Today, the main page's current event box had this for its lead story:
> Nearly 380 tons of explosives are missing from an Iraqi site
> meant for Saddam Hussein's dismantled nuclear program but never
> secured by the U.S. military.
It took me less than 5 minutes of googling to find the opposite POV:
> An NBC News crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the
> Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the
> liberation of Iraq. According to NBC News, the HMX and RDX
> explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived.
So it is not accurate to assert that the explosives were "never
secured", as the US Democratic Party and its liberal media allies
complained.
Rather, the article should say that:
* US Democrats blamed the army for "not securing" the explosives
AND THAT:
* An NBC News report says that the explosives were already missing when
the American troops arrived.
It's very cumbersome to fix Wikipedia's front page, so Raul or whoever
maintains it, please fix this error.
Ed Poor
>>>>Rambot articles are of disputable encyclopedicness.
>>>Places are certainly encyclopedic.
>>Places are no more indisputably encyclopedic than schools or people.
> Once more inclusionists impress me with their pedantry. By places, I
> generically mean human settlements.
You're accusing the wrong person of pedantry. Human settlements are no more
indisputably encyclopedic than schools or people.
>>Can you point to a single encyclopedia that has articles on years? What
>>about non-cardinal numbers? Lists I think are clearly unencyclopedic.
>A definition of "Encyclopedic" should not be based on what other
>encyclopedias do.
> Encyclopedic is not necessarily "topics most encyclopedias cover".
On the other hand, maybe I should be pedantic, because you seem to be making
up random definitions of words. Unlike many other inclusionists, I think
one can meaningfully talk about whether or not a topic is "encyclopedic",
because I think a common definition of "encyclopedic" is "similar [in topic]
to what traditional encyclopedias include". But, if you're going to define
"encyclopedic" as "something which Wikipedia should include", you should be
aware that that term has very little useful meaning in terms of an inclusion
argument (as it commonly turns into a fallacy of begging the question). At
the very least if you're going to make up a definition to fit your argument,
make up a new term so as not to confuse people into thinking you're talking
about the word which already has a definition. Maybe "Wikipedic".
> They're relevant, but tell me why I should value a school substub more
> than a substub about the Prime Minister of Thailand.
I never said you should. I just don't think either is useless, or that we
should delete either. But once again you talk about school substubs, while
the vast majority of deleted articles on schools are not substubs, and the
rest would have easily become more than substubs if being a substub was all
that was objected to (I've fixed a number of substubs myself, but I
generally don't do so when I feel that the article is likely to be deleted
anyway).
> Yes, I agree. I personally have no problem with having school substubs
> merged into their town articles.
Then it seems we are in heated agreement, because I have no problem with
this either. In fact, in the case of substubs, that's what I *prefer* we do
with them (and sometimes I actually favor merging and deleting).
Now, you and I may disagree about what constitutes a substub, but even with
school articles bigger than a substub I still wouldn't mind merging and
redirecting. I'd prefer that we keep them, so that's how I "vote", but
would it make more sense if I just copy pasted something like "I'd prefer
that we keep this but merging and redirecting would also be acceptable"?
The amazing thing is, merging and redirecting doesn't even require an admin,
and so it can be done without even touching VFD. Adding to VFD has gotten
complicated to the point where it's probably just as much work, too.
Sometimes I wonder if the deletionists just have more fun playing on VFD,
and that's why they choose this method to "improve Wikipedia".
>>And you want to talk about substubs? Rambot articles have less useful
>>information than most school articles.
>Population, maps, location, etc. I'd say most Rambot and school articles
>are nearly equal, but the Rambot articles at least contain some relevant
>information.
Here's what I find useful in the bare Rambot articles. County, population,
latitude and longitude. Note that the bare rambot articles (and there are
many of them) don't even have maps. So if it were up to me, I'd strip the
articles of all but that information (unless it was particularly atypical,
95% white or 90% black or whatever), and then I'd merge and redirect with
the county article and include a link to the demographics (either on the
census site or on wikisource).
But looking at school articles, most of them have at least this much useful
information. City, state, number of students, principal, and in many the
ones I've verified, latitude and longitude. The vast majority of them have
even more information than that.
So even if you're going to define "encyclopedic" as "should be in
Wikipedia", I think almost every school article which is deleted is more
useful than [[Mount Vernon, Illinois]].
Of course, if we were really looking to end this constant bickering and make
a better encyclopedia, we could combine the two, at least as a default.
Redirect school articles to the city, and talk about both there. I've said
this a number of times on VFD. I don't think it's reasonable to have to say
it every single time, but maybe I should set up a template response. This
does bring me back to the point that VFD is set up extremely poorly, and
that it in fact hinders a reaching of consensus.
> It's a manner of organisation. The information within is encyclopedic.
With the year pages I can see your point, I guess. They're similar to
lists, which even though I think they're clearly unencyclopedic, should
probably stay in Wikipedia anyway. I stand by my belief that [[163
(number)]] should be tossed, though.
