I'd support that position. How could having unencyclopaedic articles not damage the credibility of an encyclopaedia?
-----Original Message----- From: Kelly Martin [mailto:kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com] Sent: 14 September 2005 4:37 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Why changing the deletion process is a bad idea
On 9/14/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
It reduces the credibility of the project.
That's a highly disputable claim for which I doubt you can produce much in the way of support.
Kelly
Worldtraveller wrote:
I'd support that position. How could having unencyclopaedic articles not damage the credibility of an encyclopaedia?
-----Original Message----- From: Kelly Martin [mailto:kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com]
On 9/14/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
It reduces the credibility of the project.
That's a highly disputable claim for which I doubt you can produce much in the way of support.
The burden of proof lies with the person making the hypothesis, not the person opposing it.
The claim is "Unencyclopedic articles reduce the credibility of the encyclopedia" To put the burden on the person denying the claim would have him running around looking for information which he believes does not exist; it would require him to act irrationally.
Speculation is not proof. The "Guinness Book of World Records" has been consistent best seller in the past century, as was Joseph P. Haydn's "Dictionary of Dates" during the previous century. Both contained an enormous amount of trivia.
Ec
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
Worldtraveller wrote:
I'd support that position. How could having unencyclopaedic articles not damage the credibility of an encyclopaedia?
-----Original Message----- From: Kelly Martin [mailto:kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com]
On 9/14/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
It reduces the credibility of the project.
That's a highly disputable claim for which I doubt you can produce much in the way of support.
The burden of proof lies with the person making the hypothesis, not the person opposing it.
The claim is "Unencyclopedic articles reduce the credibility of the encyclopedia" To put the burden on the person denying the claim would have him running around looking for information which he believes does not exist; it would require him to act irrationally.
No, the real claim is "AfD is damaging the project and should be deleted". The burden of proof is on those who make that claim.
Jay.
On 9/14/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
No, the real claim is "AfD is damaging the project and should be deleted". The burden of proof is on those who make that claim.
Quite so. I have seen scores of posts to this list that claim that AfD damages Wikipedia and its culture, but never actually any _evidence_. I can recall a few poisonous VfDs (such as Historical persecution by Muslims, stirred by now-banned -Ril-), but no more than can reasonably be expected for such a sensitive area. After all, we are discussing deleting people's work.
And if we ever expect deletion not to be controversial, we are deluding ourselves. Where to put the barrier of entry to Wikipedia is, has always been, and always will be one of the principle points of disagreement and conflict.
That goes for AfD, PWDS, CSD or whatever.
Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
On 9/14/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
No, the real claim is "AfD is damaging the project and should be deleted". The burden of proof is on those who make that claim.
Quite so. I have seen scores of posts to this list that claim that AfD damages Wikipedia and its culture, but never actually any _evidence_.
What do you think constitutes evidence? I've already said that I'm not lending my experience and knowledge of WP to evaluating the worthiness of articles because of the way the process works. I'm not so egotistical as to claim that my absence from AfD materially damages WP, but the last time I looked (a while ago) people were making mistakes that I could have corrected.
Stan
On 9/14/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
What do you think constitutes evidence? I've already said that I'm not lending my experience and knowledge of WP to evaluating the worthiness of articles because of the way the process works. I'm not so egotistical as to claim that my absence from AfD materially damages WP, but the last time I looked (a while ago) people were making mistakes that I could have corrected.
Examples would be a perfect place to start. There appear to be two main criticisms of AfD:
1. Unreliability. This appears to be your point. 2. Bad and unhealthy atmosphere.
I would appreciate (from anyone) evidence for either of these. Despite all the comments about AfD's foibles and failings, I personally have not seen them in action.
These comments are not intended to be difficult. I am just not currently certain why changes need to be made.
Yours, Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
Examples would be a perfect place to start. There appear to be two main criticisms of AfD:
- Unreliability. This appears to be your point.
- Bad and unhealthy atmosphere.
There was some discussion earlier about Comixpedia having forked from Wikipedia as a result of articles on web comics being deleted on account of being "non-notable" or somesuch. I don't know anything about that myself, but if it's the case then that would seem like a good example to dig evidence out of. Anyone have any handy?
