
In Defense of Inclusionism - Tomte
https://www.gwern.net/In%20Defense%20Of%20Inclusionism
======
peterbonney
This is a long but excellent article - well worth reading.

By coincidence, I became aware of this bizarre "deletionist" culture at
Wikipedia recently when I was searching for information about a particular
musician. This is someone who has a handful of popular-ish songs on streaming
sites, all from television soundtracks, but hasn't really charted as far as I
can tell - in other words, an artist I would peg at about 50/50 odds to have
had someone bother to write a Wikipedia entry for them.

Lo and behold, I found that someone _had_ written a Wikipedia entry for them,
and that it had been deleted because they weren't deemed famous enough to have
an entry! I was dumbfounded... This is someone that _millions of people_ have
probably heard in the background of primetime television, and information
about them was _actively_ deemed unworthy of Wikipedia!

It was a strange, depressing, and disturbing moment of realization about how
Wikipedia had evolved from the early days when I was consistently delighted to
find information on all manner of obscure topics, lovingly curated by people
who cared deeply enough about them to invest their time in informing the world
about them. Thanks to this article I now know that it wasn't just an isolated
incident.

~~~
redler
Perhaps Wikipedia should approach this from another angle: loosen their
baseline criteria, and then treat "notability" like Twitter's "verified" tag.
Let the debate be whether or not an article should have the notability
checkmark, not whether or not it should exist at all (within reason).

~~~
tptacek
Because of the way Google prefers Wikipedia articles over other sources in its
SERPs, this would ultimately have the effect of turning Wikipedia into a UGC
version of AOL: it would be overrun with crud (because the Internet
incentivizes Wikipedia articles), and the project would have to expend
significant effort at retraining the Internet to look for "verified" stickers
on the things that actually were encyclopedia articles. For what benefit?

Wikipedia's response to this problem is the right one: there's a whole big
wide Internet out there, and if Wikipedia isn't the appropriate place for your
article, surely there are many other places that are. UGC sites are falling
over themselves to get people to write on them. Why force them on the one
Internet project that doesn't want them?

~~~
redler
Good point on SERPs, and certainly nobody should force Wikipedia to act
against what they believe is their strategic best interest. But isn't "the way
Google prefers Wikipedia articles over other sources in its SERPs" an
epiphenomenon? In an alternate universe where Wikipedia was more inclusive and
used some kind of "notability" flag, Google could just as easily prefer those
"notable" articles the way it prefers Wikipedia articles more generally in
this universe.

Edit: clarity.

~~~
tptacek
I think it is indeed the case that if Wikipedia was subjected to less entropy,
so that its editors could work on building up the encyclopedia in a sort of
secluded peace, the project would be far less itchy about notability.

But remember that minimizing error is only half the argument for notability.
The other half is, again, definitional: an article about a non-notable topic
is almost by definition original research, and "no original research" is one
of Wikipedia's oldest rules. The project's charter is to be a tertiary source.

~~~
Natsu
> an article about a non-notable topic is almost by definition original
> research, and "no original research" is one of Wikipedia's oldest rules

While I understand it as a means to keep random cranks out of the science
pages, all it has ever incentivized is to have people 'launder' their research
via some 'reliable source'.

But which sources are 'reliable' is quite often purely a matter of editorial
bias and there are other wiki projects with a very different take on the
matter, for example:

[https://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Reliability](https://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Reliability)

~~~
tptacek
Could you be more specific about this "laundering" of research through
reliable sources?

I definitely saw savvy Wikipedia spammers lawyering their way into the
encyclopedia, sometimes successfully, for instance by citing marginal trade
press cites as evidence of notability ("my client is notable because one time
a trade press writer got a quote from them on the importance of FCIP products
for disaster recovery programs").

What I don't see is a lot of bogus research hiding in the secondary sources of
major articles.

Whatever you might think about WP's policies on what does or doesn't
constitute a "reliable" source, I think it's difficult to argue that any
community outside of Wikipedia has spent more time thinking about this
problem.

~~~
Natsu
It's simple, you put it on your web page with some puffed-up credentials and
then have a friend link to it. This works better for things that aren't
commonly challenged as it often doesn't stand up to more than casual scrutiny
as you do have to pass yourself off as somehow 'reliable'.

