"Steve Bennett" wrote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Invincible_Snow...
The whole concept of notability just seems to be letting us down.
Just because people talkin' 'bout notability, doesn't mean they have a useful definition. But a 'private ski resort'? What does that even mean?
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 11/05/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Steve Bennett" wrote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Invincible_Snow... The whole concept of notability just seems to be letting us down.
Just because people talkin' 'bout notability, doesn't mean they have a useful definition. But a 'private ski resort'? What does that even mean?
FWIW, I raised the general issue on WT:AFD, and the discussion is actually pretty good so far:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Take_care_...
- d.
On 5/11/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/05/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Steve Bennett" wrote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Invincible_Snow... The whole concept of notability just seems to be letting us down.
Just because people talkin' 'bout notability, doesn't mean they have a useful definition. But a 'private ski resort'? What does that even mean?
FWIW, I raised the general issue on WT:AFD, and the discussion is actually pretty good so far:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Take_care_...
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
To be clear on that: I agree with David to some degree, the subject-specific stuff is totally subjective and has to go. But N itself is a -brilliant- idea. We really should have enough independent source material to someday write a GA or FA on a subject in order to justify a full article on it. (Note I mean that amount of source material should -exist-, even if the article is -currently- a one-source stub.) Otherwise, delete it, merge it, redirect it, do -something- with it, but get rid of the forest of stubs that won't ever get past that because they -can't- ever get past that. One decent article and nine useful redirects are far better than ten permastubs.
On 5/12/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
ever get past that because they -can't- ever get past that. One decent article and nine useful redirects are far better than ten permastubs.
Why? Look in a real encyclopaedia. They have lots of short articles.
Steve
On 12/05/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
To be clear on that: I agree with David to some degree, the subject-specific stuff is totally subjective and has to go. But N itself is a -brilliant- idea. We really should have enough independent source material to someday write a GA or FA on a subject in order to justify a full article on it. (Note I mean that amount of source material should -exist-, even if the article is -currently- a one-source stub.) Otherwise, delete it, merge it, redirect it, do -something- with it, but get rid of the forest of stubs that won't ever get past that because they -can't- ever get past that. One decent article and nine useful redirects are far better than ten permastubs.
I dunno. I don't care about short little articles because I can find a topic if it's in its own article instead of merged into a 60k list.
I'm thinking of usefulness to the reader here. Third-party verifiability rather than "notability" is good because if there's no third party material the reader wouldn't have a reason to look it up, and it doesn't cut off the Long Tail the way arbitrary notability bars do.
I've yet to have it understandably explained to me why arbitrary notability bars are good for the reader typing a term into the search box, and why nothing is better than something (verifiable).
- d.
On 5/12/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I'm thinking of usefulness to the reader here. Third-party verifiability rather than "notability" is good because if there's no third party material the reader wouldn't have a reason to look it up, and it doesn't cut off the Long Tail the way arbitrary notability bars do.
What do you mean by "third-party"? Say a skier visits a travel agent who recommends the skifield that is the subject of this discussion. He goes to Wikipedia to find out more about it. Even if our article on the topic is just a condensed reformulation of the information on the subject's website, I feel that we have done him a small service. We've presented the information in a standard, encyclopaedic format. We've provided all the links we could find. And we've presented it more neutrally than the website itself would. We might include statements like "the smallest ski area" or "was closed in 2006" that the website itself might not. There's a lot to be said for having an *encyclopaedic* view of a subject - regardless of whether it's more informative than the primary source.
I've yet to have it understandably explained to me why arbitrary notability bars are good for the reader typing a term into the search box, and why nothing is better than something (verifiable).
Arbitrary notability bars are good for *us*, because they let us define a cut-off point at which the cost of maintenance is higher than the benefit to the reader. There's no benefit to the reader.
Steve
On 5/12/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
What do you mean by "third-party"? Say a skier visits a travel agent who recommends the skifield that is the subject of this discussion. He goes to Wikipedia to find out more about it. Even if our article on the topic is just a condensed reformulation of the information on the subject's website, I feel that we have done him a small service. We've presented the information in a standard, encyclopaedic format. We've provided all the links we could find. And we've presented it more neutrally than the website itself would.
Putting aside the issue on whether the article under discussion should stay or go but isn't the above what Wikitravel is for?
On 5/13/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Putting aside the issue on whether the article under discussion should stay or go but isn't the above what Wikitravel is for?
