Thanks you David for forcing me to subscribe to a high volume list, just so I can receive all the responses to my non-language specific query about the intentions of wikipedia.
Here is the entire message which David quoted part of...
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com Date: May 18, 2005 12:51 PM Subject: Do I misunderstand Wikipedia? On notability and encyclopedic merit. To: wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org
Through my participation in the schools debate, it has come to my attention that there are wikipedians who believe that we should include everything which is verifiable and NPOV, with no standard of notoriety applied. My perspective is that while that might be a good set of criteria for a dictionary of trivia, it is not a good criteria for an encyclopedia, even one made out of tiny bits of magnetized composits rather than paper.
I don't wish to bring the school debate to this list right now. However, I would like to discuss the include-everything view that I have seen being used to justify including schools.
When I have exchanges like this:
------------------- [[Wikipedia:Schools]] ** David, as we discussed on IRC, this rule would allow for the creation of articles for a huge number of roadway intersections in the US.. Plenty of official documentation at the city and state offices, and Federal records in many cases, plus newspaper reports of construction and accidents (just like schools). We could fill an article up with trivia such as the frequency of accidents, time of first construction... Photographs. Is this really acceptable in the inclusionist agenda? Sure intersections are verifyable and NPOV, but the vast majority of them are not notable. I encourage all who support David's proposed rules, or similar proposed rulesets to reply. :) --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 15:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
** Actually that sounds pretty cool. [[m:Wiki is not paper]]. Accident data on road intersections could be very, very encyclopedic. Not sure how feasible it would be, however. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC) -----------------------
I must question if I really understand the point of Wikipedia.
Already the next database dumb of cur will likely be too big to fix gzipped on my Zarus (a pocket sized computer. The prior one just fit it's 1gb SD card and I find it amazingly useful ... I'm going to need to come up with some kind of filter to reduce the size for the next one)..... Soon we will begin brushing the size of what we can fit on a DVD, so what of access to our work by people in disconnected communities and third-world nations? As our working-set grows past the amount of ram we can reasonably expect to put in our caches and database servers, our performance will become increasingly diskbound. I think that many people mistake the the claim that [[m:Wiki is not paper]] with a claim that we have boundless storage without compromise.
Most of the facts that are in Wikipedia (though to not all) were available elseware on the internet prior to Wikipedia, but often a quick google search wouldn't find them because they were in a wash of cruft, random inaccurate uncorrectable information, and advertisements. Today much of that information is easier to find because of Wikipedia, a beautiful accomplishment, but one which may be lost if we lower the barrier to entry to be sufficiently low as to include anything that anyone can cite.
I think it would be useful to have a universal repository for verifiable and neutrally reported trivia, but just as we use Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia for word definitions and wikisources for freely licensed reference works, we should put material which is not substantially notable in it's own project which can cater to the special needs of that material and the special costs of providing that service.
I didn't just choose the intersection example because I thought it was a good strawman, ( :) ), I also choose it because I'm aware of the level of information available, and could actually create a lot of these articles myself. Since I used to work for a county government in Florida, still have a copy of most of the GIS database, and know the right people in a few other counties, I could patch together a bot to create thousands of such articles, complete with aerial photographs, construction dates, and in many cases some level of traffic information (I have traffic counters for all the arterial/arterial intersections with the data I have). ... The point is that I haven't spammed wikipedia with this data because I believe it is completely inappropriate for an Encyclopedia, and I imagine many other people have a similar ability to produce endless quantities of non-notable material if that what we thought wikipedia was supposed to contain. ... Such trivia would only be useful as a raw reference, why not wikisource if any of the preexisting wikis?
So, I'd really appreciate some commentary on this... Am I in a minority in expecting a criteria of notability to be used in our judgement of encyclopedic merit, or should we really be including every fact we can cite?
Gregory Maxwell (gmaxwell@gmail.com) [050519 03:55]:
Thanks you David for forcing me to subscribe to a high volume list, just so I can receive all the responses to my non-language specific query about the intentions of wikipedia.
It's easy enough to subscribe (so you can post) but set no-mail (so you don't get a flood) and read answers on the web archive:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ("Changing options and unsubscribing" - you want to change options)
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/ (archives)
The archive is updated not too long after real time.
Sorry for not forwarding the full original message when I replied to wikien-l. I cc'd it there because the actual dispute and disputants are pretty much on en:, so it was the obvious relevant place. I see that it is about the whole project also.
