Sean,
I agree that the entire issue is nonsense, but maybe not in the way you meant it.
Granted that Pierre Trudeau, being a well-know Canadian, is unlikely to be confused with a US citizen.
But the [[List of Americans]] article seems designed to provoke controversy, to stir up a fuss and to pro- vide entertainment for those who want to have some- thing to wrangle about. Remember all the fun that was had with [[List of famous Canadians]]?
I'm NOT going to discuss it on the talk page, and I'm not going to get involved with the article: I think it's stupid and useless. I don't see what legitimate purpose it serves.
Sure, I'm proud of America (i.e., the United States) and proud to be a natural-born citizen of it. But what the heck do we need a list for? I mean, what would any- one *do* with such a list?
Okay, if someone wants to start creating lists like the following, I guess I won't mind :-) * [[List of US citizens]] * [[List of citizens of South Korea]] * [[List of Mexican restaurants in Los Angeles]] * [[List of Latin American singers]]
But please let's not waste any more time with contro- versy magnets.
Uncle Ed, aka Ed Poor
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
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
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 18:14, 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.
It's a much, much healthier approach to Wikipedia if you remember that it's a collaborative experiment than a jewel to be polished.
Let's put it this way: if you're getting upset about the creation of interesting list entries, you should probably put some work into creating some more advanced search/sort tools to allow the automated retrieval of such information as the list of left-handed presidents or of banana drinks.
Without those tools, people are going to hand-create the lists.
Remember, Wikipedia has plenty of mechanisms for self-selection over the long run. Uninteresting or useless entries will have few links, few edits, few views. They wither on the vine.
It's much better for your blood pressure if you avoid getting upset by others doing what they evidently enjoy, especially in a case like this, which clearly doesn't impinge on your ability to contribute to Wikipedia.
tc
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
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
Zoe wrote:
Is there something FORCING you to read these lists you dislike so much? Don't you have the option of ignoring them?
Although I've taken a different view on the value of the list in question (I think it's harmless), I will stick up for Saurabh here and say that I don't think Zoe's argument here is completely persuasive.
It could be used, after all, as an excuse to put all sorts of non-encyclopedic things into wikipedia. "If you don't like my article entries consisting of haiku about my cat, just ignore them." :-)
It's perfectly valid for people to question whether or not a particular entry or type of entry is good for wikipedia. Like I say, I didn't agree with Saurabh in this instance, but I thought the question was perfectly valid.
--Jimbo
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 06:14:25PM -0500, 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.
Your arguments are IMO correct: such lists are useless, don't belong in an encyclopedia, lead to endless pointless discussions about what belongs on the list and how it should be structured, set a bad example and lower the standards. However, they are also easy to make, fun to do, tempt newbies into participating with a small easy addition, and every now an then introduce stubs that lead to full-blown articles. I would say that the latter arguments outweigh the first arguments because the main reason that Wikipedia works is its community. Let's not forget that it is the spare time of countless volunteers that makes Wikipedia tick. If such lists help to maintain and expand that community (with the right people), and I think they do, then we should cherish them.
-- Jan Hidders
.---------------------------------------------------------------------. | Post-doctoral researcher e-mail: jan.hidders@ua.ac.be | | Dept. Math. & Computer Science tel: (+32) 3 218 0873 | | University of Antwerp fax: (+32) 3 218 0204 | | Middelheimlaan 1, B-2020 Antwerpen, BELGIUM room: G 3.21 | `---------------------------------------------------------------------'
rednblack@alum.mit.edu wrote:
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.
Hmmm, I think this is not an easy question. There are lists that we should reject as being un-encyclopedic in one of the usual ways that any article might be un-encyclopedic, for example "inherently POV" or "too personal to be verifiable".
"List of Concerts Attended by Jimbo" --> too personal to be verifiable
"List of politicians who are bad people" --> inherently POV (and probably of near-infinite length, ha ha)
But the list in question, well, what's the harm, exactly? Too trivial, maybe, but Wiki is not paper, there are no size-constraints.
When/if we get around to producing a "1.0" edited version for distribution on paper/cd/etc., we'll need to be more selective about what we're including.
--Jimbo
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.