G'day Sam, <snip />
There appear to be two main criticisms of AfD:
- Unreliability. This appears to be your point.
- Bad and unhealthy atmosphere.
I would appreciate (from anyone) evidence for either of these. Despite all the comments about AfD's foibles and failings, I personally have not seen them in action.
Actually, Snowspinner provided an example of '1' to start the thread (well, one of the threads): /Elf-Only Inn/. As a webcomics fan myself (although I don't like or read /Elf-Only Inn/ itself), I can certainly see his point[0].
Recently, there were a couple of rather ignorant postings to AfD (might've been VfD at the time, actually) about Australian issues. They were roundly defeated, though, so I don't know if that counts.
As for '2', well, Phroziac posted what he felt was evidence of a "bad and unhealthy atmosphere" early on, as well.
[0] And I'm hanging out for the time when Tycho and Gabe get their own entries on en-WP. That would obviously be cruft, but I'd like to hear those who want minor characters from movies to have pages to explain *why* major characters from /Penny Arcade/ don't belong.
First time I read that, I thought you said I made a bad and unhealthy atmosphere. Bah. :D
Mark Gallagher wrote: <snip>
Actually, Snowspinner provided an example of '1' to start the thread (well, one of the threads): /Elf-Only Inn/. As a webcomics fan myself (although I don't like or read /Elf-Only Inn/ itself), I can certainly see his point[0].
<snip>
[0] And I'm hanging out for the time when Tycho and Gabe get their own entries on en-WP. That would obviously be cruft, but I'd like to hear those who want minor characters from movies to have pages to explain *why* major characters from /Penny Arcade/ don't belong.
It's about how much can be written on the subject of the article. Seriously, how much needs to be written about a minor (or even major) character in a movie, if they are known for nothing outside of that movie, and the portrayal of the character in the movie was unremarkable? Similarly, how much can be written about a character from a webcomic, if they are known only for appearing in said webcomic[1]?
[1] The obvious exception here is where said character becomes notable /outside/ of the webcomic, and enters[2] the ethereal realm of "popular culture", whatever that is.
[2] Which is pretty much what I think "notable" means - "is notable outside of dedicated fandom", ie. "has entered popular culture"[3].
[3] Whatever that means.[4]
[4] Too many footnotes may be hazardous to your health.
On 15/09/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Mark Gallagher wrote:
<snip> > Actually, Snowspinner provided an example of '1' to start the thread > (well, one of the threads): /Elf-Only Inn/. As a webcomics fan myself > (although I don't like or read /Elf-Only Inn/ itself), I can certainly > see his point[0]. <snip> > [0] And I'm hanging out for the time when Tycho and Gabe get their own > entries on en-WP. That would obviously be cruft, but I'd like to > hear those who want minor characters from movies to have pages to > explain *why* major characters from /Penny Arcade/ don't belong. >
It's about how much can be written on the subject of the article. Seriously, how much needs to be written about a minor (or even major) character in a movie, if they are known for nothing outside of that movie, and the portrayal of the character in the movie was unremarkable?
Does it matter? So far, the only argument advanced to say that it does is that such entries damage Wikipedia's credibility. With Wikipedia now the most popular reference website in the world, I'd say that Wikipedia no longer has any credibility issues. There may still be some whiney critics around, but no-one is listening to them, clearly!
Dan
Does it matter? So far, the only argument advanced to say that it does is that such entries damage Wikipedia's credibility. With Wikipedia now the most popular reference website in the world, I'd say that Wikipedia no longer has any credibility issues. There may still be some whiney critics around, but no-one is listening to them, clearly!
The counterargument to that is popularity doesn't imply credibility. Wikipedia is still perceived to be noncredible by some people, who cite (amongst other things) our large population of stubs and otherwise incomplete articles. However, I suspect that these people will always find an excuse to hold Wikipedia in ill repute (do we really care what Encyclopedia Britannica or Larry Sanger think of us), and so trying to make them happy is probably pointless.
Kelly
Kelly Martin wrote:
Dan Grey wrote:
Does it matter? So far, the only argument advanced to say that it does is that such entries damage Wikipedia's credibility. With Wikipedia now the most popular reference website in the world, I'd say that Wikipedia no longer has any credibility issues. There may still be some whiney critics around, but no-one is listening to them, clearly!