- d.
On 5/18/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
It's easy enough to subscribe (so you can post) but set no-mail (so you don't get a flood) and read answers on the web archive:
[snip] Thanks for pointing that out. That will be useful in the future when I want to follow a single subject on the enlist.
Sorry for not forwarding the full original message when I replied to wikien-l. I cc'd it there because the actual dispute and disputants are pretty much on en:, so it was the obvious relevant place. I see that it is about the whole project also.
I don't give a hoot about schools. I only noticed them because people were voting keep on stubs about a playing field at a school and substubs on elementary schools that haven't been expanded in a year of existence and justifying these votes by saying that the subjects are verifiable and NPOV.
I don't argue that they are verifiable (well, although I wouldn't be shocked if there were a few hoaxes in the mass of articles being voted on), but I really wonder if I understand what an encyclopedia is if we are not to ever use notability as a criteria for entry.
Gregory Maxwell said:
I don't give a hoot about schools. I only noticed them because people were voting keep on stubs about a playing field at a school and substubs on elementary schools that haven't been expanded in a year of existence and justifying these votes by saying that the subjects are verifiable and NPOV.
Not quite. Most of the nominations seemed to be of rather recent articles--one was only two days old and quite a decent stub, considering.The older articles tended to show signs of organic growth. There are about twenty actual examples, with dates and history link, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Schools#The_schools_table
On 5/18/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Not quite. Most of the nominations seemed to be of rather recent articles--one was only two days old and quite a decent stub, considering.The older articles tended to show signs of organic growth. There are about twenty actual examples, with dates and history link, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Schools#The_schools_table
Right, most of them are new, but not all. What initially caught my attention were the less excusable ones. I'm sure there are, heaven forbid, notable schools in wikipedia too. But it seems that no one is nominating them for VFD. I suspect this is because no one has a vendetta against schools, but rather there are people who believe notability counts.
Organic growth? ... Maybe there is a story hidden in that slime-mold of mine...? ;)
Gregory Maxwell said:
On 5/18/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Not quite. Most of the nominations seemed to be of rather recent articles--one was only two days old and quite a decent stub, considering.The older articles tended to show signs of organic growth. There are about twenty actual examples, with dates and history link, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Schools#The_schools_table
Right, most of them are new, but not all. What initially caught my attention were the less excusable ones.
What initially caught my attention was the apparently indiscriminate nature of the listing.
I'm sure there are, heaven forbid, notable schools in wikipedia too. But it seems that no one is nominating them for VFD.
Notability is not really definable. Jimbo has even suggested that it's a proxy for verifiability.
On 5/18/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Notability is not really definable. Jimbo has even suggested that it's a proxy for verifiability.
We need a [[Wikipedia:Quoting Jimbo doesn't replace orignal thought]].
I know what Jimbo said. I would be shocked if he intended it to be taken to the extremes that you are suggesting.
In any case, if Jimbo decides he has something to add, I'm sure he can speak for himself. Until then I'm more interested in what other wikipedians think. We've well established what you and I and David think. Lets leave some room in the digests for someone else to chime in.
Gregory Maxwell said:
On 5/18/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Notability is not really definable. Jimbo has even suggested that it's a proxy for verifiability.
We need a [[Wikipedia:Quoting Jimbo doesn't replace orignal thought]].
Indeed. I disagree with him on a lot of stuff, but as he's been around on the project a bit longer than I have I think his opinion on this matter is useful.
I know what Jimbo said. I would be shocked if he intended it to be taken to the extremes that you are suggesting.
As you suggest he'll interject if he has something to say.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 5/18/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Notability is not really definable. Jimbo has even suggested that it's a proxy for verifiability.
We need a [[Wikipedia:Quoting Jimbo doesn't replace orignal thought]].
I know what Jimbo said. I would be shocked if he intended it to be taken to the extremes that you are suggesting.
Tony said that Jimbo "suggested", so that is not really an extreme approach.
Be that as it may, your point about quoting Jimbo is well taken. "Jimbo says ..." is often used as some kind of drop dead argument. That makes it difficult for him to have an ordinary opinion on a current issue without somebody interpreting that opinion as being ''ex cathedra''. In the wake of the first Vatican Council even Pius IX recognized that his infalibility would have limited application.