~~~
tptacek
My experience editing Wikipedia suggests to me that this is a dubious tactic.
Anything I cited on my own web pages, for topics I feel pretty comfortable
asserting expertise on (like, for instance, the presence of a lisp interpreter
embedded in the Seatbelt ACL system in OSX) was immediately sniped by other
editors.

~~~
Natsu
You made the mistake of citing yourself instead of getting a friend to do it
:)

------
jessriedel
Can folks link to the best defense of deletionism they know? Here is an OK one
I've found:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LeilaniLad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LeilaniLad)

To me personally, _verifiability_ seems a vastly better criteria for inclusion
in Wikipedia. It's (a) a much less subjective standard than notability, (b)
well-justified by the limitations of the medium (i.e., no original research),
and (c) still prevents Wikipedia from being a "dumping ground" for everything
on the internet.

The only general argument for deletionism I've seen that survives is that the
editor resources of Wikipedia will be stretched so thin that the checking of
_verifiability itself_ is imperiled. But (1) Wikipedia survived fine back when
it had vastly fewer editors and random people were writing on a bajillion
then-empty topics and (2) there are much better ways to handle this minor
problem, e.g., pages are hidden from non-registered users until they reach a
critical mass of contributing editors.

Measured by pure prevalence, the dominant argument seems to be about status:
that non-notable items just don't _deserve_ to be in Wikipedia. It's very hard
to argue against an emotional appeal like this.

~~~
StavrosK
Is this one of those situations where someone uses a proxy metric for
something that is itself easily measured? "We must protect verifiability, non-
notable articles aren't easily verified, therefore non-notable articles should
be banned"?

Is there a name for this? I've been noticing (and being frustrated by) it a
lot.

~~~
tptacek
I don't understand how this is a "proxy metric".

I'll give you the shortest defense of deletionism I can write:

There are two problems with non-notable articles in Wikipedia.

The first is definitional. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source: a roadmap and
synopsis of existing sources. Non-notable sources are by definition those for
which existing reliable sources are absent. All such articles are, in a very
simple sense, "original research". One of the most basic founding principles
of Wikipedia, as old as NPOV, is "no original research".

The second is pragmatic. Wikipedia is committed to minimizing error. Entropy
exerts tremendous force on the project, which occupies extremely valuable
Internet real estate. Every article on Wikipedia is in a sense a commitment by
the Wikipedia community to mount a defense against bias, advertisement,
promotion, vandalism, and basic inaccuracy. The notability requirement, which
is at bottom based not on "fame" but on _the quality of sources available for
a topic_ , is an extremely reasonable boundary to put on the expectations
Wikipedia can have of its unpaid editors to combat that entropy: to wit, that
we will do so only when available sources make the job possible to do in the
first place.

~~~
Tomte
> Wikipedia is committed to minimizing error.

Try to tell that to the guys who feel like they own the /dev/random article on
Wiki-DE:

[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:/dev/random#.2Fdev....](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:/dev/random#.2Fdev.2Furandom)

An "IP" (which is basically a kind of online racism, because ostensibly "IPs"
are not addresses but a certain kind of people) tried to correct the usual
/dev/urandom misinformation. It was reverted, called vandalism and the user
bakunin finally stated that he reverted because "the discussion was getting on
his nerves" and "even if the change was factually correct", it was obviously
vandalism.