The counterargument to that is popularity doesn't imply credibility. Wikipedia is still perceived to be noncredible by some people, who cite (amongst other things) our large population of stubs and otherwise incomplete articles. However, I suspect that these people will always find an excuse to hold Wikipedia in ill repute (do we really care what Encyclopedia Britannica or Larry Sanger think of us), and so trying to make them happy is probably pointless.
But the more complete our articles are, the less stubs and other weaknesses that we show, the less places they have to criticize us. We can say "we have more articles than (insert name of encyclopedia here)" all we want, but it's the /quality/ of the articles that counts. AFAICT, there is no such thing as a "featured substub".
Dan Grey wrote:
On 15/09/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Mark Gallagher wrote:
<snip> > >> Actually, Snowspinner provided an example of '1' to start the >> thread (well, one of the threads): /Elf-Only Inn/. As a >> webcomics fan myself (although I don't like or read /Elf-Only >> Inn/ itself), I can certainly see his point[0]. > > <snip> > >> [0] And I'm hanging out for the time when Tycho and Gabe get >> their own entries on en-WP. That would obviously be cruft, but >> I'd like to hear those who want minor characters from movies to >> have pages to explain *why* major characters from /Penny Arcade/ >> don't belong. >> > > It's about how much can be written on the subject of the article. > Seriously, how much needs to be written about a minor (or even > major) character in a movie, if they are known for nothing outside > of that movie, and the portrayal of the character in the movie was > unremarkable?
Does it matter?
Yes. People look at the articles and say "oh, they've only got 2 lines on such and such, and they want me to tell them about it!? What sort of encyclopedia is this?" That is the problem with articles which will never be (and in some cases, /can never be/) anything more than stubs.
So far, the only argument advanced to say that it does is that such entries damage Wikipedia's credibility.
It does. The more stubs, the more likely people are to miss the good quality stuff.
With Wikipedia now the most popular reference website in the world, I'd say that Wikipedia no longer has any credibility issues.
Oh, I agree. Wikipedia is still only as credible as the rest of the internet - that is, any idiot could have written it.
There may still be some whiney critics around, but no-one is listening to them, clearly!
You call librarians and educators "whiney critics whom no-one listens to"?
On 15/09/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
It's about how much can be written on the subject of the article. Seriously, how much needs to be written about a minor (or even major) character in a movie, if they are known for nothing outside of that movie, and the portrayal of the character in the movie was unremarkable?
Does it matter?
Yes. People look at the articles and say "oh, they've only got 2 lines on such and such, and they want me to tell them about it!? What sort of encyclopedia is this?" That is the problem with articles which will never be (and in some cases, /can never be/) anything more than stubs.
I don't know if Raul was joking when he said "every article is potentially a feature", but I wouldn't disagree with that.
Anyway, you contradict yourself: if someone looks up a topic and thinks "they've only got 2 lines on such and such", that implies that it must be possible for the article to be longer. The alternative is that it must be stating everything that is known on the subject, in which case no-one would think the above.
So far, the only argument advanced to say that it does is that such entries damage Wikipedia's credibility.
It does. The more stubs, the more likely people are to miss the good quality stuff.
That doesn't make sense: people come and read what they need/want to.
With Wikipedia now the most popular reference website in the world, I'd say that Wikipedia no longer has any credibility issues.
Oh, I agree. Wikipedia is still only as credible as the rest of the internet - that is, any idiot could have written it.
We do encourage the citing of sources - and reliable ones, at that.
There may still be some whiney critics around, but no-one is listening to them, clearly!
You call librarians and educators "whiney critics whom no-one listens to"?
Eh? Which "librarians and educators" are critics?
Dan
<snip>
Examples would be a perfect place to start. There appear to be two main criticisms of AfD:
- Unreliability. This appears to be your point.
- Bad and unhealthy atmosphere.
I would appreciate (from anyone) evidence for either of these. Despite all the comments about AfD's foibles and failings, I personally have not seen them in action.
These comments are not intended to be difficult. I am just not currently certain why changes need to be made.
