http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Price_is_Right_pricing_games
No less than 102 pages, detailing each and every "pricing game" ever used in the American version of the game show The Price is Right.
And what do we have to say about them? Analyses, statistics, etc? Nah, just when it showed up, and when it went.
Heh.
Steve
On 22 Jun 2006, at 14:25, Steve Bennett wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Price_is_Right_pricing_games
No less than 102 pages, detailing each and every "pricing game" ever used in the American version of the game show The Price is Right.
And what do we have to say about them? Analyses, statistics, etc? Nah, just when it showed up, and when it went.
The main article includes the memorable part: "Not all episodes of the Cullen run are believed to exist, although many of them do. All episodes of the other versions are believed to exist."
Justinc
Justin Cormack wrote:
The main article includes the memorable part: "Not all episodes of the Cullen run are believed to exist, although many of them do. All episodes of the other versions are believed to exist."
Is there a source? My main concern about all this fancruft is that we are absolutely going to get burned by a hoaxer if we do not become much more serious about banning original research and mercilessly editing stuff that has no sources.
--Jimbo
They are not sourced and there are a bunch of statements like "The reason often given for its retirement ..."
Sue Annesreed1234@yahoo.com
----- Original Message ---- From: Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 6:55:42 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] And you thought Pokémon was trivial...
Justin Cormack wrote:
The main article includes the memorable part: "Not all episodes of the Cullen run are believed to exist, although many of them do. All episodes of the other versions are believed to exist."
Is there a source? My main concern about all this fancruft is that we are absolutely going to get burned by a hoaxer if we do not become much more serious about banning original research and mercilessly editing stuff that has no sources.
--Jimbo
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sue Reed wrote:
They are not sourced and there are a bunch of statements like "The reason often given for its retirement ..."
There are three external links at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Price_Is_Right_pricing_games that have detailed descriptions of the various specific games:
*[http://www.cbs.com/daytime/price/games/plinko.shtml Official CBS website, games archive] *[http://www.golden-road.net/modules/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=pricing_game_notes Pricing Game Timeline and Notes] from Golden-Road.net (I had to repair this one, the link 404ed previously) *[http://gscentral.net/pricing1.htm The TPIR Pricing Game Directory] Features extensive descriptions and screengrabs of all current and past pricing games.
I haven't done anything like an extensive comparison (I glanced at ten or so of the articles picked at random) but from the amount of information I've seen for each game they could well be the source for much if not all of the content of these articles. Might do well for a start to paste this external links section into all of the individual game articles.
The current arrangement looks like a reasonable way of organizing this information to me, merging them all into one big article on pricing games would result in a monsterously huge article. The description from the initial posting on this thread,
And what do we have to say about them? Analyses, statistics, etc? Nah, just when it showed up, and when it went.
_greatly_ misrepresents what I'm seeing here, most of these articles have a detailed description of how it works and a substantial "trivia" section with a list of other facts about it.
This is actually quite fascinating, I had no idea there were fans of the Price is Right who'd keep track of all this sort of stuff. :)
I believe our infamous EddieSegoura worked on quite a few of those. Not surprised it isn't sourced.
On 6/23/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Sue Reed wrote:
They are not sourced and there are a bunch of statements like "The
reason often given for its retirement ..."
There are three external links at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Price_Is_Right_pricing_games that have detailed descriptions of the various specific games:
*[http://www.cbs.com/daytime/price/games/plinko.shtml Official CBS website, games archive] *[ http://www.golden-road.net/modules/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=pricing_game_notes Pricing Game Timeline and Notes] from Golden-Road.net (I had to repair this one, the link 404ed previously) *[http://gscentral.net/pricing1.htm The TPIR Pricing Game Directory] Features extensive descriptions and screengrabs of all current and past pricing games.
I haven't done anything like an extensive comparison (I glanced at ten or so of the articles picked at random) but from the amount of information I've seen for each game they could well be the source for much if not all of the content of these articles. Might do well for a start to paste this external links section into all of the individual game articles.
The current arrangement looks like a reasonable way of organizing this information to me, merging them all into one big article on pricing games would result in a monsterously huge article. The description from the initial posting on this thread,
And what do we have to say about them? Analyses, statistics, etc? Nah, just when it showed up, and when it went.
_greatly_ misrepresents what I'm seeing here, most of these articles have a detailed description of how it works and a substantial "trivia" section with a list of other facts about it.
This is actually quite fascinating, I had no idea there were fans of the Price is Right who'd keep track of all this sort of stuff. :)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sue Reed wrote:
They are not sourced and there are a bunch of statements like "The reason often given for its retirement ..."
In my opinion, any such statement should be removed on sight by any editor, with a firm statement on the talk page that Wikipedia is not the place for idle speculation or original research.
As we get more and more articles, we are doomed to be hoaxed badly if we do not insist on sources.