I know why I don't try to contribute to Wikipedia. When the half-time of
_donations_ to the project can be measured in minutes, it's just not worth it.

~~~
tptacek
It will probably not surprise you that this is also the reason I no longer
contribute to Wikipedia. When you're an expert in a subject, writing an
encyclopedia article about it is very tedious. It's easy for me to write an
explanation of how the LRNG works, or what its faults are, or what the urban
mythology is about it. It's much more painful for me to do so while backing
every point I make up with some secondary source --- none of which can be
related to me in any way, lest I be accused of injecting my own bias into the
encyclopedia.

But while I'm not going to say that the way Wikipedia deals with expertise is
perfect (it is deeply imperfect), there's a sense in which this is the way
it's supposed to be.

If I have important things to say about the LRNG, why would I write them in
Wikipedia? Should I not write my own articles, or a chapter of a book, or an
academic paper, and let people who _want_ to write encyclopedia articles cite
them? In my own work, I can obey whatever guidelines I want to, and write in
whatever fashion is most gratifying and effective for me.

------
Animats
As someone else pointed out, this is a long, detailed critique of Wikipedia by
someone whose main objection is that _" by 2007 the water had become hot
enough to be felt by devotees of modern fiction (that is, anime & manga
franchises, video games, novels, etc.)"_ There are legitimate criticisms of
Wikipedia, but that it now discourages "fancruft" isn't much of one. There are
many other popular culture forums. If you want to write about anime, get an
account on MyAnimeList or Daisuki or Wikia. (Daisuki, incidentally, is a
project of the Cool Japan Fund, a VC fund to export Japanese culture, funded
by the government of Japan and some big banks.) There's Pottermore and
Wookiepedia and the Marvel Universe Wiki. There are places for that stuff, and
they're big and active.

"Deletionism" is mostly pushback against the incoming tide of promotional
articles. Here's an essay I wrote on dealing with conflict of interest
editing.[1] Without considerable pushback, Wikipedia would read like PR
Newswire. Too often, it still does. As I note in my essay, on Wikipedia, it's
not what you have to say about yourself, it's what other reliable sources say
about you. Wikipedia is one of the very few resources on the Web that's not
choked with advertising and promotion. That's valuable.

Editor retention is a problem. Editing Wikipedia is hard. It's not like
writing on a blog or forum. It's like submitting a pull request to a major
open source project. It's not difficult for anyone who has published in a
refereed journal, but that's under 1% of the population. It's painful for
someone who's never had their writing tightly edited. So is submitting code to
a successful project. It's one way to get better at writing.

Despite this, Wikipedia is dealing well with the hard problems. As the Trump
administration takes power, many articles needed to be updated, and, despite
controversies, that process is going reasonably well. The Washington Post
comments that, over time, Wikipedia articles on controversial subjects
approach a neutral point of view.[2] Few other places on the Web achieve that,
or even try.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hints_on_dealing_wit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hints_on_dealing_with_conflict_of_interest_problems)
[2]
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/25/somet...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/25/somethings-
terribly-wrong-with-the-internet-and-wikipedia-might-be-able-to-fix-
it/?utm_term=.ff6f591f51f9)

~~~
clock_tower
Good, someone's making this point!

I'd argue that it's specifically "modern fiction" that made Wikipedia hard to
take seriously in the early years (was it that they had a biography of Pikachu
but not of Charles XII of Sweden?), and that a hard line on fancruft but
lenience in other areas would make sense.

On the other hand, I hadn't known about the PR issue, and I think I now
understand why Wikipedia is so unforgiving towards _Mittelstand_ businesses.
If the only information you can get about the second-largest sprocket-maker in
Topeka was written by the second-largest sproket-maker in Topeka, it might
indeed be better to leave them off the site entirely...

------
s_kilk
> We talked idealistically about how Wikipedia could become an encyclopedia of
> specialist encyclopedias, the superset of encyclopedias. "would you expect
> to see a Bulbasaur article in a Pokemon encyclopedia? yes? then let’s have a
> Bulbasaur article". The potential was that Wikipedia would be the summary of
> the Internet and books/media. Instead of punching in a keyword to a search
> engine and getting 100 pages dealing with tiny fragments of the topic (in
> however much detail), you would get a coherent overview summarizing
> everything worth knowing about the topic, for almost all topics.