I thoroughly reject the notion that if project A is a good place for some information, then project B must be the wrong place. There is a massive amount of overlap between wikitravel and wikipedia, which is a real pity. Every perfect wikitravel article on a city would be pretty much 70% the corresponding wikipedia article with a bit of information on specific bars, hotels etc.
The goal I work towards is making Wikipedia the best, most comprehensive encyclopaedia ever, by far. Whatever one could say about wikitravel is basically irrelevant to that goal.
Steve
On 5/11/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/05/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
To be clear on that: I agree with David to some degree, the subject-specific stuff is totally subjective and has to go. But N itself is a -brilliant- idea. We really should have enough independent source material to someday write a GA or FA on a subject in order to justify a full article on it. (Note I mean that amount of source material should -exist-, even if the article is -currently- a one-source stub.) Otherwise, delete it, merge it, redirect it, do -something- with it, but get rid of the forest of stubs that won't ever get past that because they -can't- ever get past that. One decent article and nine useful redirects are far better than ten permastubs.
I dunno. I don't care about short little articles because I can find a topic if it's in its own article instead of merged into a 60k list.
I'm thinking of usefulness to the reader here. Third-party verifiability rather than "notability" is good because if there's no third party material the reader wouldn't have a reason to look it up, and it doesn't cut off the Long Tail the way arbitrary notability bars do.
I've yet to have it understandably explained to me why arbitrary notability bars are good for the reader typing a term into the search box, and why nothing is better than something (verifiable).
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Shall I go write an article on myself?
I can do that, with a bit of verifiable information. I can even write it so it passes every other core policy (NOT, NPOV, etc. etc.) But what I'm not is notable. And so I don't write that article, because, quite simply, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Nor do articles on garage bands or high-schoolers or anything else, unless, for some reason, they've been unusually -noted-.
The reason it's good for the reader, is quite simply, we shouldn't present the reader with crap. We should give the reader who hits the "random article" button a decent chance of finding a decent article. Should we allow ourselves a very broad scope? Yes, of course we should. But not an unlimited one. We should set a bar somewhere, and to say "There must be a good deal of third-party source material available on a subject in order to have an article on it" is a good one.
As to paper encyclopedias, and having things in one main article rather than ten stubs, yes, paper encyclopedias do that. They don't have section-anchor redirects, though. We do. We're in fact doing the reader a greater service by taking them right to the information they want, but in the context of a larger picture.
On 5/12/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
The reason it's good for the reader, is quite simply, we shouldn't present the reader with crap. We should give the reader who hits the "random article" button a decent chance of finding a decent article. Should we allow ourselves a very broad scope? Yes, of course we should. But not an unlimited one. We should set a bar somewhere, and to say "There must be a good deal of third-party source material available on a subject in order to have an article on it" is a good one.
I don't think our primary readership is people who press the 'random article' button.
IMO, our primary readership is people who want to learn about something. If I see mention of something in a book, conversation, TV show, magazine, web site or whatever - I expect to be able to go to Wikipedia and find out more about it.
If Wikipedia doesn't have information about it because nobody's written about it yet, that's one thing. However, if Wikipedia doesn't have information about something because somebody has arbitarily deemed it "not notable enough", then I'm irritated.
E.g. if I'm reading a book about, say, the early 1990s music scene in Los Angeles - I should reasonably be able to look up *any band or musician mentioned* and find more about them. Any. Even if it turns out there's nothing more to know beyond what my book has, I want to know that.
Doing otherwise is not doing our readers a favor.
-Matt
On Sat, 12 May 2007 02:48:09 -0700, "Matthew Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote:
If Wikipedia doesn't have information about it because nobody's written about it yet, that's one thing. However, if Wikipedia doesn't have information about something because somebody has arbitarily deemed it "not notable enough", then I'm irritated.
This rather ignores the fact that Wikipedia's top ten status means that it is the first port of call for those who want to /make/ something notable.
I get some tens of thousands of hits per month on my personal website, and I am on the editorial board of another site that gets similar levels of traffic. Plus, Chris Boardman apparently linked my site in an article he wrote for Pro Cycling this month. It is reasonable to assume, from your argument, that I should have a Wikipedia article, because people will want to know about me. I disagree with that, obviously.
In practice, the notion that "people will want to know about it" is most often asserted by those creating articles on subjects with which they have a self-evident personal involvement. And about 2/3 of those are garage bands.