> I think the real debate here is organisation. I don't think school
> substubs deserve a separate article - Mark Richards and anthony do.
Actually, I don't. But I think we have a different concept of what a
substub is.
> But we agree that they should be in the encyclopedia. We just disagree
over
> where they should be.
You and I might agree with this (after all, we're both neutral, right), but
the deletionists want this information completely removed. That's the
purpose of VFD, after all, not to merge things into other articles, which
doesn't require admin powers, and which neither I nor any of the other
"inclusionists" would likely object to.
> Yes, deleting them will cause no harm. A school article is nice to have,
> but if it's a substub, I see no reason for it to have its own article.
If you mean that the information should be kept somewhere else instead, then
we are in complete agreement.
> I laugh at your exaggerated statement. Movies and actors - if they have
> an entry on IMDB, they absolutely should be kept. They are verifiable.
You're starting to sound like an inclusionist now. Many movies and actors
on IMDB are deleted.
But, I actually disagree that movies and actors on IMDB are all verifiable.
I know people with movies on IMDB, and I know what kind of verification was
done. Virtually none. That said, most movies and actors on IMDB are
verifiable.
> If their articles are deleted, it's a shame. I think few deletionists
> would agree [you mean disagree?] with me. Sometimes inclusionists just
love giving
> deletionists positions they don't hold.
Movie articles are regularly *speedy deleted*. I'm certainly not giving
anyone a position they don't hold. After this conversation, I'm not giving
you any position, because I really can't figure out what your position is.
Anthony
(A) Such a thing would be, almost by definition, unverifiable; and
(B) The damage down by the very existance of such articles, in drowning out 'useful'
articles, far outweighs the potential utility they have.
--Mark
"So you mean this had been already discussed?"
...repeatedly. And it repeatedly gets shot down because an overwhelming number
of people are against it.
--Mark
AFAIK when someone becomes sysop [s]he remains sysop forever.
I propose sysops should be evaluated every 3-6 months; during the eval people
will vote on which sysops should be kept and which should become again users.
(and no, I do not require it, it's just an idea and you can use it if you
like, and feel free to disagree, but dont bite me)
--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
> Yes, there are people who mind, but the average user won't notice the
> deletion of articles on a Hong Kong handbag company or a school. They
> will notice if you delete an article on, say, Gucci, or Eton, because
> those are indisputably encyclopedic.
The average user, who doesn't follow VFD and/or the Deletion Log, would not
notice if an article on Gucci or Eton was deleted. At some point maybe
they'd come across a blank page, and then they'd likely just start up a new
stub.
And these articles *aren't* indiputably encyclopedic. Britannica doesn't
have an article on Gucci (assuming you mean the company). I think the word
you're looking for is "famous", not encyclopedic. That's what distinguishes
Gucci and Hong Kong Handbag Company. One is more famous than the other.
And there is a long list of people who don't feel that lack of fame should
be a reason for deletion.
> Although I sound like a deletionist, in reality, like Dpbsmith, I am a
> strong neutral on much of this - I don't see how Wikipedia gains or
> loses from the creation or deletion of any of these articles, unless
> indisputably encyclopedic.
So you don't see how we'd lose from deleting 90% of the articles we have? I
guess we'd still be better than the other freely distributed online
encyclopedias; we'd be free as in freedom and have more in depth coverage,
but I seriously doubt we'd be able to crush them out of existence within 5
years.
Traditional encyclopedias don't cover less famous topics because they can't.
And I'm not just talking about paper, but not being on paper is part of it.
But the real difference is that we have far more contributors than
Britannica has. As a result, we not only *can* be more inclusive, but we
pretty much *have to be*. Sure, our contributors are unpaid and many of
them unskilled, but this is why we insist on everything in Wikipedia being
Verifiable (not original research) and NPOV. You don't have to be very
skilled to check a fact. There's no need to hire experts when the only
conclusions you allow are those which are indisputable.
If you want to call yourself a neutral, then you might as well call me a
neutral too. I don't think we should waste our time deciding what is
"notable" and what isn't. I don't think we should bother drawing a line
between "famous" and "not famous". This is part of the reason I've said
time and again that I won't even bother participating on VFD any more if I
can just get access to view deleted articles. I don't care all that much
about whether or not most articles are deleted from Wikipedia or kept there.
But I take issue with that information just being tossed away, so that what
4 or 5 people say should not be kept in Wikipedia today means that no
Wikimedia project can ever use the information for anything without
reinventing it. Sure, the deletion isn't permanent, but that's only true
until the database crashes, and that's something that has already happened
more than once.
Like you, I want to stop the incessant arguing on VFD. But the only way to
do that is to reach a compromise. That doesn't mean we keep X and delete Y.