That sounds much cooler than what we've actually ended up with.

~~~
tptacek
The single most ambitious and effective single resource in perhaps the history
of recorded human knowledge?

It's not cool enough for you because _there isn 't a totally separate
independent article about whatever the fuck a Bulbasaurus is?_

~~~
gluggymug
You don't know what a Bulbasaur is? Maybe look it up on Wikipedia because as
has been mentioned here already there IS an article on Bulbasaur! It is not a
stub either.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulbasaur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulbasaur)

Wikipedia has righted the wrong eventually.

~~~
tptacek
Yeah it turns out that Bulbasaurus is a very bad example. Sorry. I literally
know Pokemon principally as a thing people use to complain about Wikipedia
with. I Googled "obscure Pokemon" and will henceforth be using "Kingler" as my
example of how unreasonably demanding the Internet is of Wikipedia.

------
Glyptodon
I think everybody who isn't highly involved in Wikipedia has always hated the
whole "notability" thing. Drives me crazy. If there's something more than a
dozen people care about and they're not a family give them the benefit of the
doubt.

And I think the author is right on point with the barriers to contribution
thing.

My brother, for example, says he created the Wikipedia page for Cheescake
(~2004) because he noticed there wasn't one so he started it by creating a
sentence that defined what he thought cheesecake was. And he didn't register,
sign up or even make a good article. He just saw something he thought was
missing and created it with a single sentence.

And now there's an actual "proper" article.

Not sure if he could do that today. I imagine most people find a missing
article, discover there are hoops, and don't bother.

~~~
tptacek
He couldn't do it today because there is a Wikipedia article already for
pretty much every conceivable pastry, from Stroopwafels to Cronuts to Fudgie
the Whale.

To me, this _strongly_ suggests that if you just today realized that Wikipedia
was lacking an article for, let's say, Red Velvet Cake, you would have very
little trouble creating that article.

~~~
ubernostrum
Red velvet cake is simply a variation of chocolate cake, and not notable
enough to have its own article. Also this article is low-quality and contains
several non-encyclopedic/non-verifiable statements. Propose merging into a
passing note in [[Chocolate cake]].

------
PaulHoule
Deleting links from Wikipedia to your competitors is a famous black hat
tactic. You can get away with almost anything on Wikipedia if you are
deleting.

I think the world needs a list of web pages categorized by Wikipedia topics,
but the people who will appreciate it most are spammers and there lies the
rub.

------
Nursie
Yeah, a decade and a bit ago one could share a bit of knowledge on wikipedia
fairly informally and be sure it would feed into the article and help the
project.

Fast forward to recent years and you can write a decent article with
references and have someone come along from one of the 'patrol' teams and
nominate it for swift deletion in under 5 minutes, regardless of whether they
know anything about the subject area.

New users are unlikely to try twice, when the initial reaction is so hostile.

~~~
DanBC
FWIW wikipedia seems to be aware that those patrol teams are more harmful than
useful.

Vandal Patrol got shut down; new page patrol is now a user right and it's
getting a lot more scrutiny and discussion - and the discussion is all focused
on preventing the newbie-biting harms. Twinkle and rollback got a lot of
scrutiny.

I hate wikipedia, but I'm glad to see some movement in the right direction.

------
rsync
Every year something in my brain breaks and I think "I know, I'll finally get
rsync.net a wikipedia entry".

This is somewhat important because the little-hitler that owns (yes, owns) the
"cloud storage" wikipedia page refuses all additions of cloud storage
providers that "aren't notable". So therefore, rsync.net has to have a
wikipedia page.

This shouldn't be a problem - rsync.net has been mentioned in the press widely
over the course of over 10 years - everything from articles about our warrant
canary to articles about our ZFS support. In fact, _other wikipedia pages_
mention and discuss rsync.net.

You know where this is going.

A perfectly well written article, well cited with 15+ citations from
"respectable" journalist sources is _nearly insta-deleted_ due to notability.

Every single time. I've tried 4-5 times over the past few years. Every time
it's a different little-hitler that swoops in to bravely defend wikipedia.

~~~
caseysoftware
Add it to
[https://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page](https://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page)

They started by forking wikipedia and have expanded the notability guidelines.

