I've not involved in editing articles on fiction myself, but I often get involved in
notability-related discussions.
Am I understanding your point right:
At the moment, from my understanding, notability is defined through a single guideline
setting universal principles, supplemental by subsidiary guidelines that interpret this
guideline. In the event of conflict between the central guideline and the subsidiary, the
central one should prevail.
You're suggesting that [[WP:FICT]] and presumably other specific guidelines should be
allowed to depart from the central guideline which would just become a default guideline
to be applied where a subsidiary guideline doesn't exist?
Andrew
----- "Surreptitiousness" <surreptitious.wikipedian(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
From: "Surreptitiousness"
<surreptitious.wikipedian(a)googlemail.com>
To: "charles r matthews" <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>om>, "English
Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 1 July, 2009 12:44:36 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability and Fiction
Charles Matthews wrote:
Surreptitiousness wrote:
As a result of the recent RFC on Notability and
Fiction, I've drafted an
essay at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_and_fiction.
Feel free to edit and engage to reach a consensus on the issue, so that
the current fractured state of play might be encouraged to heal itself.
But please don't protect "positions". We don;t need to restate [[WP:V]]
for the umpteenth time, we already have it. We just need to say that
there are bad articles and there are good articles, and mainly bad
articles are bad due to style rather than substance. When there's no
substance, it is usually easy to see and such articles with regards
fiction are not a "problem" for notability to "cure", they are a
"problem" which is already "cured" by a number of other policies.
Notability on Wikipedia has become too restricting and from my view it
is time to roll it back and let each subject area define its own
guidance, because we don't have a one size fits all approach, as evinced
by [[WP:BLP]]. Every subject area is afflicted by different issues, and
the solutions to those issues also differ. If Wikipedia is to continue,
it needs to recognise that fact, and would that we had the leadership to
recognise, reflect and build accordingly. Otherwise, I fear Wikipedia
will stagnate. The greatest asset Wikipedia has is adaptability. That
adaptability is in danger of becoming stifled.
I don't really see what is going on there: but the essay seems to be
saying that an article is acceptable if it meets fundamental content
policy OR various other things, while I would think it acceptable if it
meets fundamental content policy AND various things. Further, it doesn't
do to mix up the status of an article and a topic. I wrote about this
once (from a different angle):
http://brianna.modernthings.org/article/149/charles-matthews-on-notability
It's a wiki, go edit it. The essay should be saying, look, here's what
happens, deal with it. Currently there is too much bickering and too
many people interested more in "fighting the good fight" than accepting
[[WP:IAR]]. Go read [[WP:FICT]] and the numerous archives to get a
sense of the polarised viewpoints. I'd defend fundamental content
policy for all it is worth, but anyone who thinks articles are always
deleted at afd because they do not comply with fundamental content
policy really needs to participate in afd a lot more, and also
understand exactly how nuanced and disputed the meaning of fundamental
content policy actually is. If it was clear what fundamental content
policy actually meant, I doubt we'd be where we are. The original
research policy has a number of different meanings and applications, and
can mean different things in different fields. The central battleground
is at what point does something become worth writing about: Is it when
a book is available for sale in nigh on every bookshop in the country?
Is that enough for an article? At what point do we stop ourselves and
others from writing about something. My clearest experience of this is
with regards the Wayne Rooney article, which in its earliest incarnation
said something along the lines of "Remember the name". Yes, it's one
example and can be countered by many others, but the point remains.
When dealing with fiction, when is "too much information"? Coatracks
don't tend to apply, unless we are seriously considering applying the
force of a coatrack to an article on a minor character in Harry Potter
by stating that such an article overstates the worth of the character to
the point that a reader may come away with the impression that the
character is central to the understanding of the work. Such a position
will conflict with the view that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is
not limited by paper, and since details regarding the character can be
easily verified in primary source, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss
that character in the article on the work itself, and also perfectly
reasonable to split that section off when the article grows too large.
This is precisely about the status of "article" and "topic", and I
agree
with you when you say that "summary style
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SUMMARY>, highly desirable as it
is, operate only through individually notable topics." The issue is what
is a notable topic, and to what depth do we allow a topic to delve
within its cluster of articles. Since, as seen at Featured Topics, we
have defined a topic as being a cluster of articles related to that
topic. Yes, we have very lofty principles. The problem is in
recognising that not all of our editors subscribe to them, and also that
our policies, save [[WP:NPOV]], are actually slaves to consensus. When
consensus in a given area is not behind current policy, what happens?
For example, a site wide poll on [[WP:PLOT]] found no consensus for it
to remain policy. Yet some of those that wish it to remain will not
accept its removal. If we have rejected WP:CONSENSUS as the means for
determining policy, we should be more open about it. If we have now come
to accept cabals, and that there is an elite who have a better
understanding of what Wikipedia is and what policy means, great. But if
that is not the case, we need to work out what the vast majority of
Wikipedians actually desire, because otherwise Wikipedia is going to
become either a battleground or a protected environment, either of which
is detrimental. The ideas of collegiate discussion, civility and
assuming good faith have long been eroded by a lack of respect for them
amongst admins, and a long leash approach at arb-com, but nothing better
has emerged to prop up collaboration. I am quite prepared to take an
eventualist position through a restraint from editing, since it is
impossible now to tell what guidance and policies actually apply. It was
far easier when I first started, because you could write and edit
without fear; that is no longer the case. It has become impossible to
edit because the standard accepted tactic now is to revert rather than
refine, and refuse to discuss other than restate a position.
Best regards,
User:Hiding
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l