Of course, we should have some criterion of usefulness, in addition to the simple requirement of verifiability. However, it is much harder to determine usefulness than verifiability. In the case of weird lists like this one, I'd like to hear a convincing argument who might want to look it up and why. If the answer is just the entertainment value, then I am inclined to be skeptical about the need for the list's existence.
Ironically, I can see a more plausible argument for a "List of left-handed US presidents" than one for this list, left-handedness being a phenomenon that has long been claimed (not sure if this is still the case) to be related to creativity.
I also agree with Cunctator that extracting this kind of data automatically is obviously a better solution than typing it by hand. Once again, in my category scheme, you would just write
[[Category:Left handed]]
below an article about a person, and when clicking that category, you would get a list of other persons in the same category. You could also have
[[Category:President]]
and could then do a query on pages which are in both categories. Same with [[Category:Drink]] and [[Category:Banana-based food]].
Regards,
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
...I'd like to hear a convincing argument who might want to look it up and why. If the answer is just the entertainment value, then I am inclined to be skeptical about the need for the list's existence.
How about getting us traffic from search engines?
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
-+- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
...I'd like to hear a convincing argument who might want to look it up and why. If the answer is just the entertainment value, then I am inclined to be skeptical about the need for the list's existence.
How about getting us traffic from search engines?
If that's all you care about, I will gladly upload my collection of midget foot fetish pornography.
Regards,
Erik
Although if it's ever completed, this list will probably take up a few million lines, wouldn't it be more effective to simply have [[Lists of songs]] if we want to generate traffic? Or, better yet [[List of top google keywords repeated a million times]].
Saurabh
------ "Be strong, and remember: be yourself, because you have to be someone, and everyone else is already taken." -- http://lzip.sourceforge.net/
In message 20030306232917.49334.qmail@web14007.mail.yahoo.com, Christopher Ma han said:
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
...I'd like to hear a convincing argument who might want to look it up and why. If the answer is just the entertainment value, then I am inclined to be skeptical about the need for the list's existence.
How about getting us traffic from search engines?
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- rednblack@alum.mit.edu wrote:
Although if it's ever completed, this list will probably take up a few million lines, wouldn't it be more effective to simply have [[Lists of songs]] if we want to generate traffic? Or, better yet [[List of top google keywords repeated a million times]].
I guess being facetious is hard to recognize.
When I say something is good enough for getting results from search engines, I am not speaking to highly of the content.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
Christopher Mahan wrote:
I guess being facetious is hard to recognize.
Oh, well, I took you seriously, and I think you were right. :-)
When I say something is good enough for getting results from search engines, I am not speaking too highly of the content.
For a long time, our most popular pages were the 9/11 pages, due primarily to traffic from the search engines. Attracting new people to wikipedia, getting the name before lots of people, is a valid goal.
Not, obviously, our only goal, not even close. But it can weigh into our overall evaluation of specific pages. It can't override violations of our NPOV principles, for example, but it can permit us to keep some pages that we otherwise find silly or trivial.
I'll post later today a list of pages ranked by how popular they are with google. That should be interesting, anyway.
--Jimbo
Erik:
...I'd like to hear a convincing argument who might want to look it up and why. If the answer is just the entertainment value, then I am inclined to be skeptical about the need for the list's existence.
Christopher Mahan wrote:
How about getting us traffic from search engines?
Erik statement about midget foot fetish porn brought a smile to my face, but I wanted to weigh in here with my usual middle-of-the-road answer: getting traffic from search engines is a valid goal, one of many that we may have for a given page, and it is appropriate for us to weigh it as *one factor* in determining the value of a page.
--Jimbo
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 08:58, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Okay, if someone wants to start creating lists like the following, I guess I won't mind :-)
- [[List of US citizens]]
- [[List of citizens of South Korea]]
- [[List of Mexican restaurants in Los Angeles]]
- [[List of Latin American singers]]
Actually, only the "citizens" lists sound like a bad idea, since they're way to broad in scope.
I wouldn't mind learning about the good Mexican restaurants in L.A.
Nonsense. Americans are the citizens or residents of the United States. DESIGNED to provoke controversy? Only if you're looking for something to make controversial. Zoe "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:But the [[List of Americans]] article seems designed to provoke controversy,
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more