I was intrigued last year to find that somebody had deleted one of my contributions on the grounds that the deletor [?] had never heard of it. Acting on this criterion, I would spend my waking hours deleting Wikipedia articles. Tim . . .
On 1/19/07, Ryzvel@3mail.com Ryzvel@3mail.com wrote:
I was intrigued last year to find that somebody had deleted one of my contributions on the grounds that the deletor [?] had never heard of it. Acting on this criterion, I would spend my waking hours deleting Wikipedia articles. Tim . . .
Yes, that seems to hold a lot of weight in deletionist debates, someone who has never worked in the sciences never heard of a scientific concept and doesn't understand the underlying basics, but thinks the article should be deleted because it's on a concept they "had never heard of."
KP
On 1/19/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/19/07, Ryzvel@3mail.com Ryzvel@3mail.com wrote:
I was intrigued last year to find that somebody had deleted one of my contributions on the grounds that the deletor [?] had never heard of it. Acting on this criterion, I would spend my waking hours deleting
Wikipedia
articles. Tim . . .
Yes, that seems to hold a lot of weight in deletionist debates, someone who has never worked in the sciences never heard of a scientific concept and doesn't understand the underlying basics, but thinks the article should be deleted because it's on a concept they "had never heard of."
KP
Are said articles sourced? My experience (obviously, hardly a scientific study here!) is that few articles with decent sources get nominated on the grounds of the concept never having been heard of. Recently I came across a talk page request for external sources on an Olympics results page because the requester had never heard of Olympic racewalking. Perfectly reasonable, and I wouldn't blame anyone for having their first reaction being thinking that the page was a hoax--the idea of walking being an Olympic competition made me boggle the first time I heard of it.
If articles on scientific concepts aren't sourced, it can be nigh impossible for people to tell the difference between a hoax and an actual concept that they just haven't heard of before. Obviously, talk pages or {{unreferenced}} tags would be my preferred first reaction in such a case, but seeing the number of articles in the unreferenced category from December 2005 is daunting.
Of course, on the other hand, if referenced articles are getting nominated because people haven't heard of them, such people should be gently reminded to, you know, go read the source first.
-- Jonel
On 1/19/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/19/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/19/07, Ryzvel@3mail.com Ryzvel@3mail.com wrote:
I was intrigued last year to find that somebody had deleted one of my contributions on the grounds that the deletor [?] had never heard of
it.
Acting on this criterion, I would spend my waking hours deleting
Wikipedia
articles. Tim . . .
Yes, that seems to hold a lot of weight in deletionist debates, someone who has never worked in the sciences never heard of a scientific concept and doesn't understand the underlying basics, but thinks the article should
be
deleted because it's on a concept they "had never heard of."
KP
Are said articles sourced? My experience (obviously, hardly a scientific study here!) is that few articles with decent sources get nominated on the grounds of the concept never having been heard of. Recently I came across a talk page request for external sources on an Olympics results page because the requester had never heard of Olympic racewalking. Perfectly reasonable, and I wouldn't blame anyone for having their first reaction being thinking that the page was a hoax--the idea of walking being an Olympic competition made me boggle the first time I heard of it.
If articles on scientific concepts aren't sourced, it can be nigh impossible for people to tell the difference between a hoax and an actual concept that they just haven't heard of before. Obviously, talk pages or {{unreferenced}} tags would be my preferred first reaction in such a case, but seeing the number of articles in the unreferenced category from December 2005 is daunting.
Of course, on the other hand, if referenced articles are getting nominated because people haven't heard of them, such people should be gently reminded to, you know, go read the source first.
-- Jonel
If the concept is in the sciences and the person is nominating it simply because they've never heard of it, how can they tell if the source is worthwhile? I didn't even know what to say to someone who nominated one article recently, on a subject the nominator had obviously never heard of, on the basis that the nominator questioned how sea levels could possibly rise if there was less water held in the ice caps, or maybe he/she was questioning the amount of the rise. I don't think having the nominator read the source would have helped much. On the other hand, it appears the article writer hadn't gotten anywhere near a source, either....