All of which is a roundabout way of saying, do you genuinely think that every band with a MySpace should have a Wikipedia article?
Guy (JzG)
On 5/12/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2007 02:48:09 -0700, "Matthew Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote:
If Wikipedia doesn't have information about it because nobody's written about it yet, that's one thing. However, if Wikipedia doesn't have information about something because somebody has arbitarily deemed it "not notable enough", then I'm irritated.
This rather ignores the fact that Wikipedia's top ten status means that it is the first port of call for those who want to /make/ something notable.
I get some tens of thousands of hits per month on my personal website, and I am on the editorial board of another site that gets similar levels of traffic. Plus, Chris Boardman apparently linked my site in an article he wrote for Pro Cycling this month. It is reasonable to assume, from your argument, that I should have a Wikipedia article, because people will want to know about me. I disagree with that, obviously.
In practice, the notion that "people will want to know about it" is most often asserted by those creating articles on subjects with which they have a self-evident personal involvement. And about 2/3 of those are garage bands.
All of which is a roundabout way of saying, do you genuinely think that every band with a MySpace should have a Wikipedia article?
Of course not, but this has little bearing on ski resorts. They are unlikely to want to promote the place as MySpace bands do and since it existed longer than any MySpace band and in all likelyhood had a much larger audience, I'd say the ski resort has the edge. Also, arbitrary cut off points can be useful, but not if they kill the comprehensiveness of a list of all the X's in a country.
Mgm
On 14/05/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Of course not, but this has little bearing on ski resorts. They are unlikely to want to promote the place as MySpace bands do and since it existed longer than any MySpace band and in all likelyhood had a much larger audience, I'd say the ski resort has the edge. Also, arbitrary cut off points can be useful, but not if they kill the comprehensiveness of a list of all the X's in a country.
Indeed. There's no reason for an arbitrary cutoff point if comprehensiveness is easily achievable. We have every Census-listed settlement in the United States, for example, because we can.
Living bios (inlcuding bands) are a different problem, I think.
- d.
On 5/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Of course not, but this has little bearing on ski resorts. They are unlikely to want to promote the place as MySpace bands do
False. Most myspace bands are not in a position to make significant amounts of money ski resorts are.
and since it existed longer than any MySpace band and in all likelyhood had a much larger audience,
The same could be said for rather a lot of trees what of it?
I'd say the ski resort has the edge. Also, arbitrary cut off points can be useful, but not if they kill the comprehensiveness of a list of all the X's in a country.
Haveing a comprehensive list is not a reason to include an article on every item.
geni wrote:
On 5/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Of course not, but this has little bearing on ski resorts. They are unlikely to want to promote the place as MySpace bands do
False. Most myspace bands are not in a position to make significant amounts of money ski resorts are.
and since it existed longer than any MySpace band and in all likelyhood had a much larger audience,
The same could be said for rather a lot of trees what of it?
I'd say the ski resort has the edge. Also, arbitrary cut off points can be useful, but not if they kill the comprehensiveness of a list of all the X's in a country.
Haveing a comprehensive list is not a reason to include an article on every item.
If everything can fit comfortably in a list, why have individual articles? And if only some are too long to fit in the list, why not have some individual articles and some anchored redirects?
On 5/14/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 5/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Of course not, but this has little bearing on ski resorts. They are
unlikely
to want to promote the place as MySpace bands do
False. Most myspace bands are not in a position to make significant amounts of money ski resorts are.
and since it existed longer than any MySpace band and in all likelyhood had a much larger audience,
The same could be said for rather a lot of trees what of it?
I'd say the ski resort has the edge. Also, arbitrary cut off points can be useful, but not if they kill the comprehensiveness of a list of all the
X's
in a country.
Haveing a comprehensive list is not a reason to include an article on every item.
If everything can fit comfortably in a list, why have individual articles? And if only some are too long to fit in the list, why not have some individual articles and some anchored redirects?
A good idea, but I still don't see the short article should be deleted. Yes, it can be merged, and it probably should be expanded, but none of any of these solutions involve deletion.
Mgm
On May 14, 2007, at 4:09 AM, Todd Allen wrote:
If everything can fit comfortably in a list, why have individual articles? And if only some are too long to fit in the list, why not have some individual articles and some anchored redirects?
Essentially, HCI reasons. If it's possible to give somebody the article they asked for when they typed something into the search box, we should default to doing so. That is to say, barring a persuasive reason why a given article is causing us a problem, we should keep it. Which is why AfD has a "presumption of innocence."
