Steve Bennett wrote:
- A subject should not appear in Wikipedia when many more subjects in
its category or field do not. {The insignificance principle}
This is a very bad idea. We lack great swathes of many areas. 2. would only be a good idea if our systemic bias were negligible, when it's nothing of the sort; pretending it is is counterproductive.
Thus we can say, "come back when c, b and a have been fulfilled to
some extent".
To which the obvious answer is "there is no reason not to start *here*."
- Imaginary or fictitious subjects have less right to appear in
Wikipedia than other subjects. {The fancruft principle}
We are not running out of disk space in any way at all, and 100000 "fancruft" articles don't make it any harder for me to find, e.g., [[EXA]] or [[Xenu]].
This is not a book. If someone makes a book, they can take care of it how they wish (e.g. the Category system).
I do like the first one, though, and this email strikes me as hopefully the start of a good working editorial definition of "notability"!
- d.
"David Gerard" wrote
Steve Bennett wrote:
- A subject should not appear in Wikipedia when many more subjects in
i>ts category or field do not. {The insignificance principle}
This is a very bad idea. We lack great swathes of many areas. 2. would
only be a good idea if our systemic bias were negligible, when it's nothing of the sort; pretending it is is counterproductive.
Agree with David. In fact this sort of reasoning is rarely useful. Tell people to write about what they are not sufficiently informed/motivated to write about, rather than what they know or are interested in researching and they are hardly likely to give of their best.
Charles
Thus we can say, "come back when c, b and a have been fulfilled to
some extent".
To which the obvious answer is "there is no reason not to start *here*."
My thinking was that following the "insignificance principle" (see my correction to the typo) could help follow the "vanity principle". Simple example: imagine that there are 11 articles about businesses in Wikipedia. 10 are fortune 500's. The 11th one is Bill's Fish & Chips [1]. Bill is ridiculously "overexposed" and will get some sort of attention he doesn't really deserve. Hence he becomes more notable by appearing in Wikipedia. However, on a Wikipedia with 11 million articles on businesses, he deserves to be there - he's not out of place, and is no longer "vanity". Regardless of what his business turnover is.
We are not running out of disk space in any way at all, and 100000 "fancruft" articles don't make it any harder for me to find, e.g., [[EXA]] or [[Xenu]].
This is not a book. If someone makes a book, they can take care of it how they wish (e.g. the Category system).
I just wanted to stress that I'm not proposing these guidelines. I'm proposing them as expressions of unwritten guidelines that I suspect are in use. That way perhaps we can debate the actual merits of them.
Fancruft does not bother me if it follows the insignificance principle. However, I would rather see a very broad coverage of all TV shows before seeing the level of depth we see on one or two.
[1] An actual fast food shop.
Steve
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
Thus we can say, "come back when c, b and a have been fulfilled to
some extent".
To which the obvious answer is "there is no reason not to start *here*."
My thinking was that following the "insignificance principle" (see my correction to the typo) could help follow the "vanity principle". Simple example: imagine that there are 11 articles about businesses in Wikipedia. 10 are fortune 500's. The 11th one is Bill's Fish & Chips [1].
[1] An actual fast food shop.
There is an entry for [[Ray's Pizza]]...
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
There is an entry for [[Ray's Pizza]]...
If it's been mentioned on the Simpsons, Seinfeld and Futurama, I suspect it's more notable than a single fast food shop in Melbourne :)
Well, yes, but it paves the way, you see. The question seems to be, for notability: "Where do you draw the line?"
And again I make the point that if DG is getting hot under the collar about the buyers, sellers, collectors and experts of dolls starting up their own wiki because they are concerned that their articles will be deleted by ignorant teenagers, then what on earth is wrong with including fast food outlets, which are worth far more than even the most expensive doll on eBay.
Not that I'm arguing for a string of articles on fish and chip shops, but the criteria for notability must necessarily be flexible depending on the topic.
Pete, with a wedge of lemon
On 1/19/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Well, yes, but it paves the way, you see. The question seems to be, for notability: "Where do you draw the line?"
Well, yes. But before you even draw the line, you must ask "roughly what kinds of things do we want IN, and what kinds of things do we want OUT?"
And again I make the point that if DG is getting hot under the collar about the buyers, sellers, collectors and experts of dolls starting up their own wiki because they are concerned that their articles will be deleted by ignorant teenagers, then what on earth is wrong with including fast food outlets, which are worth far more than even the most expensive doll on eBay.
I didn't follow the thread, but presumably they weren't listing individual copies of models of dolls, but rather the model as a whole? Similarly, the Ray's pizza shop example was about a phenomenon of similarly-named shops, without delving into the locations of individual members.
Not that I'm arguing for a string of articles on fish and chip shops, but the criteria for notability must necessarily be flexible depending on the topic.
I think we should first have these "meta-guidelines" established, independently of any domain. We should work out once and for all why we even want to have notability guidelines. Mostly this seems to be expressed as "Wikipedia isn't paper, but let's get real here" or "Space is cheap, but it isn't free".
Once we have such meta-guidelines (or call them "general principles" or "notability policy" or something if you like), then individual domains can express those meta-guidelines in ways that make sense for the domain. Starting from scratch for each domain, as is the case now, means one domain may be turfing out every article which doesn't satisfy rigid criteria for inclusion while another turfs out almost nothing. Hence, popular but very local music groups get turfed. And inconsequential beetles get kept.
Steve
I was talking about beetles, not bad drummers :)
Steve
On 1/19/06, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Hence, popular but very local music groups get turfed. And inconsequential beetles get kept.
You mean we should keep [[Bob's locally popular garage band]] and delete [[Ringo Starr]]? :)
Regards, Haukur
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"Steve Bennett" wrote
Hence, popular but very local music groups get turfed. And
inconsequential beetles get kept.
You know, one of the most important aspects of policy development here has been negative: not to attempt such policies as would rigidly define 'notability', which in its way is almost as bogus a concept as 'celebrity'. And, pragmatically speaking, that has been a huge success, with some known drawbacks which get a large amount of attention.
Charles
[[WP:MUSIC]] seems pretty rigid to me.
No?
Steve
On 1/19/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Steve Bennett" wrote
Hence, popular but very local music groups get turfed. And
inconsequential beetles get kept.
You know, one of the most important aspects of policy development here has been negative: not to attempt such policies as would rigidly define 'notability', which in its way is almost as bogus a concept as 'celebrity'. And, pragmatically speaking, that has been a huge success, with some known drawbacks which get a large amount of attention.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/19/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
[[WP:MUSIC]] seems pretty rigid to me.
WP:MUSIC has its problems. Even so, IMO, WP:MUSIC is more useful as a quick check in which passing its guidelines affirms notability with no further argument required. Failing the WP:MUSIC guideline just means that none of the quick and easy ways of describing the subject's importance work. It doesn't mean that the subject is not notable for a less common reason.
-Matt
So, notability guidelines serve to stop idiots deleting worthwhile articles? But they don't serve to justify deletion? That could be an okay tack.
Meta-guideline: "There can only be hard rules for keeping articles, never for deleting them."
Sound good?
Steve
WP:MUSIC has its problems. Even so, IMO, WP:MUSIC is more useful as a quick check in which passing its guidelines affirms notability with no further argument required. Failing the WP:MUSIC guideline just means that none of the quick and easy ways of describing the subject's importance work. It doesn't mean that the subject is not notable for a less common reason.