----- Original Message ---- From: Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 6:55:42 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] And you thought Pokémon was trivial...
Justin Cormack wrote:
The main article includes the memorable part: "Not all episodes of the Cullen run are believed to exist, although many of them do. All episodes of the other versions are believed to exist."
Is there a source? My main concern about all this fancruft is that we are absolutely going to get burned by a hoaxer if we do not become much more serious about banning original research and mercilessly editing stuff that has no sources.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/23/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
In my opinion, any such statement should be removed on sight by any editor, with a firm statement on the talk page that Wikipedia is not the place for idle speculation or original research.
You have made this request several times, but it is a hell of a long way from common accepted practice. Are we actually going to clamp down on this and make it enforced law?
I agree with you that we are going to "get hoaxed", but I'm not sure that insisting on sources is even going to help that much - not all sources can be easily checked, and even those that can be, aren't necessarily checked very often.
Steve
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 21:32:22 +0200, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with you that we are going to "get hoaxed", but I'm not sure that insisting on sources is even going to help that much - not all sources can be easily checked, and even those that can be, aren't necessarily checked very often.
It's a recipe for FUTON bias. I remember an article on Tuatafa Hori; it was vigorously asserted that there was a source, a rare French book as I recall, which was published in very small numbers and is not available in more than a handful of libraries. Assuming good faith took a bit of a dent...
Guy (JzG)
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/23/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
In my opinion, any such statement should be removed on sight by any editor, with a firm statement on the talk page that Wikipedia is not the place for idle speculation or original research.
You have made this request several times, but it is a hell of a long way from common accepted practice. Are we actually going to clamp down on this and make it enforced law?
If it was made "enforced law" it'd result in a purge of proportions unmatched in Wikipedia's history.
As I've argued before when this sort of suggestion has come up, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Articles lacking sources aren't unacceptable, IMO, they're simply _unfinished_. They'd need to be properly verified before they were accepted for any sort of polished compilation, sure, but Wikipedia as a whole is not that compilation. It is the raw materials for one.
The German Wikipedia didn't wipe everything that didn't make it into the DVD version, to take an example, I don't see why English Wikipedia should do anything like that either.
On 6/23/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
As I've argued before when this sort of suggestion has come up, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Articles lacking sources aren't unacceptable, IMO, they're simply _unfinished_. They'd need to be properly verified before they were accepted for any sort of polished compilation, sure, but Wikipedia as a whole is not that compilation. It is the raw materials for one.
Is there a project or such of people who can go around focusing on adding references?
Would adding references be a useful thing to encourage as class projects for college students, etc?
Zero megamanzero521.@Yahoo.com wrote: On 6/23/06, George William Herbert wrote:
Is there a project or such of people who can go around focusing on adding references?
Would adding references be a useful thing to encourage as class projects for college students, etc?
That would be a ideal wiki-project to implement, certainly more useful than these sub projects that pop up every five minutes for the lastest fad down the street.
I find this is more of a problem in controversial topics, such as the Tony Sidaway article and the Rape article (why are there no references for Rape..?). Video game articles, such as the brand I muck about in tend to be more lineant, as the reference is the subject itself and thus inline citations can be made from in-game quotes or the like. This is rarely done, however, although I commonly reference the material I write and contribute to. -Zero
--------------------------------- Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
On 6/23/06, Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote:
On 6/23/06, George William Herbert wrote:
Is there a project or such of people who can go around focusing on adding references?
Would adding references be a useful thing to encourage as class projects for college students, etc?
That would be a ideal wiki-project to implement, certainly more useful than these sub projects that pop up every five minutes for the lastest fad down the street.
Quick poking around finds: WikiProject Fact and Reference Check
This project seems somewhat aligned with this goal, but it seems to combine fact checking with reference addition activities.
It also seems, as a project, to be not moving very quickly at the moment.
Would working within that structure be useful, or a new project?
Zero megamanzero521@Yahoo.com wrote:
On 6/23/06, George William Herbert wrote:
That would be a ideal wiki-project to implement, certainly more useful than these sub projects that pop up every five minutes for the lastest fad down the street.
Quick poking around finds: WikiProject Fact and Reference Check
This project seems somewhat aligned with this goal, but it seems to
combine fact checking with reference addition activities.
It also seems, as a project, to be not moving very quickly at the moment.
Would working within that structure be useful, or a new project?
I would certianly believe so. Its sounds pretty good, but I would go as so far to advocate that sourcing many articles in wikipedia should be a policy. Not sourcing major articles with largely dubious facts and summeries is unacceptable and should be a blockable offense with possibility of arbitration and ultimately an indefinite block on the egregious offender.