I'm finding a few problems with sources on articles. People don't realize you can't copy entire sentences from the article ("well, I only copied a few sentence, and never two in a row...."), and that you can't say the article said something it didn't. If the article said he started studying singing seriously at the age of 10, you can't say he started singing at 10. Maybe it's the Masson/New Yorker method of quoting in the latter case.
How can anyone possibly nominate an article dealing with particle physics for deletion, thinking it is a hoax, if they know nothing about quantum mechanics? I personally thought quantum mechanics was a hoax until I studied it. I think if you know nothing about an area, you aren't qualified to decide to use time resources of other editors by nominating an AfD because YOU don't know anything about it. Why not just ask someone in the area? Need a geology editor, go to the geology page, look a bunch of edits and ask someone. But don't say, "I don't know anything about the subject, so I never heard of most of it, but really never heard of this, so I think it should be deleted." It's absurd and wastes time and resources.
Race walking. Yeah, right.
KP
On 1/19/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
If the concept is in the sciences and the person is nominating it simply because they've never heard of it, how can they tell if the source is worthwhile? I didn't even know what to say to someone who nominated one article recently, on a subject the nominator had obviously never heard of, on the basis that the nominator questioned how sea levels could possibly rise if there was less water held in the ice caps, or maybe he/she was questioning the amount of the rise. I don't think having the nominator read the source would have helped much. On the other hand, it appears the article writer hadn't gotten anywhere near a source, either....
I'm finding a few problems with sources on articles. People don't realize you can't copy entire sentences from the article ("well, I only copied a few sentence, and never two in a row...."), and that you can't say the article
said something it didn't. If the article said he started studying singing seriously at the age of 10, you can't say he started singing at 10. Maybe it's the Masson/New Yorker method of quoting in the latter case.
How can anyone possibly nominate an article dealing with particle physics for deletion, thinking it is a hoax, if they know nothing about quantum mechanics? I personally thought quantum mechanics was a hoax until I studied it. I think if you know nothing about an area, you aren't qualified to decide to use time resources of other editors by nominating an AfD because YOU don't know anything about it. Why not just ask someone in the
area? Need a geology editor, go to the geology page, look a bunch of edits and ask someone. But don't say, "I don't know anything about the subject, so I never heard of most of it, but really never heard of this, so I think
it should be deleted." It's absurd and wastes time and resources.
Race walking. Yeah, right.
KP
What, the sea-level can rise? I don't believe you! ;-)
But seriously, it sounds as if in that case an unsourced article that needed plenty of work got improved because it was nominated for deletion. Which is the typical result for deserving topics that get nominated, for whatever reason. I wouldn't consider that a waste of time. There may be more long-run efficient ways of going about improving articles, but none that gather more immediate results.
Personally, I agree with you on what people *should* do when they come across an article about something they have never heard about and doubt the veracity of. No matter what the subject area.
As for non-experts being able to tell if sources are worthwhile, I'm not really sure what you're getting at. What I'm saying is that even nominators who think "I've never heard of this" is a valid reason for deletion are typically just reasonable enough to realize that if there is a source, there's probably ''something'' to the topic. They are far less likely to make the nomination in that case. The article may still be complete crap based on junk sources, but that is something that requires knowledgeable editors' eyes in any case and an AfD nomination, regardless of purported reason, will bring those.
-- Jonel
On 1/19/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/19/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
If the concept is in the sciences and the person is nominating it simply because they've never heard of it, how can they tell if the source is worthwhile? I didn't even know what to say to someone who nominated one article recently, on a subject the nominator had obviously never heard of, on the basis that the nominator questioned how sea levels could possibly rise if there was less water held in the ice caps, or maybe he/she was questioning the amount of the rise. I don't think having the nominator read the source would have helped much. On the other hand, it appears the article writer hadn't gotten anywhere near a source, either....
