[WikiEN-l] Flagged Revisions on nl:wp

[joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu]

Interesting, and here I was thinking we should be more lenient about inherited
notability as long as we can source things. The way I see it, we allow some
leeway about using primary sources to source things once a subjects notability
has been established. Whether we then stick that all on the same page 
or not is
really a formatting/editorial decision. In that regard, we're simply splitting
off the separate episodes from the main article.

(and I suppose eventuallism is sufficiently deprecated that no one will 
be happy
if I make an appeal to that?)

Quoting Chad <innocentkiller at gmail.com>:

> It's not a simple matter of being in the eye of the beholder, or it
> being about a niche
> subject. Provided it's well sourced and those sources establish why
> the subject is
> notable, there should most certainly be an article about every soap
> opera that meets
> these standards.
>
> What I'm referring to is the absolute proliferation about subjects
> that aren't necessarily
> notable in their own right, but are simply notable due to association.
> One cannot tell me
> that every episode of Lost or Family Guy is notable in and of itself.
> And yet (at least
> with Lost, I've never read Family Guy-related articles), we have an
> article on almost
> each and every episode, notable only by their connection to a notable
> show. Each
> episode doesn't necessarily have independent sources discussing the subjects.
>
> Chosen at random from Lost, let's look at [[Exposé (Lost]]. I see two
> sources, one
> being an ABC-related site (and therefore not necessarily a reliable 
> source, it's
> not a third party source), and IMDB, which is a great source of
> information, but hardly
> and establishment of notability, as they publish information on
> practically everything
> and everyone. Looking at the article itself, you have 6 sentences that
> are not directly
> related to describing the plot.
>
> This model is repeated across every Lost episode, and countless other
> TV shows. However,
> this is not limited to only TV shows, but other subjects as well. It's
> *this* proliferation of
> absolute crap that I feel needs to be aggressively removed.
>
> Chad H.
>
> On Nov 21, 2007 7:57 PM, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Chad wrote:
>> > Granted, we're not completed in some areas that we should be, but there
>> > is a very large signal-to-noise ratio in terms of articles. For every core
>> > article there are 10 frivolous ones.
>>
>> What's "frivolous" is in the eye of the beholder. Take a look at our top
>> 100 most heavily trafficked pages:
>> <http://tools.wikimedia.de/~leon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?lang=en&wiki=enwiki&ns=articles&limit=100&month=11%2F2007&mode=view>
>> The non-pop-culture articles are the exception rather than the rule.
>> Most of the list consists of articles about works of fiction, computer
>> games, and entertainers. And also a bunch of articles about sex, of
>> course, this being the internet. People _want_ to read about that stuff,
>> they aren't winding up at those articles accidentally.
>>
>> Wikipedia has a huge perceived signal-to-noise ratio because everybody
>> has different ideas about what's "signal" and what's "noise." If
>> everyone pruned out what they weren't interested in there'd be nothing
>> at all left. Better to just ignore it.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>