Ec
Okay, so now Jimbo Wales has overthrown Benedict XVI. What else is new?
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 5/18/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Notability is not really definable. Jimbo has even suggested that it's a proxy for verifiability.
We need a [[Wikipedia:Quoting Jimbo doesn't replace orignal thought]].
I know what Jimbo said. I would be shocked if he intended it to be taken to the extremes that you are suggesting.
Tony said that Jimbo "suggested", so that is not really an extreme approach.
Be that as it may, your point about quoting Jimbo is well taken. "Jimbo says ..." is often used as some kind of drop dead argument. That makes it difficult for him to have an ordinary opinion on a current issue without somebody interpreting that opinion as being ''ex cathedra''. In the wake of the first Vatican Council even Pius IX recognized that his infalibility would have limited application.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com We need a [[Wikipedia:Quoting Jimbo doesn't replace orignal thought]].
I know what Jimbo said. I would be shocked if he intended it to be taken to the extremes that you are suggesting.
I read his opinion on schools, and it seemed to be explicitly excluding the extremes Tony (and various school inclusionists) are suggesting.
In any case, if Jimbo decides he has something to add, I'm sure he can speak for himself.
Good point; his current opinion would be most interesting.
Jay.
JAY JG said:
I read his opinion on schools, and it seemed to be explicitly excluding the extremes Tony (and various school inclusionists) are suggesting.
Interesting. Examples?
I thought he was pretty plain--verifiable, NPOV.
I don't hold up Jimbo as supreme arbiter, as anyone who followed the autofellatio debate will be all too aware. And on a side note, I'm rather suprised to find myself--long classed by some as a ruthless deletionist, described here as an extreme inclusionist.
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com
JAY JG said:
I read his opinion on schools, and it seemed to be explicitly excluding the extremes Tony (and various school inclusionists) are suggesting.
Interesting. Examples?
In the post in question Jimbo said "Let me make my point more clear: arguments about what we ought to if someone really starts to abuse wikipedia with thousands and thousands of trivial articles do not prove that we ought to delete any and every article that's too trivial today.
Put another way: if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it. And that's true *even if* we should react differently if someone comes in and starts mass-adding articles on every high school in the world...
That's true *even if* we'd react differently to a ton of one-liners mass-imported saying nothing more than "Randolph School is a private school in Huntsville, Alabama, US" and "Indian Springs is a private school in Birmingham, Alabama, US" and on and on and on, ad nauseum."
We are at the stage where people are indeed adding masses of trivial one-line articles about schools, which the school inclusionists immediately describe as a "good stub with potential for organic growth".
And on a side note, I'm rather suprised to find myself--long classed by some as a ruthless deletionist, described here as an extreme inclusionist.
Described where as "an extreme inclusionist"?
Jay.
JAY JG said:
We are at the stage where people are indeed adding masses of trivial one-line articles about schools,
I see no evidence of this.
which the school inclusionists immediately describe as a "good stub with potential for organic growth".
This is a reasoned response to the few perfectly good stubs that I've seen listed for deletion, mostly only a few weeks after creation. In general the consensus seems to be against deletion of such stubs, even the tiny and almost useless ones like Mahajana school, about which little of value is known.
It seems from the quotes you have made that Jimbo was saying that we probably shouldn't go around deleting perfectly good stubs about schools. I know of nobody who is suggesting that we accommodate a bot-runner mechanically inserting large numbers of unwanted stubs of any kinds into Wikipedia.
And on a side note, I'm rather suprised to find myself--long classed by some as a ruthless deletionist, described here as an extreme inclusionist.
Described where as "an extreme inclusionist"?
I may have misread your intent in the phrase "it seemed to be explicitly excluding the extremes Tony (and various school inclusionists) are suggesting." My apologies if that is so.
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com JAY JG said:
We are at the stage where people are indeed adding masses of trivial one-line articles about schools, which the school inclusionists immediately describe as a "good stub with potential for organic growth".
This is a reasoned response to the few perfectly good stubs that I've seen listed for deletion, mostly only a few weeks after creation. In general the consensus seems to be against deletion of such stubs, even the tiny and almost useless ones like Mahajana school, about which little of value is known.