~~~
rokosbasilisk
wow a wiki fork is amazing. its been needed for a while too.

~~~
jerf
Out of curiousity, have there been any other forks that have focused on
editing the content? I mean, I know there's a bajillion wikipedia _mirrors_
that are just trying to get page views for cheap, but have there been any
other forks that are actually trying to bootstrap from Wikipedia and make
_changes_ to the underlying content?

As I sometimes mention, informally studying the effects of code structure on
community creation is a bit of a long-running hobby of mine, and I'd be
intrigued to see any other extant examples of a wikipedia fork.

------
SaltySolomon
I think that the notability clause is doing a ton of damage, especially
because it is enforced in a way that discourages any new users. My one and
only try to create an article was shot down over it and I simply stopped
trying after that.

------
tsukikage
> "by (...) using software that makes undoing most vandalism far easier than
> doing it, the participation goes through the roof"

The bitter irony is that this cause of wikipedia's early success is the seed
of its current rot: one person's contribution is another person's vandalism;
if undoing a contribution is always less effort than making it, participation
must decrease.

Ah, well; everyone who's ever sneered at the list of fictional starfish back
in the day have what they wanted now, I guess.

------
phpnode
I wonder if there's a name for this phenomenon, where a small group emerge
from a userbase, gain control of the platform and start applying their
preferences to the detriment of the average user. It strikes me as very
similar to the problems stack overflow faces.

~~~
sageikosa
Plutocracy? You have to have a decent amount of free time and resources
initially to value spending time working on Wikipedia articles enough to gain
working knowledge and social connections in the system to advance enough to
advance broader agendas, or enforce narrower biases.

------
emn13
It's not just wikipedia that does this; it's not even specifically a problem
of open communities. Organisations all over do this. People underestimate
complexity and think that they can assign permissions and control access
beforehand, and they invariably end up making things hugely complicated in
some vain endeavor to solve largely imaginary problems.

Wikipedia, stackoverflow - but also companies with their crazy policies, and
governments (which kind of inspired the word kafkaesque). Clearly, this is
human nature.

Oh, it doesn't actually _work_ , so any successful organization also develops
an unofficial way to get stuff done, and those facing real risks need to
develop an audit culture too. But the lure of just that slightly more detailed
access control system stays, and rules proliferate.

Heck, our entire system of human self-organisation is one big cruft of rapidly
growing rules, contracts, laws and treaties. It's _everywhere_. They only ever
really shrink at any meaningful rate when the parties involved cease to exist.

------
Paul_S
It hurts to be reminded of this. I quit wikipedia because of that.

Having your page deleted is an absolute slap to the face. It's like bringing a
home-baked cake to a charity cake sale and having the other bakers take your
cake, throw it to the ground and stomp on it while cackling maniacally and
shouting "not notable" and other stock phrases.

I refuse to accept their excuses.

~~~
x1798DE
Seems to me it's more like bringing your home-baked cake to Wal-mart and being
horribly offended that they don't just put it on the shelves. I think Animats'
analogy in a sibling comment of making a pull request against a major open-
source is very apt. Wikipedia is a huge and hard to manage project with
extremely high standards.

------
cabalamat
I did an inclusionist fork of Wikipedia, Includipedia, a few years ago, which
failed due to inadequate execution on my part.

I still think the underlying idea of an inclusionist fork is sound, and I'm
surprised one hasn't been successful.

~~~
lmm
Wikipedia is "good enough"; they have the funding and it's too much effort for
most people to switch (particularly now that e.g. Google integrates wikipedia
directly into search results). It's a shame.

~~~
VLM
As a deletionist organization they certainly won't get my money, meanwhile as
more articles are deleted, there is less for google to link to. They're
narrowcasting to an ever smaller group, and that can't end well. Eventually
they have to close or change course. They won't change course, so ...

------
Amezarak
Even aside from a biased editor wanting to control a subject, reputation, edit
history, and voting on administrative decisions are all important parts of a
Wikipedia editor's account and experience of Wikipedia. Enough 'good'
participation can get you an administrator account and further privileges.

This turns Wikipedia into a game for these people which, inevitably, to arcane
rules-lawyering. Creating content is hard, and when you want to increase your
metrics and contribute to the community _because_ it is the community and not
because you have a passion for Subject X, creating content is not a
sustainable strategy in the long-term. You can't know everything, you can't be
an expert on everything. It's much easier to revert, to rules-laywer, to
delete. So that's what happens.

------
Xcelerate
I used to contribute a lot to Wikipedia back around 2004-2005 (I did a rather
large rewrite of the article on photon mapping). But in the following years,
almost every edit I made or article I wrote was reverted or deleted, so I just
gave up. Maybe a better version of Wikipedia will come along at some point,
but until then I am no longer making any contributions.

------
TorKlingberg
The key insight here is that you cannot drive quality in a project like
Wikipedia at the expense of driving contributors away. When people leave, who
will watch an maintain the articles? You can try to lock down even harder, but
then nobody new will join, and the existing contributors will eventually churn
and leave.

