists" that enjoy bickering. This is where you go when you feel slighted and wish for others to suffer the same pain that you suffer. And truly, only suffering is to be found here. For this, it is the worst noticeboard of the year, if not all time. Congratulations, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Runners-up:

• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations – Here is a list of 5,000 articles, on topics you haven't researched before, which may or may not contain copyright violations. Please could you get all of them checked ASAP. Cheers! Need we say any more?
• Wikipedia:Education noticeboard – For providing no meaningful education.
• Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard – For acting like it's as good as the BLP and NPOV noticeboards.
• Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) – More like the bad idea lab.