Well, to begin with, there's hardly a consensus here, and there never has been. More importantly, do you see the problem with describing even "tiny and almost useless" stubs as "perfectly good"? Jimbo's point was that we should accomodate good editors who want to write decent articles about schools. In his words,
"Let's say I start writing an article about my high school, Randolph School, of Huntsville, Alabama. I could write a decent 2 page article about it, citing information that can easily be verified by anyone who visits their website. Then I think people should relax and accomodate me. It isn't hurting anything. It'd be a good article, I'm a good contributor, and so cutting me some slack is a very reasonable thing to do."
Note that he is talking about a "good contributor" writing a "decent" article, one that is two pages long, with cited and verifiable information; in that case, we should "cut some slack" for the article.
On the other hand these "School X is a school in city Y" stubs written by fly-by anonymous contributors are not at all what Jimbo was talking about accoimodating.
Jay.
JAY JG said:
do you see the problem with describing even "tiny and almost useless" stubs as "perfectly good"?
Not really. A tiny and almost useless stub (look at most of the newer entries on "List of masts", for instance is perfectly okay if organic growth will occur. I have cataloged significant growth occurring on mast and school articles over periods ranging from six months to two years. This is clearly one viable way of growing encyclopedia articles.
Note that he is talking about a "good contributor" writing a "decent" article, one that is two pages long, with cited and verifiable information; in that case, we should "cut some slack" for the article.
Well we've got an article on the school he named, he didn't write it. The Epopt did in February, 2004, and he also went to that school). The school is one of few older schools I've looked at that show no organic growth (indeed it's now somewhat smaller than the initial draft). There is a very contrived link to Wernher von Braun (he lived in the same town, as did a lot of other rocket scientists, some of whom apparently sent their kids there).
It seems to be a completely undistinguished article about an utterly ordinary school. It comprises six sentences and an external link.
(Bs pbhefr jr nyy xabj gung Wvzob vf gur frperg travhf tenaqfba bs Iba Oenha.)
On the other hand these "School X is a school in city Y" stubs written by fly-by anonymous contributors are not at all what Jimbo was talking about accoimodating.
I agree. But I'm talking about what is happening on VfD *now*. We've got enough eyes and hands now that, unless someone floods VfD, such a stub listed on VfD tends to grow to a point where it evades deletion.
Thus listing school articles for deletion is probably going to continue to be a very frustrating process.
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com
It seems to be a completely undistinguished article about an utterly ordinary school. It comprises six sentences and an external link.
(Bs pbhefr jr nyy xabj gung Wvzob vf gur frperg travhf tenaqfba bs Iba Oenha.)
I have to admit, I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Jay.
JAY JG said:
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com
It seems to be a completely undistinguished article about an utterly ordinary school. It comprises six sentences and an external link.
(Bs pbhefr jr nyy xabj gung Wvzob vf gur frperg travhf tenaqfba bs Iba Oenha.)
I have to admit, I'm not sure what you mean by that.
JAY JG wrote:
That's true *even if* we'd react differently to a ton of one-liners mass-imported saying nothing more than "Randolph School is a private school in Huntsville, Alabama, US" and "Indian Springs is a private school in Birmingham, Alabama, US" and on and on and on, ad nauseum."
We are at the stage where people are indeed adding masses of trivial one-line articles about schools, which the school inclusionists immediately describe as a "good stub with potential for organic growth".
To the extent described above the applicable criterion is not notability, but the fact that these are sub-stubs. ALL the information contained in these sub-stubs could be found elsewhere, as in something like [[List of schools in Alabama]]. When the article has so little material it's probably better to have a red link to encourage writing on the subject. Even then, a pre-condition for putting the matter on VfD should be that there has been an attempt to contact the contributor in a good faith attempt to resolve the problem. (Admittedly this would be less possible when the contribution is from an anonymous IP.) Absence of such an effort should be reason enough to remove the item from VfD.
Ec
Ray Saintonge said:
(Listing extremely brief school stubs for deeltion)
Even then, a pre-condition for putting the matter on VfD should be that there has been an attempt to contact the contributor in a good faith attempt to resolve the problem. (Admittedly this would be less possible when the contribution is from an anonymous IP.) Absence of such an effort should be reason enough to remove the item from VfD.
I don't think contacting the original contributor is necessary. There are cleanup methods already around and people willing to perform them. For instance you could pop any really brief school stubs on my Cleanup taskforce desktop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tony_Sidaway/Desk
I do agree that people putting some kinds of stubs up on VfD should be more considerate than at present. If you've listed a certain class of article on VfD before and found that it tends to get kept, perhaps you're not considering alternatives such as cleanup seriously enough.