There are some articles that there are good reasons to delete - "we can't verify the content of this article," "this article is impossible to write from a NPOV," or even, in the case of BLP, "the risk that this article would defame and harm its subject outweighs the benefit of keeping it," which is in its own way a notability judgment. And in those cases we delete them.
What harm is done by keeping [[Invincible Snowfields]]? What does keeping it cause that is bad?
-Phil
On 5/14/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
What harm is done by keeping [[Invincible Snowfields]]?
Not NPOV. What is this accessible only by helicopter thing? Is it surrounded by a military base or something?
On 5/14/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/14/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
What harm is done by keeping [[Invincible Snowfields]]?
Not NPOV. What is this accessible only by helicopter thing? Is it surrounded by a military base or something?
Hm, if that's really an opinion and not a fact, just attribute it to the resort, i.e. "The resort's management claims it is only accessible by helicopter". And really, the issue of content is different from the topic - how does this make it impossible to write a neutral article about the resort?
Johnleemk
On 5/14/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Hm, if that's really an opinion and not a fact, just attribute it to the resort, i.e. "The resort's management claims it is only accessible by helicopter". And really, the issue of content is different from the topic - how does this make it impossible to write a neutral article about the resort?
Because we then don't have any sources for any of the alternative opinions. Thus the article is presenting only one POV.
On 14/05/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/14/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Hm, if that's really an opinion and not a fact, just attribute it to the resort, i.e. "The resort's management claims it is only accessible by helicopter". And really, the issue of content is different from the topic - how does this make it impossible to write a neutral article about the resort?
Because we then don't have any sources for any of the alternative opinions. Thus the article is presenting only one POV.
What alternative opinions? This is a somewhat novel version of "neutral point of view".
- d.
On 5/14/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
What alternative opinions? This is a somewhat novel version of "neutral point of view".
Well for example the opinion that it is possible to reach the field on foot with the right team and equipment. It is certainly possible to reach say the south pole. I don't think many people would deny the possibility but since we don't have a source for that it is not possible to write a NPOV article on the subject.
On 5/14/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Well for example the opinion that it is possible to reach the field on foot with the right team and equipment. It is certainly possible to reach say the south pole. I don't think many people would deny the possibility but since we don't have a source for that it is not possible to write a NPOV article on the subject.
It's technically possible for one to land a United States space shuttle in Central Park in New York City. Is the [[Central Park]] article lacking or suffering POV problems from not having sources say this?
On 14/05/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/14/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Well for example the opinion that it is possible to reach the field on foot with the right team and equipment. It is certainly possible to reach say the south pole. I don't think many people would deny the possibility but since we don't have a source for that it is not possible to write a NPOV article on the subject.
It's technically possible for one to land a United States space shuttle in Central Park in New York City. Is the [[Central Park]] article lacking or suffering POV problems from not having sources say this?
I'd love to see *that* happen when I'm there in a couple of weeks :)
James Farrar wrote:
On 14/05/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/14/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Well for example the opinion that it is possible to reach the field on foot with the right team and equipment. It is certainly possible to reach say the south pole. I don't think many people would deny the possibility but since we don't have a source for that it is not possible to write a NPOV article on the subject.
It's technically possible for one to land a United States space shuttle in Central Park in New York City. Is the [[Central Park]] article lacking or suffering POV problems from not having sources say this?
I'd love to see *that* happen when I'm there in a couple of weeks :)
It depends on your choice of drinks, or what you're smoking. When the bars close you can then walk through Central Park..The green guys coming out of their flying saucers to abduct you aren't exactly from the space shuttle, but they are at least a reasonable facsimile. :-)
Ec
On 5/14/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
It's technically possible for one to land a United States space shuttle in Central Park in New York City. Is the [[Central Park]] article lacking or suffering POV problems from not having sources say this?
Depends does the article claim that it is impossible to get to Central Park using re-useable spacecraft of a delta wing design?
On 14/05/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/14/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
What alternative opinions? This is a somewhat novel version of "neutral point of view".
Well for example the opinion that it is possible to reach the field on foot with the right team and equipment. It is certainly possible to reach say the south pole. I don't think many people would deny the possibility but since we don't have a source for that it is not possible to write a NPOV article on the subject.
You appear to have gone off into entirely unconvincing sidelines of querulousness here. Is this still supposed to be a deletion reason?