It means we consider the point of view of all parties. Deletionists don't
want random page filled with non-famous things. Inclusionists don't want
useful information destroyed. Surely there are solutions which can give
both sides what they want.
> And though there is no hard evidence, I think
> it's suggestive how there are never any complaints about the deletion or
> creation of these articles except from the article's author(s) and the
> hardline inclusionists/deletionists.
No more suggestive than it is that the only people arguing about the loss of
the world's forests are hardline tree-huggers/corporate lackeys. Just
because most people don't know about a problem doesn't mean it isn't there.
Anthony
More to the point, it's only a board decree if it's passed as a resolution
at a board meeting (or maybe an "Action by Unanimous Written Consent" but
now we're really getting into details).
Anthony
> there is a big difference between:
>
> <angela> THIS IS A BOARD DECREE - THOU SHALT NOT DO THIS
>
> and:
>
> <angela> probably not
>
>
> --sannse
> I have not commented on this issue since that script was created, so
> the suggestion that I said you couldn't use it is not true. I don't
> see what this has to do with the board. All sysops can see deleted
> articles, and the board certainly doesn't go round approving all sysop
> applications. I'm getting fed up of everything people don't like being
> blamed on a board decision when no such decision was ever made. You
> get to see deleted articles by being a sysop and your application for
> that was rejected by the community, not the board.
Calm down, Angela. I asked Kate about how to get access to the scripts, and
she said I had to talk to the board. Here's the conversation from IRC:
<anthony> kate, what's this thing about kate's scripts?
<kturner> anthony?
<anthony> you said something about getting permission from the foundation to
run them
<kturner> I asked if I could make it available to all users. The Board of
Directors told me not to
<kturner> so presumably it's up to them to give permission
<anthony> when you say the board told you not to, do you mean someone in
particular, or this was brought up at a board meeting?
<kturner> by 'told' i mean I said 'should i do this?' on irc and someone
said 'probably not'
<kturner> and since i don't care that much, i didn't
<anthony> no I'm just wondering who to talk to
<anthony> angela, apparently
<kturner> this was angela
I guess I was misinformed.
Anthony
NSK (nsk2(a)wikinerds.org) [041027 10:11]:
> On Tuesday 26 October 2004 22:26, David Gerard wrote:
> > what was your Wikipedia username again?
> The reason I have not answered that question is because it was first asked by
> a person who offended me ("as faulty as your logic", 23 October 2004).
Therefore it can never be asked again by anyone else ever? I used to have a
girlfriend like that. Used to.
> That said, I also don't understand why I need to answer this question. Is it
> some kind of policy in Wikipedia to say your user names in emails? I notice
> many people post without mentioning their usernames and I wonder why you
> picked me specifically.
Because I'm trying to work out how much credibility to assign to your
radical and jarring ideas for the project.
> > Do you in fact edit on Wikipedia at all?
> Does it matter? I cannot understand why you ask this question. Are your
> mailing lists restricted only to your members? I don't think so, because it
> was very easy for me to register (if that's not the intended behaviour, you
> need to configure your Mailman installation).
It matters in terms of how seriously your suggestions are going to be
taken. The reason I ask is to know whether you have *any* experience of
this wiki, the one you're advancing the ideas for. Your messages so far
seem to indicate you don't actually understand much of Wikipedia culture;
with a username, it would be possible to see what your edits are like, what
you do and so on and get more of a handle on where you're coming from.
> You can find me in many mailing lists or fora, including FSF-GNU/GNOME/CC/AMD,
It's not a True Name thing (that being no secret), but your persona within
Wikipedia - if any.
The essential point I'm trying to get across is that you're starting from a
position of no credibility. If that's fine by you, then continue as you
are; however, if you wish to be taken seriously and (as I tried to explain
before) your ideas gain traction, I suspect it won't be adequate.
> and I am lurking on many other mailing lists and communities, while I have
> also joined projects such as Drupal.org and OpenFormats.org and very soon I
> will join KDE. Slashdot has published stories written by me (KDE/FSF's
> WIWO...) and my karma there is Good. My university dissertation is on wikis.
> I notice some people refer to me as "he/she" and I wonder whether they have
> noticed who am I.
Then surely you see what I meant about the phenomenon that although an
outside perspective is good, you need to be able to explain it in insider
terms for traction. Per project. This being not just any wiki, but the
biggest by a long shot. Ask [[User:Kate Turner]] about the difference in
feel between a small wiki and Wikipedia.
> participate in your mailing lists as a representative of a friendly website
> which seeks to have relations, cooperation and knowledge sharing with
> Wikimedia. But if WMF does not wish to cooperate or thinks I am a
> "competitor", then you can just say so and I will leave.
I wouln't say that at all (speaking only for myself).
> Finally, I would like to know how we can implement interwiki links to each
> other and whether WMF is interested in this kind of linking.
That would be a nice thing. At present it's largely hackable through
templates in the 'External links' section of articles.
- d.