However, the current policy, which allows editors to remove dubious content which lacks sources is okay, but leaves the editting space open to edit conflicts over disputed material. Unsourced articles are a large factor in why wikipedia needs much work from its editors. -Zero
On 6/23/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/23/06, Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote:
On 6/23/06, George William Herbert wrote:
Is there a project or such of people who can go around focusing on adding references?
Would adding references be a useful thing to encourage as class projects for college students, etc?
That would be a ideal wiki-project to implement, certainly more useful than these sub projects that pop up every five minutes for the lastest fad down the street.
Quick poking around finds: WikiProject Fact and Reference Check
This project seems somewhat aligned with this goal, but it seems to combine fact checking with reference addition activities.
It also seems, as a project, to be not moving very quickly at the moment.
Would working within that structure be useful, or a new project?
-- -george william herbert
I figure it's a false premise. If you're gonna fact-check and reference an article, you need a lot of knowledge of that area, not to mention knowledge of what sources and books and reference works to consult; you need subject-area knowledge to interpret what you find.
That knowledge is essential. You can through sheer grunt work and search engines perhaps verify the true bits of an article, but there are some things that just don't work. I'll lay out an example. Let us suppose the Wikipedia articles on Japanese court poetry were completely screwed up, and were the next designated target. You find in the [[Emperor Go-Toba]] article an assertion that in his exile, he asked [[Fujiwara no Teika]] to judge some of his poems. Now, this seems fairly plausible. You know they were both alive at this period, because you've already fact-checked the dates, you know that they had a fairly close relation. But how can you prove it? You simply can't find any statements one way or the other. No source is going to tell you that this is false, and that it was *Fujiwara no Ietaka* who Go-Toba asked to judge his poems. They might mention the correct fact, but you can't be sure that he didn't really ask both and your source for the correct fact simply omitted one of the requests - after all, he was exiled for a pretty long time. Hard to prove a negative, y'know.
We can ask area-specific projects to do it. Ask a Star Wars editor to fact-check and source a SW article; ask a football fan/editor to check a football editor. Expecting a project of random people to instantly make themselves into area epxerts is to expect too much.
~maru
On 6/24/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
As I've argued before when this sort of suggestion has come up, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Articles lacking sources aren't unacceptable, IMO, they're simply _unfinished_. They'd need to be properly verified before they were accepted for any sort of polished compilation, sure, but Wikipedia as a whole is not that compilation. It is the raw materials for one.
This is where the divide seems to hit. Those who work in the Foundation Office, and receive complaints from the outside world, tend to have a harsher view of things, arguing that all unsourced statements about living people, for instance, should be immediately removed. Those who do a lot of editing without hearing from the outside world tend to find this position untenable and impractical. Worse, they (we?) tend to just ignore it, since the number of people advocating it is tiny, and they haven't really made much significant noise about it yet.
I'm yet to see any meaningful common ground found between these positions, but I'm optimistic we can find a solution.
Steve
On 6/23/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
This is where the divide seems to hit. Those who work in the Foundation Office, and receive complaints from the outside world, tend to have a harsher view of things, arguing that all unsourced statements about living people, for instance, should be immediately removed. Those who do a lot of editing without hearing from the outside world tend to find this position untenable and impractical. Worse, they (we?) tend to just ignore it, since the number of people advocating it is tiny, and they haven't really made much significant noise about it yet.
I'm yet to see any meaningful common ground found between these positions, but I'm optimistic we can find a solution.
Steve
There's plenty of common ground- this is an immediatist/eventualist split, after all, and we all know that one day the Immediate moment will have become the eventual. (In other words, as time passes and articles improve, this issue will become less and less important until it only makes sense in rare individual articles).
~maru
On 6/24/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
There's plenty of common ground- this is an immediatist/eventualist split, after all, and we all know that one day the Immediate moment will have become the eventual. (In other words, as time passes and articles improve, this issue will become less and less important until it only makes sense in rare individual articles).
Uh, is it not true that the number of bad articles is growing faster than the number of good articles? I'd always taken that as a given, based on our still rapid growth in sheer number of articles.
Also, I'm just generally not comfortable with the situation that the Foundation Office wants things one way, but everyone else seems to want them another way (and everyone else is winning)...
Steve
On 6/24/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Also, I'm just generally not comfortable with the situation that the Foundation Office wants things one way, but everyone else seems to want them another way (and everyone else is winning)...
Steve
Fairly common with orders from various higher ups. Moveing things over to commons is another example.
On 6/23/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/24/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
There's plenty of common ground- this is an immediatist/eventualist split, after all, and we all know that one day the Immediate moment will have become the eventual. (In other words, as time passes and articles improve, this issue will become less and less important until it only makes sense in rare individual articles).
Uh, is it not true that the number of bad articles is growing faster than the number of good articles? I'd always taken that as a given, based on our still rapid growth in sheer number of articles.
Also, I'm just generally not comfortable with the situation that the Foundation Office wants things one way, but everyone else seems to want them another way (and everyone else is winning)...
