My point is not that I don't like them personally; my point is that I don't think they belong on Wikipedia. Now, if you take the point of view that I should "just ignore" things that I don't like, then you don't think there is such a beast, and anything goes on Wikipedia. Then we get more and more articles about random nonsense, and soon we are everything3. I'd rather have some semblance of standards - and reasonably high standards, at that - about what makes an appropriate article. These lists offend me not because they're not something I'm particularly interested in - there's plenty of that in the Wikipedia, and that's fine by me. These lists offend me because I think they lower the quality of Wikipedia, they lower the bar for what is a good article, and they lower our expectations for other editors.
Saurabh
------ "It doesn't matter what government the country has. The power is held by those who own and control medias." -- Ahmed Rami
In message 20030306015316.52459.qmail@web40910.mail.yahoo.com, Zoe said:
--0-1038858368-1046915596=:51715 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Is there something FORCING you to read these lists you dislike so much? Don't you have the option of ignoring them? Zoe rednblack@alum.mit.edu wrote: Okay. People are actively editing [[List of songs whose title does not appear in their lyrics]]. Four or five people have assured me I am a rotten git for daring to question the necessity of this article, but I can't help it. I think the fact that people created, discussed, and edited this article is just wrong. Even worse, people I respect (e.g. Tannin and Tarquin) are working on this article. I'm willing to tolerate most lists, even [[Lists of Americans]], or whatever it's called now. But this just caps it for me.
I'd like to point out "What Wikipedia is not" #11:
# List repository of loosely associated topics such as; quotations, aphorisms # or persons (But of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their # entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly # contributed to the list topic).
This may not be definitive, but it at least suggests that we have some guidelines for what sort of lists should be considered appropriate, and what are total trash. I feel this particular list tips over into total trash. I have been assured that this list is valuable as an article, because people might be interested in it for its own sake (i.e. someone might want to know what songs have titles that don't appear in their lyrics), but I have a hard time taking this seriously. Are we going to insert every absurd contortion that the human mind can come up with into Wikipedia in the form of a list? E.g. [[List of left-handed Presidents]], [[List of towns with forty-story buildings]], [[List of drinks that contain banana]], etc., etc., etc.
At some point this has got to stop. Can we draw a line in the sand, here? The trash lists have got to go. If there's not a clear organizing reason for it, then it shouldn't exist.
Saurabh
"Slugs! He created slugs! They can't hear, they can't speak, they can't operate machinery... I mean, are we not in the hands of a lunatic?" -- The Evil One describes the Supreme Being, "Time Bandits"
In message 200302281914.OAA22276@TheWorld.com, Tom Parmenter said:
Lists serve as an organizing tool. They show what we have and don't have. [[List of people from the United States]] is too broad to be of much use, but [[List of boogie woogie musicians]] is invaluable, both as an aid to those of us working on the topic, but also the reader. There may never be a full article on Drive'em Down, the legendary New Orleans piano player, but he's in the Wikipedia, and in a place where his contributions can be best understood.
In addition to their use as indexes, the "Related changes" and "What links here" are helpful to writers working in a particular area and the talk pages serve as a meeting place.
There are all kinds of lists.
The best lists are:
- confined to a single graspable topic. If the topic is vast, the
better lists will have been largely assembled by some outside authority, Hall of Fame or the like.
annotated, why is the person place or thing on the list?
organized in a useful fashion. They can be grouped by topic, in
alphabetical order, or chronological, whatever helps make the list more useful.
Further observations:
- [[List of novelists]] is barely tolerable. It is huge, but at least
it is grouped by an amalgam of language/country identifiers that is not intellectually rigorous. but works for the reader.
- [[List of gay movies]] is in alphabetical order and unannotated. I
have been arguing on thetalk page that if it were annotated (why is ''Rebel Without a Cause'' a gay movie) and in chronological order (showing changing attitudes) it would be more useful (and interesting, always a big number with me).
- [[List of musical topics]] is vast, alphabetical, and unannotated, but
it shows the scope of Wikipedia and give music-minded writers something to chew on.
- The alphabetical biography lists are much more useful if they are
annotated, which has been a side project of mine.
- [[One hit wonders]] went immediately off the tracks. It started as
a list ofthose odd but classic numbers but was quickly mired down by objections that so-and-so had had two hits (one of which was never heard of and did not matter) and also by diligent folks with reference books listing every song that had ever been on any hit parade for at least a week.
I'm very pro-list, and willing to take the good with the bad.
If [[List of Mexican restaurants in Los Angeles]] shows up, so be it. [[List of glass harmonicists]] will soon be along to make up for it.