I'm finding a few problems with sources on articles. People don't
realize
you can't copy entire sentences from the article ("well, I only copied a few sentence, and never two in a row...."), and that you can't say the
article
said something it didn't. If the article said he started studying
singing
seriously at the age of 10, you can't say he started singing at
- Maybe
it's the Masson/New Yorker method of quoting in the latter case.
How can anyone possibly nominate an article dealing with particle
physics
for deletion, thinking it is a hoax, if they know nothing about quantum mechanics? I personally thought quantum mechanics was a hoax until I studied it. I think if you know nothing about an area, you aren't qualified to decide to use time resources of other editors by nominating an AfD because YOU don't know anything about it. Why not just ask someone in
the
area? Need a geology editor, go to the geology page, look a bunch of edits and ask someone. But don't say, "I don't know anything about the
subject,
so I never heard of most of it, but really never heard of this, so I
think
it should be deleted." It's absurd and wastes time and resources.
Race walking. Yeah, right.
KP
What, the sea-level can rise? I don't believe you! ;-)
But seriously, it sounds as if in that case an unsourced article that needed plenty of work got improved because it was nominated for deletion. Which is the typical result for deserving topics that get nominated, for whatever reason. I wouldn't consider that a waste of time. There may be more long-run efficient ways of going about improving articles, but none that gather more immediate results.
Yes, the article did get improved, which it desperately needed.
But AfD is so hostile, and the intention behind deletions is not to get them improved, and nominators tend to be extreme deletionists, even though there is no such thing as a deletionist. The whole area of deletions is just a cesspool of bad behaviour. Not always, or even most of the time, and, yes, one look at the new pages makes one think deletion should be an automatic default in any quest for quality, but aren't there more civil ways to go about it?
On the other hand, if you see a crummy article, that you don't have enough knowledge to correct yourself, its owners will attack you for tagging it in need of clean-up. So, maybe you should just nominate crummy articles for deletion and other editors will fix them up?
And how can someone in the know convince someone that something is an appropriate article in an encyclopedia againt the primary argument that "I was born after the Cold War and Lech Walesa is a nobody to me?"
Personally, I agree with you on what people *should* do when they come across an article about something they have never heard about and doubt the veracity of. No matter what the subject area.
As for non-experts being able to tell if sources are worthwhile, I'm not really sure what you're getting at. What I'm saying is that even nominators who think "I've never heard of this" is a valid reason for deletion are typically just reasonable enough to realize that if there is a source, there's probably ''something'' to the topic. They are far less likely to make the nomination in that case. The article may still be complete crap based on junk sources, but that is something that requires knowledgeable editors' eyes in any case and an AfD nomination, regardless of purported reason, will bring those.
-- Jonel
Sometimes what it may amount to "KP is always right, so don't require me to prove it...."
KP
Nick Wilkins wrote:
Of course, on the other hand, if referenced articles are getting nominated because people haven't heard of them, such people should be gently reminded to, you know, go read the source first.
I've created several hundred articles, some on very obscure topics, but almost all citing a book source including page numbers, and so far no one has been cheeky enough to propose any for deletion. Presumably "never heard of it" becomes an admission of ignorance in such cases...
Stan
K P schreef:
On 1/19/07, Ryzvel@3mail.com Ryzvel@3mail.com wrote:
I was intrigued last year to find that somebody had deleted one of my contributions on the grounds that the deletor [?] had never heard of it. Acting on this criterion, I would spend my waking hours deleting Wikipedia articles. Tim . . .
Yes, that seems to hold a lot of weight in deletionist debates, someone who has never worked in the sciences never heard of a scientific concept and doesn't understand the underlying basics, but thinks the article should be deleted because it's on a concept they "had never heard of."
{{cite}}
That's the second time you've claimed that this is common, and we haven't yet seen a single example. So I've checked today's AfD (just as I did last time), and of the 110 nominations so far, there were 0 because the nominator "had never heard of" the subject.
Also, the phrase "never heard" occurs only three times on the page, and in none of those cases, it is the sole reason for deletion. I do not see it having any weight in deletion debates. (Where can I find the deletionist debates you're speaking of?)
Eugene