Steve
Yeah, but our growth in articles is also slowing down from the exponential growth rates we'd previously enjoyed (or so my tea-leaf reading of the statistics would indicate).
As for your second point, so what? The Foundation Office exists for the sake of the "everyone else", not the other way around.
~maru
On 24 Jun 2006, at 04:01, maru dubshinki wrote:
Yeah, but our growth in articles is also slowing down from the exponential growth rates we'd previously enjoyed (or so my tea-leaf reading of the statistics would indicate).
Figures for this?
It might just be a side effect of the restrictions on new article creation of course.
But it would be interesting if we were approaching the point where in some areas we have at least a stub for "everything".
Justinc
On 6/24/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 24 Jun 2006, at 04:01, maru dubshinki wrote:
Yeah, but our growth in articles is also slowing down from the exponential growth rates we'd previously enjoyed (or so my tea-leaf reading of the statistics would indicate).
Figures for this?
It might just be a side effect of the restrictions on new article creation of course.
But it would be interesting if we were approaching the point where in some areas we have at least a stub for "everything".
We're there it at least two areas: Episodes of the Simpsons, and Price is Right pricing games.
Steve
On 24/06/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 24 Jun 2006, at 04:01, maru dubshinki wrote:
Yeah, but our growth in articles is also slowing down from the exponential growth rates we'd previously enjoyed (or so my tea-leaf reading of the statistics would indicate).
Figures for this?
It might just be a side effect of the restrictions on new article creation of course.
But it would be interesting if we were approaching the point where in some areas we have at least a stub for "everything".
We have a stub or more for:
a) every contemporary head of state or head of government b) every sitting UK, US, Australian or Canadian parliamentarian and their constituencies c) every past US senator d) every member of the European Parliament (which surprises me)
We're slowly reaching at least basic completeness in some fields; a lot of the missing-articles lists are beginning to top out. There's still a long way to go, though.
On 6/24/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
We're slowly reaching at least basic completeness in some fields; a lot of the missing-articles lists are beginning to top out. There's still a long way to go, though.
It would be fascinating to see a global view of this. I know we have a lot of WikiProjects that track completeness in indivdiual fields, but a way of combining these into an overall view, like "Politicians: UK 20% missing, 60% stub, 20% advanced" or something, would be amazing. It would also be then interesting to compare that "top down" view with a "bottom up" view, whereby articles are sampled at random for quality and to see what domains they belong to.
Steve
On 6/24/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/24/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
We're slowly reaching at least basic completeness in some fields; a lot of the missing-articles lists are beginning to top out. There's still a long way to go, though.
It would be fascinating to see a global view of this. I know we have a lot of WikiProjects that track completeness in indivdiual fields, but a way of combining these into an overall view, like "Politicians: UK 20% missing, 60% stub, 20% advanced" or something, would be amazing. It would also be then interesting to compare that "top down" view with a "bottom up" view, whereby articles are sampled at random for quality and to see what domains they belong to.
Steve
Not workable. We can't say that by adding up all the lists and then seeing what the master percentage is that we know how incomplete Wikipedia is: there are tons and tons of areas that simply don't have lists, and the current lists are incomplete. So you *could* try the master list idea, but I'd think that it would be overly optimistic, since having a list implies people interested enough to write those articles, and lists are always too short.
~maru
On 6/24/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
Also, I'm just generally not comfortable with the situation that the Foundation Office wants things one way, but everyone else seems to want them another way (and everyone else is winning)...
Steve
Yeah, but our growth in articles is also slowing down from the exponential growth rates we'd previously enjoyed (or so my tea-leaf reading of the statistics would indicate).
As for your second point, so what? The Foundation Office exists for the sake of the "everyone else", not the other way around.
Hmm, within limits though. "Everyone else" are definitely not always correct.
Garion
~maru
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote: On 6/23/06, Steve Bennett wrote:
This is where the divide seems to hit. Those who work in the Foundation Office, and receive complaints from the outside world, tend to have a harsher view of things, arguing that all unsourced statements about living people, for instance, should be immediately removed. Those who do a lot of editing without hearing from the outside world tend to find this position untenable and impractical. Worse, they (we?) tend to just ignore it, since the number of people advocating it is tiny, and they haven't really made much significant noise about it yet.
I'm yet to see any meaningful common ground found between these positions, but I'm optimistic we can find a solution.
Steve
There's plenty of common ground- this is an immediatist/eventualist split, after all, and we all know that one day the Immediate moment will have become the eventual. (In other words, as time passes and articles improve, this issue will become less and less important until it only makes sense in rare individual articles). ~maru
That actually sounds feasible. I would advocate that spoilers be removed from all articles save for ones that had not been fully released to the public, such as a video game in development. I really only think that's when it wouldn't be silly. - Zero
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.