Yours, Sam
It's not AFD that's failing. Any deletion system can be faulted by ignorance on the part of nominators and deleters. We need to have stricter rules about how people should behave when voting in deleting discussions, to lessen the hostile atmosphere when controversial articles come up.
We need to address people's attitudes. Those are actually the cause of problems with deletion.
--Mgm
On 9/15/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
We need to address people's attitudes. Those are actually the cause of problems with deletion.
--Mgm
it would probably simpeler to chnage the people.
-- geni
No one said it was going to be simple.
On 9/15/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
It's not AFD that's failing. Any deletion system can be faulted by ignorance on the part of nominators and deleters. We need to have stricter rules about how people should behave when voting in deleting discussions, to lessen the hostile atmosphere when controversial articles come up.
We need to address people's attitudes. Those are actually the cause of problems with deletion.
I just remembered something that I used to wonder about when I first arrived on Wikipedia. I think they're still valid questions:
Why isn't "Votes (now Articles) for Deletion" a subpage of "Request for Comments"? Why isn't "Articles for Deletion" instead "Request for Comments - Proposed Deletion"?
Putting the deletion mechanism in an area where discussion and comments are already the focus may help a bit.
Michael Turley wrote:
On 9/15/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
It's not AFD that's failing. Any deletion system can be faulted by ignorance on the part of nominators and deleters. We need to have stricter rules about how people should behave when voting in deleting discussions, to lessen the hostile atmosphere when controversial articles come up.
We need to address people's attitudes. Those are actually the cause of problems with deletion.
I just remembered something that I used to wonder about when I first arrived on Wikipedia. I think they're still valid questions:
Why isn't "Votes (now Articles) for Deletion" a subpage of "Request for Comments"? Why isn't "Articles for Deletion" instead "Request for Comments - Proposed Deletion"?
Putting the deletion mechanism in an area where discussion and comments are already the focus may help a bit.
I agree completely. (I thought about renaming it "Articles for discussion" or "Article review" until I realised that [[Wikipedia:Article review]] is a redirect to [[Wikipedia:Peer review]])
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Speculation is not proof. The "Guinness Book of World Records" has been consistent best seller in the past century, as was Joseph P. Haydn's "Dictionary of Dates" during the previous century. Both contained an enormous amount of trivia.
Other consistent non-fiction best sellers of the past century include Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" and "The Better Homes and Gardens Cookbook". Being a bestseller does not make a work instructive as to what an encyclopedia ought to contain.
Andrew Venier wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Speculation is not proof. The "Guinness Book of World Records" has been consistent best seller in the past century, as was Joseph P. Haydn's "Dictionary of Dates" during the previous century. Both contained an enormous amount of trivia.
Other consistent non-fiction best sellers of the past century include Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" and "The Better Homes and Gardens Cookbook". Being a bestseller does not make a work instructive as to what an encyclopedia ought to contain.
I don't think that the Carnegie book had the kind of structure that would lead to the kind of debates about "encyclopedic" that we have tended to have. We have, however, had considerable debate about whether recipes should be included in Wikipedia.
You have reversed my argument. They were not encyclopedic because they were bestsellers; rather thay became bestsellers because they were encyclopedic. With events like the recent hurrican Katrina it is not unusual for people to ask, "What was the biggest previous hurrican?" or "Were there any other famous hurricanes that began with the letter 'K'?" You underestimate the thirst that people may have for information that may otherwise be trivial or useless. If they can come to us to discover these things that they could not find anywhere they will come back. We need only insure that even our trivial information is verifiable.
Ec
You have reversed my argument. They were not encyclopedic because they were bestsellers; rather thay became bestsellers because they were encyclopedic. With events like the recent hurrican Katrina it is not unusual for people to ask, "What was the biggest previous hurrican?" or "Were there any other famous hurricanes that began with the letter 'K'?" You underestimate the thirst that people may have for information that may otherwise be trivial or useless. If they can come to us to discover these things that they could not find anywhere they will come back. We need only insure that even our trivial information is verifiable.
Ec
See [[Hurricane]] and [[Category:Hurricanes]] should be the answer to those example questions. We don't need an article [[Biggest hurricane]] or [[List of hurricanes starting with the letter K]].