I do agree that people putting some kinds of stubs up on VfD should be more considerate than at present. If you've listed a certain class of article on VfD before and found that it tends to get kept, perhaps you're not considering alternatives such as cleanup seriously enough.
I agree with this statement. A user i've forgotten the name off put [[Juliet (artist)]] on VfD a few days ago, claiming 'vanity' and 'poor stub'. The musician the article is about is easily notable, both by [[WP:MUSIC]], by Google and by common sense, but the contributor couldn't be bothered to check that. A poor stub should head for cleanup, but he used that as a VfD reason, which really I don't see as valid.
On 5/19/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
And on a side note, I'm rather suprised to find myself--long classed by some as a ruthless deletionist, described here as an extreme inclusionist.
Described where as "an extreme inclusionist"?
That is my ba:, I've used that label on Tony, if not here then on the wiki and on IRC. I don't do it as an insult, for I don't think it's something someone should find insulting... But rather statement about how I see his position: At the far inclusionist end of the spectrum.
Tony has suggested in his previous comments on the list that it would probably good for me to generate an article for every roadway intersection that I can get solid verifiable information on...
I don't mean to claim that Tony would support keeping nonsense, for such people I'd probably use the word vandal :). Just that he has a liberal idea of what should be included as compared to mine, and that there are few would would wish to include more (the only things left that Tony would not include are things that are not possibly NPOV and things that are not verifiable, and I think we have near consensus on those requirements being a bare minimum for inclusion).
I've used the title inclusionist rather than saying Tony because he is not alone in his position and I have no issue with him. I use the term not to criticize Tony but to make sure that I am not singling him out.
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Notability is not really definable. Jimbo has even suggested that it's a proxy for verifiability.
Last time I saw the word used on VfD, context suggested that it was the equivalent of "another article about a teenager whose most important achievement so far is not dropping out of high school, which was posted by her/his friend or relative."
Geoff
Geoff Burling (geoff@agora.rdrop.com) [050519 09:58]:
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Notability is not really definable. Jimbo has even suggested that it's a proxy for verifiability.
Last time I saw the word used on VfD, context suggested that it was the equivalent of "another article about a teenager whose most important achievement so far is not dropping out of high school, which was posted by her/his friend or relative."
Far too often I see it used to mean "it must not be important because I've never heard of it."
(Not that I'm questioning in any way that almost everything that hits VFD needs to be killed with a very big axe.)
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Geoff Burling (geoff@agora.rdrop.com) [050519 09:58]:
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Notability is not really definable. Jimbo has even suggested that it's a proxy for verifiability.
Last time I saw the word used on VfD, context suggested that it was the equivalent of "another article about a teenager whose most important achievement so far is not dropping out of high school, which was posted by her/his friend or relative."
Far too often I see it used to mean "it must not be important because I've never heard of it."
My personal fav in this category is renowned computer scientist Ralph Griswold. Apparently if you developed novel new languages in the 1960s, that's undiscovered prehistory to the young PHPers.
:-)
Stan
Stan Shebs said:
My personal fav in this category is renowned computer scientist Ralph Griswold. Apparently if you developed novel new languages in the 1960s, that's undiscovered prehistory to the young PHPers.
We've all got our stories of stupid nominations to VfD, often by a green-but-keen editor who has not heard of something and has no way of evaluating the subject. I'm new enough as an editor to remember my own early solecisms, so I can sympathize. Some substubs are salvageable if you know enough--I remember someone listing an article that contained only a fragment of a sentence referring to Stuart Hall. The Stuart Hall article contained a passing reference to the concept, which happens to be a significant strand in the theory of literary criticism--reception theory, it was. I happened to have heard of Hall through his televised work and some of his articles in Marxism Today in the 1980s. And so a substub rapidly developed into quite a decent little article.
From: Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com Right, most of them are new, but not all. What initially caught my attention were the less excusable ones. I'm sure there are, heaven forbid, notable schools in wikipedia too. But it seems that no one is nominating them for VFD. I suspect this is because no one has a vendetta against schools, but rather there are people who believe notability counts.
That pretty much sums it up.
Organic growth? ... Maybe there is a story hidden in that slime-mold of mine...?
Most of the growth is of the "trivial", rather than "organic" kind.
Jay.