~~~
JBReefer
> who will watch and maintain the articles?

Exactly the people you don't want - powerhungry, fiefdom building diehards.

The whole point of Wikipedia was to be a repository of our knowledge, even if
there are flaws, but it just seems so pointless to contribute. I know I
stopped bothering years ago.

------
jordigh
I don't know how true it is that niche topics are unwelcome. I wrote this
article about a year ago in hopes of getting this implemented in Python's
statsmodels, and so far nobody has told me that this very niche topic
shouldn't be in Wikipedia:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medcouple](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medcouple)

I've gotten a number of helpful edits for it too.

I also referenced it from the much more mainstream Boxplot article:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_plot#Variations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_plot#Variations)

So, my experience has been positive so far.

(Btw, I'm still hoping someone will implement this in statsmodels.)

~~~
SaltySolomon
I think it depends a bit on the topic and area how easy and/or hard it is to
add anything. I also think that it is a bit easier to add something than to
start a new article.

------
talideon
Sometimes I wonder if the solution to this isn't just to add a second tier of
pages to Wikipedia, alpha (canonical) and beta (non-canonical): with pages
starting in the alpha Wikipedia, then being moved to the beta Wikipedia if
they're not considered sufficiently notable, where they can be worked on and
eventually promoted back to the alpha Wikipedia once they've reached a certain
level and combination of quality and notability. Deletions could happen for
straight-up junk pages, but at least 'notability' would be removed as a
qualification for inclusion.

------
WhitneyLand
Could Wikipedia ever be forked by a group that wanted to compete by trying to
win with a better culture and/or technology?

It's such a hostile culture it'd be nice to get rid of persnickety behavior,
and indulgence of unproductive obsessive personality traits (like deletion
binging, worrying more about rules than the spirit of the rules).

~~~
x1798DE
Everything on Wikipedia is CC-BY-SA or free-er, and the software that runs it
is GPL. If you think you can do better, feel free to try. I'm fairly certain
several people have already tried. I personally find the "hostile culture" to
be not too different from a culture with high standards, and high standards
are exactly why Wikipedia is popular - you see exactly the same criticisms
leveled against StackOverflow and other essentially "canonical" resources on
the web. I would not be surprised if anyone who cares at all about quality
will get a lot of people complaining that their contributions were ignored or
that it's impossible to add anything to these resources.

~~~
WhitneyLand
There is a real difference between pursuing quality and being unproductively
persnickety. One doesn't require the other.

Take your example of SO, the issue became so bad in 2013 they had to revamp
the way moderation worked. They wouldn't have done that if it were just a
bunch of people wanting to lower quality.

------
Dowwie
It's becoming a fairly common occurrence where a person whose personal
contribution isn't accepted as-is by a community writes an emotional, novel-
length post about why the community is failing and will die soon. Someone did
this recently with Stack Overflow.

------
pvdebbe
Maybe because I grew up reading HHGTTG I've always thought that of course a
freely editable internet encyclopedia should be as inclusive as possible. No,
I won't buy the deletionist argument. Personally, I wouldn't mind if people
started to cite other sources than WP again. The WWW as a whole will be the
ultimate Guide.

~~~
dagw
But HHGTTG was far from inclusive. It was only edited by staff writers, and
they had a team of central editors that would cut down long, detailed articles
to their bare necessities ("Mostly Harmless").

~~~
pvdebbe
Oh, true, true. The core idea stuck, still.

------
iso-8859-1
It is fun to see how AfD debates that are closed with "merge", just never get
merged, deletionists will not bother. Too much work.

For example:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucible_(software)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucible_\(software\))

------
wiggleboy
Great article. Sad to hear there is a cultural shift...

Worth noting that there is definitely a Bulbasaur article on Wikipedia though.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulbasaur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulbasaur)

