We assume good faith. It isn't OR to say that Jean-Luc Picard is bald. If
you watch any episode of the next generation this is trivial to establish.
However this information isn't available for free. You'd need to either buy
a dvd or watch it on TV and pay by watching commercials.
Shows like Star Trek are inherently notable. An average Star Trek episode
has a rather crowded audience. Now an average home video does not. Perhaps
only the baby's parents care about the video. Now on a traditional
encyclopedia you would not find an article on individual star trek episodes.
We are fortunately not such an encyclopedia. If people want to write about
fiction, who are we to tell them that they can't.
Of course OR is unwelcome but OR is hardly a major problem. Eventually every
article will be rewritten to the quality standards of every/most guideline
out there. Not complying with guidelines makes an article problematic but
that doesn't mean we delete it on sight. It is a work in progress.
[[WP:SPINOUT]] and [[WP:STUB]] are not banned. However if you interprete
WP:V like that you are puging such articles.
- White Cat
On Feb 2, 2008 3:14 AM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/02/2008, Bryan Derksen
If this trend doesn't
stop I think it might be better to start fragmenting Wikipedia into more
special-interest subgroups, as was done with Comixpedia, Wookieepedia,
and so forth. If we can at least keep them with the same licensing and
wiki code then perhaps someday it can all be brought back into the same
fold again by some other aggregator.
I think that this is a good idea. That way the people that make the
decisions on notability are more likely to have a firm handle on what
is notable in the particular area they are using. One of the problems
in the wikipedia and the *world* is that people tend to deny the
importance of things they are not familiar with; and the wikipedia
tends to reflect that, and that tends to cause deletionism.
The key problem for me is the "third
party" requirement. I can write an
accurate article on an episode of a TV series by using the DVD and its
commentary track as a source, for example, and anyone else with a few
dollars to spare can get their own copy and verify my work, but for some
reason even if I'm perfectly willing to spend hours and hours crafting
this article to whatever standards of quality are desired it's just not
acceptable to have it on Wikipedia.
That's a subtle form of OR though. It's OR that the TV series is
important enough to be in the encyclopedia in the first place. How
could anyone ever remove anything? How could anyone ever prove or
disprove that an untraceable editor had nothing to do with the TV
series in the first place? At least if it's we trace the notability to
a reliable source then self-interested articles are much less likely,
and it's fairly unambiguous whether we can add it or not. There needs
to be some rules, and the rules need to more or less work.
These rules more or less do work.
There's _baby_ in that bathwater.
Mmm. But is it a beautiful baby? If there's not even any 3rd party
information on it, probably not, except to its parents.
Aren't we mostly trying to collect the shiny stones that are lying on
the beach that is this world, the ones that people are interested in,
not just the dull rocks?
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things would be a lot better.
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: