-----Original Message----- From: MacGyverMagic/Mgm [mailto:macgyvermagic@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 9, 2007 09:10 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Opt Out for Not So Notable Biographies
On 4/9/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/04/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
You are describing original research. Putting together information you
have gathered from various sources and creating a sort of biography. But it is a pseudobiography, without substantial reference to the person described, except as they have received incidental media coverage. A golem you yourself have breathed life into.
I don't see why compiling an article from multiple sources would be original research. It's actually good to do it. It means you've verified your info from more than one source. Original research is when you interpret information and draw conclusion from it, which I didn't do.
Notability is based on what someone did in real life, I don't see the way an article was formed having any relevance to someone's notability.
Mgm
If the person is notable there will be verifiable material in reliable sources which set out the course of the persons life. Original research based on scrapes of information results in a "biography" on Wikipedia which by its nature must omit the non-published information regarding the person necessary to produce an adequate biography.
Fred
On 4/9/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: MacGyverMagic/Mgm [mailto:macgyvermagic@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 9, 2007 09:10 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Opt Out for Not So Notable Biographies
On 4/9/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/04/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
You are describing original research. Putting together information
you
have gathered from various sources and creating a sort of biography.
But it
is a pseudobiography, without substantial reference to the person
described,
except as they have received incidental media coverage. A golem you
yourself
have breathed life into.
I don't see why compiling an article from multiple sources would be
original
research. It's actually good to do it. It means you've verified your info from more than one source. Original research is when you interpret information and draw conclusion from it, which I didn't do.
Notability is based on what someone did in real life, I don't see the way
an
article was formed having any relevance to someone's notability.
Mgm
If the person is notable there will be verifiable material in reliable sources which set out the course of the persons life. Original research based on scrapes of information results in a "biography" on Wikipedia which by its nature must omit the non-published information regarding the person necessary to produce an adequate biography.
Fred
Do you consider a British child actor with a lead role in a BBC children's television series notable?
Mgm
On 4/10/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/9/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: MacGyverMagic/Mgm [mailto: macgyvermagic@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 9, 2007 09:10 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Opt Out for Not So Notable Biographies
On 4/9/07, Oldak Quill < oldakquill@gmail.com> wrote:
On 09/04/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
You are describing original research. Putting together information
you
have gathered from various sources and creating a sort of biography.
But it
is a pseudobiography, without substantial reference to the person
described,
except as they have received incidental media coverage. A golem you
yourself
have breathed life into.
I don't see why compiling an article from multiple sources would be
original
research. It's actually good to do it. It means you've verified your
info
from more than one source. Original research is when you interpret information and draw conclusion from it, which I didn't do.
Notability is based on what someone did in real life, I don't see the
way an
article was formed having any relevance to someone's notability.
Mgm
If the person is notable there will be verifiable material in reliable sources which set out the course of the persons life. Original research based on scrapes of information results in a "biography" on Wikipedia which by its nature must omit the non-published information regarding the person necessary to produce an adequate biography.
Fred
Do you consider a British child actor with a lead role in a BBC children's television series notable?
Mgm
Because you seem to say that if you can't find all the biographical details to fully fill in an infobox, someone isn't notable. How about people from Ancient Greece for whom no biography has ever been written and for whom their date of birth isn't known?
Mgm
On 4/10/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/9/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: MacGyverMagic/Mgm [mailto:macgyvermagic@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 9, 2007 09:10 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Opt Out for Not So Notable Biographies
On 4/9/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/04/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
You are describing original research. Putting together information
you
have gathered from various sources and creating a sort of biography.
But it
is a pseudobiography, without substantial reference to the person
described,
except as they have received incidental media coverage. A golem you
yourself
have breathed life into.
I don't see why compiling an article from multiple sources would be
original
research. It's actually good to do it. It means you've verified your info from more than one source. Original research is when you interpret information and draw conclusion from it, which I didn't do.
Notability is based on what someone did in real life, I don't see the way
an
article was formed having any relevance to someone's notability.
Mgm
If the person is notable there will be verifiable material in reliable sources which set out the course of the persons life. Original research based on scrapes of information results in a "biography" on Wikipedia which by its nature must omit the non-published information regarding the person necessary to produce an adequate biography.
Fred
Do you consider a British child actor with a lead role in a BBC children's television series notable?
Mgm _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[sorry for the blank send, misclicked]
On 4/10/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Do you consider a British child actor with a lead role in a BBC children's television series notable?
If only Wikipedia didn't have such a stupid notion as "notable" which basically translates as either writing as much as we can possible find to substantiate about someone, or writing nothing at all. A more sensible publication would probably write a paragraph or so about the actor with very basic details like what shows they'd appeared on and any future projects they were known to be interested in.
Steve
On 10/04/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
[sorry for the blank send, misclicked]
On 4/10/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Do you consider a British child actor with a lead role in a BBC children's television series notable?
If only Wikipedia didn't have such a stupid notion as "notable" which basically translates as either writing as much as we can possible find to substantiate about someone, or writing nothing at all. A more sensible publication would probably write a paragraph or so about the actor with very basic details like what shows they'd appeared on and any future projects they were known to be interested in.
If the small-time actor is mentioned in referencable publications and has an editor who's willing to write a considerable article about them, then this is something we should aim to achieve.
I don't understand why it wouldn't be sensible to write a lengthy, sourced article (ignoring gossip and such) about such an actor.
Oldak Quill wrote:
I don't understand why it wouldn't be sensible to write a lengthy, sourced article (ignoring gossip and such) about such an actor.
I also don't understand why it's not sensible to write a stub-length, sourced article about such an actor. We're aiming for comprehensiveness, right?
-Jeff
On 4/10/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
I don't understand why it wouldn't be sensible to write a lengthy, sourced article (ignoring gossip and such) about such an actor.
I also don't understand why it's not sensible to write a stub-length, sourced article about such an actor. We're aiming for comprehensiveness, right?
I am, and you are - not sure if everyone is, however.
There are plenty of topics for which what could be written on-topic and encyclopedically makes up only a paragraph or two. Not all short topics would be better merged, although some make sense to.
-Matt
On 4/10/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/10/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
I don't understand why it wouldn't be sensible to write a lengthy, sourced article (ignoring gossip and such) about such an actor.
I also don't understand why it's not sensible to write a stub-length, sourced article about such an actor. We're aiming for comprehensiveness, right?
I am, and you are - not sure if everyone is, however.
There are plenty of topics for which what could be written on-topic and encyclopedically makes up only a paragraph or two. Not all short topics would be better merged, although some make sense to.
-Matt
Even when it's merged, it's included, which is infinitely better than excluding it.
Mgm
Assuming there is no filler, a lengthy sourced article is necessarily more comprehensive than a stub.
I'm not suggesting we write a featured-length article if there isn't enough information to write one. If there is, then surely this is desirable?
On 10/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
I don't understand why it wouldn't be sensible to write a lengthy, sourced article (ignoring gossip and such) about such an actor.
I also don't understand why it's not sensible to write a stub-length, sourced article about such an actor. We're aiming for comprehensiveness, right?
-Jeff
-- Name: Jeff Raymond E-mail: jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com IM: badlydrawnjeff Quote: "I was always a fan of Lisa Loeb, particularly because you kind of get the impression she sang every song either about or to her cats. They seem to be the driving force in most of her creative process." - Chuck Klosterman
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/10/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/04/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
[sorry for the blank send, misclicked]
On 4/10/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Do you consider a British child actor with a lead role in a BBC
children's
television series notable?
If only Wikipedia didn't have such a stupid notion as "notable" which basically translates as either writing as much as we can possible find to substantiate about someone, or writing nothing at all. A more sensible publication would probably write a paragraph or so about the actor with very basic details like what shows they'd appeared on and any future projects they were known to be interested in.
If the small-time actor is mentioned in referencable publications and has an editor who's willing to write a considerable article about them, then this is something we should aim to achieve.
I don't understand why it wouldn't be sensible to write a lengthy, sourced article (ignoring gossip and such) about such an actor.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
Of course, this was an example to show Fred Bauder that there are people who don't have biographies written about them, but still have enough information available to write an article by using information from various sources.
Mgm
On 4/10/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/04/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
[sorry for the blank send, misclicked]
On 4/10/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Do you consider a British child actor with a lead role in a BBC
children's
television series notable?
If only Wikipedia didn't have such a stupid notion as "notable" which basically translates as either writing as much as we can possible find to substantiate about someone, or writing nothing at all. A more sensible publication would probably write a paragraph or so about the actor with very basic details like what shows they'd appeared on and any future projects they were known to be interested in.
If the small-time actor is mentioned in referencable publications and has an editor who's willing to write a considerable article about them, then this is something we should aim to achieve.
I don't understand why it wouldn't be sensible to write a lengthy, sourced article (ignoring gossip and such) about such an actor.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
Question: What made you refer to the actor as "small-time" I said nothing about what else they did.