- d.
On 5/14/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You appear to have gone off into entirely unconvincing sidelines of querulousness here. Is this still supposed to be a deletion reason?
My position is that it is imposble to write the article in a NPOV manner useing existing sources. I have identified a POV statement which it is unlikely that any existing sources counter. It is the logical end point of that aproach
Now there are three ways out of this. Delete the article. Shift over the a less exacting standard of NPOV for stubs and then apply that standard to deletion modify (we alreadly do the former). Remove "imposible to write a NPOV article" as a deletion reason which isnt going to happen.
On 14/05/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/14/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You appear to have gone off into entirely unconvincing sidelines of querulousness here. Is this still supposed to be a deletion reason?
My position is that it is imposble to write the article in a NPOV manner useing existing sources. I have identified a POV statement which it is unlikely that any existing sources counter. It is the logical end point of that aproach
"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." - [[WP:NPOV]]
I don't see a problem with the stub as written. It has a reference other than just the resort's official website.
On May 14, 2007, at 10:02 AM, geni wrote:
Well for example the opinion that it is possible to reach the field on foot with the right team and equipment. It is certainly possible to reach say the south pole. I don't think many people would deny the possibility but since we don't have a source for that it is not possible to write a NPOV article on the subject.
I tend to think an even remotely reasonable reader will recognize that the point of the sentence is that you cannot just drive up to the Invincible Snowfields, and that if you wish to take a skiing trip there you will need a helicopter. It does not seem to me, in the context of the article, to be reasonable to treat that phrase as a claim about the ease with which a rugged band of explorers could walk to the ski fields if they felt like mixing a bit of skiing in with their travels.
-Phil
On 5/15/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Well for example the opinion that it is possible to reach the field on foot with the right team and equipment. It is certainly possible to reach say the south pole. I don't think many people would deny the possibility but since we don't have a source for that it is not possible to write a NPOV article on the subject.
Let me just get this straight.
There is a small ski area in some mountains not terribly far from a helipad by the side of a road. The ski area sells ski packages that include helicopter transport to and from the ski area. There are no roads directly there, but one can safely presume that it's possible to hike to the area - as you point out, you can pretty much hike anywhere if you want to badly enough.
And you think that saying "accessible only by helicopter" is a non-neutral opinion.
Presumably you would also argue that saying "accessible only by helicopter or extremely dedicated hiking" was POV, on the grounds that you also could get there by parachute, magic carpet, riding a dirt bike in summer and waiting until winter, tunnelling from Iceland...
Steve
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Steve Bennett wrote:
There is a small ski area in some mountains not terribly far from a helipad by the side of a road. The ski area sells ski packages that include helicopter transport to and from the ski area. There are no roads directly there, but one can safely presume that it's possible to hike to the area - as you point out, you can pretty much hike anywhere if you want to badly enough.
And you think that saying "accessible only by helicopter" is a non-neutral opinion.
It's pretty obvious that he doesn't actually object to the article on the basis that the helicopter reference is POV. He objects to the article because he sees this kind of article as cruft and is grasping at straws for a reason to delete it without saying "I want to delete it because it's cruft".
The system constantly gets abused in this way. The stricter we get about out policies, the easier it is to use the policy as a tool to get something else.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Steve Bennett wrote:
There is a small ski area in some mountains not terribly far from a helipad by the side of a road. The ski area sells ski packages that include helicopter transport to and from the ski area. There are no roads directly there, but one can safely presume that it's possible to hike to the area - as you point out, you can pretty much hike anywhere if you want to badly enough.
And you think that saying "accessible only by helicopter" is a non-neutral opinion.
It's pretty obvious that he doesn't actually object to the article on the basis that the helicopter reference is POV. He objects to the article because he sees this kind of article as cruft and is grasping at straws for a reason to delete it without saying "I want to delete it because it's cruft".
The system constantly gets abused in this way. The stricter we get about out policies, the easier it is to use the policy as a tool to get something else.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It's cruft!
Oh, were we waiting for someone to say that?
But that aside, it should still be deleted. There's a good reason to require a significant amount of independent sourcing. First-party sources may be biased, promotional, inaccurate, incomplete, technically correct but deliberately misleading, or any combination of the above. Good secondary sources check for those things, cross-check one another, aren't interested in promoting the subject, and look for non-obvious details. When we've got quite a few reliable, secondary sources on something, we can be pretty sure we've got a good, complete picture of it. And that's how we build neutral, verifiable articles without using original research.
