<p><a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/basic-concepts" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;basic-concepts&#39;" rel="tag">basic-concepts</a> is a <a href="https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/08/07/the-death-of-meta-tags/">meta tag</a>.  The tag for <code>[meta-tags]</code> on meta.SE defines them as "Meta tags are tags which describe something other than the question's content--such as the author's skill level, motivation, or current take on it".  The official SE policy is that they are not supposed to be allowed.  As such, <code>[basic-concepts]</code> probably should be (have been) burninated (see, <a href="https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2854/7290">Do we need [basic-concepts] tag?</a>), but we don't seem to make much progress on that sort of thing (cf., <a href="https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3031/7290">Tag-candidates for removal</a>).  </p>

<hr>

<p>I think having excerpts / usage guides is more important than having wikis.  (Wikis are nice, but I'm not sure how many people ever even know they exist; in addition, there are probably tags that just don't really need any full wiki, but should still have an excerpt.)  Moreover, the more common a tag is, the more important it presumably is for it to have an excerpt, all else held equal.  From these points, a simple way to look for tags that need excerpts is to go to our <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/tags">tags</a> page, sort by <code>popular</code> (if not already), and then scan through page after page until you see one without an excerpt.  The first such tag I notice is <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/accuracy" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;accuracy&#39;" rel="tag">accuracy</a> on page 6.  </p>

<p>If you want a more formal method, you can use an existing data query (or make your own) at the Stack Exchange <a href="https://data.stackexchange.com/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Data Explorer</a> site.  Navigate to the site, click on Cross Validated, and search using relevant terms.  People like making lots of 'forks' of these queries, which I often find less useful, so I sort by <code>popular</code>.  Here is a search for "<a href="https://data.stackexchange.com/stats/queries?order_by=popular&amp;q=tag%20wiki" rel="nofollow noreferrer">tag wiki</a>".  The top two hits are <a href="https://data.stackexchange.com/stats/query/8201/what-tag-wikis-can-i-edit" rel="nofollow noreferrer">What tag wikis can I edit?</a>, and <a href="https://data.stackexchange.com/stats/query/445925/most-common-tags-with-short-long-or-missing-excerpt-or-wiki" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Most common tags with short, long, or missing excerpt or wiki</a>.  Both might have potential for you.  The only thing to bear in mind is that the data site is only updated on Sunday mornings at around 3:00 UTC, so the information returned by a query may be somewhat out of date when you use it.  </p>

<p>For what it's worth, none of these strategies picks out "vague" or "meaningless" tags.  That would be a heavy lift for a SQL query (it reminds me of <a href="https://xkcd.com/1425/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this</a>).  </p>