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more --0-1038858368-1046915596=:51715 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<P>Is there something FORCING you to read these lists you dislike so much? Don't you have the option of ignoring them? <P>Zoe <P> <B><I>rednblack@alum.mit.edu</I></B> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR>Okay. People are actively e diting [[List of songs whose title does not appear<BR>in their lyrics]]. Four or five people have assured me I am a rot ten git for<BR>daring to question the necessity of this article, but I can't help it. I think<BR>the fact that people c reated, discussed, and edited this article is just wrong.<BR>Even worse, people I respect (e.g. Tannin and Tarquin) are working on this<BR>article. I'm willing to tolerate most lists, even [[Lists of Americans]], or<BR>whatever it's calle d now. But this just caps it for me.<BR><BR>I'd like to point out "What Wikipedia is not" #11:<BR><BR># List repository of loosely associated topics such as; quotations, aphorisms<BR># or persons (But of course, there is nothing wrong wit h having lists if their<BR># entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly<BR># contributed to t he list topic).<BR><BR>This may not b! e definitive, but it at least suggests that we have some<BR>guidelines for what sort of lists should be considered appr opriate, and what<BR>are total trash. I feel this particular list tips over into total trash. I have<BR>been assured th at this list is valuable as an article, because people might be<BR>interested in it for its own sake (i.e. someone migh t want to know what songs<BR>have titles that don't appear in their lyrics), but I have a hard time taking<BR>this seri ously. Are we going to insert every absurd contortion that the human<BR>mind can come up with into Wikipedia in the for m of a list? E.g. [[List of<BR>left-handed Presidents]], [[List of towns with forty-story buildings]], [[List<BR>of dri nks that contain banana]], etc., etc., etc. <BR><BR>At some point this has got to stop. Can we draw a line in the sand, here? The<BR>trash lists have got to go. If there's not a clear organizing reason for it,<BR>then it shouldn't exist.< BR><BR>Saurabh<BR><BR>------<BR>"Slug! s! He created slugs! They can't hear, they can't speak, they can't operate<BR>machinery... I mean, are we not in the ha nds of a lunatic?" <BR>-- The Evil One describes the Supreme Being, "Time Bandits"<BR><BR>In message <200302281914.O AA22276@TheWorld.com>, Tom Parmenter said:<BR>>Lists serve as an organizing tool. They show what we have and don' t<BR>>have. [[List of people from the United States]] is too broad to be of<BR>>much use, but [[List of boogie wo ogie musicians]] is invaluable, both<BR>>as an aid to those of us working on the topic, but also the reader.<BR>> There may never be a full article on Drive'em Down, the legendary New<BR>>Orleans piano player, but he's in the Wiki pedia, and in a place where<BR>>his contributions can be best understood.<BR>><BR>>In addition to their use as indexes, the "Related changes" and "What<BR>>links here" are helpful to writers working in a particular area and<BR >>the talk pages serve as a meetin! g place. <BR>><BR>>There are all kinds of lists. <BR>><BR>><BR>>The best lists are:<BR>><BR>>- con fined to a single graspable topic. If the topic is vast, the<BR>>better lists will have been largely assembled by so me outside<BR>>authority, Hall of Fame or the like. <BR>><BR>>- annotated, why is the person place or thing on the list?<BR>><BR>>- organized in a useful fashion. They can be grouped by topic, in<BR>>alphabetical order, or chronological, whatever helps make the list<BR>>more useful. <BR>><BR>>Further observations: <BR>><BR>&g t;- [[List of novelists]] is barely tolerable. It is huge, but at least<BR>>it is grouped by an amalgam of language/ country identifiers that is<BR>>not intellectually rigorous. but works for the reader.<BR>><BR>>- [[List of ga y movies]] is in alphabetical order and unannotated. I<BR>>have been arguing on thetalk page that if it were annotat ed (why is<BR>>''Rebel Without a C! ause'' a gay movie) and in chronological order<BR>>(showing changing attitudes) it would be more useful (and interes ting,<BR>>always a big number with me).<BR>><BR>>- [[List of musical topics]] is vast, alphabetical, and unann otated, but<BR>>it shows the scope of Wikipedia and give music-minded writers<BR>>something to chew on. <BR>>< BR>>- The alphabetical biography lists are much more useful if they are<BR>>annotated, which has been a side proj ect of mine. <BR>><BR>>- [[One hit wonders]] went immediately off the tracks. It started as<BR>>a list ofthose odd but classic numbers but was quickly mired down by<BR>>objections that so-and-so had had two hits (one of which was never<BR>>heard of and did not matter) and also by diligent folks with reference<BR>>books listing every song that had ever been on any hit parade for at<BR>>least a week. <BR>><BR>>I'm very pro-list, and willing to tak e the good with the bad.<BR>><BR>&! gt;If [[List of Mexican restaurants in Los Angeles]] shows up, so be it.<BR>>[[List of glass harmonicists]] will soo n be along to make up for it.<BR>><BR>>Tom Parmenter<BR>>Ortolan88<BR>><BR>>____________________________ ___________________<BR>>WikiEN-l mailing list<BR>>WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org<BR>>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/ listinfo/wikien-l<BR>><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>WikiEN-l mailing list<BR>WikiEN-l@wikip edia.org<BR>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l</BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br> <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/finance/mailtagline/*http://taxes.yahoo.com/">Yahoo! Tax Center</a> - forms, calculators, tips, and more --0-1038858368-1046915596=:51715-- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l