That, is why we do and should require such sourcing.
On 5/15/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
But that aside, it should still be deleted. There's a good reason to require a significant amount of independent sourcing. First-party sources may be biased, promotional, inaccurate, incomplete, technically correct but deliberately misleading, or any combination of the above.
They may be. And they may not. And by providing an alternative to bare-faced first-party sources, we are doing the world a favour.
Steve
On May 14, 2007, at 11:35 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
But that aside, it should still be deleted. There's a good reason to require a significant amount of independent sourcing. First-party sources may be biased, promotional, inaccurate, incomplete, technically correct but deliberately misleading, or any combination of the above. Good secondary sources check for those things, cross-check one another, aren't interested in promoting the subject, and look for non-obvious details. When we've got quite a few reliable, secondary sources on something, we can be pretty sure we've got a good, complete picture of it. And that's how we build neutral, verifiable articles without using original research.
But the standard for inclusion of information is not multiple independent sources. It's a single reliable source. What is different about including this material on an overall list of ski fields in New Zealand and including it in its own article?
-Phil
On 5/15/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/14/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Hm, if that's really an opinion and not a fact, just attribute it to the resort, i.e. "The resort's management claims it is only accessible by helicopter". And really, the issue of content is different from the
topic -
how does this make it impossible to write a neutral article about the resort?
Because we then don't have any sources for any of the alternative opinions. Thus the article is presenting only one POV.
We work with what our sources have. I have not heard of any articles being deleted because only one point of view was presented in all the existent sources. That is sort of like saying we should delete [[Malaysia]] because we don't have sources to counter the assertion that Malaysia is a federal state.
Johnleemk
On 5/14/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
We work with what our sources have. I have not heard of any articles being deleted because only one point of view was presented in all the existent sources. That is sort of like saying we should delete [[Malaysia]] because we don't have sources to counter the assertion that Malaysia is a federal state.
Anyone reading this and the encyclopedia get the sense that sourcing/alternative POV obsessions are starting to reach the [[Adrian Monk]] level of anal retentivness?
What harm comes from a 1-3 sentence stub about a chalet on a hill in remote New Zealand? The idea that it's advertising is absurd. If someone is going to Google Invincible Snowfield or whatever, we're not exactly *helping* their Google Rank anymore, remember? Hint: nofollow.
Inherently, all things will over time increase in notability. If not today, tomorrow, or next month, or next year. No harm comes from a non-controversial stub in the meanwhile. It could be a stub till 2009, or next week some avid NZ skiier could swoop in with a page of sources and build it to FA. Or, it could maybe expand to a decent paragraph in time. Either way, does it honestly HURT anything?
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
Anyone reading this and the encyclopedia get the sense that sourcing/alternative POV obsessions are starting to reach the [[Adrian Monk]] level of anal retentivness?
Hear hear. I do gain one solace from these ridiculous nitpicky debates, though. The huge effort expended over the removal of this one little tidbit of useful information means that enough attention is diverted from "monitoring" Wikipedia for dozens or hundreds more to make it in in the interim.
We salute your noble sacrifice, [[Invincible Snowfields]]. You won't be deleted in vain.
On 15/05/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
Anyone reading this and the encyclopedia get the sense that sourcing/alternative POV obsessions are starting to reach the [[Adrian Monk]] level of anal retentivness?
Hear hear. I do gain one solace from these ridiculous nitpicky debates, though. The huge effort expended over the removal of this one little tidbit of useful information means that enough attention is diverted from "monitoring" Wikipedia for dozens or hundreds more to make it in in the interim.
Not to mention the time spent on the inevitable review if some admin peversely closes the AFD as "Delete"...
On Mon, 14 May 2007, geni wrote:
Hm, if that's really an opinion and not a fact, just attribute it to the resort, i.e. "The resort's management claims it is only accessible by helicopter". And really, the issue of content is different from the topic - how does this make it impossible to write a neutral article about the resort?
Because we then don't have any sources for any of the alternative opinions. Thus the article is presenting only one POV.
If the article said that the resort is X acres, would we need to present an alternative opinion stating that the number of acres is other than X?
On May 14, 2007, at 8:48 AM, geni wrote:
On 5/14/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
What harm is done by keeping [[Invincible Snowfields]]?
Not NPOV. What is this accessible only by helicopter thing? Is it surrounded by a military base or something?
Have you ever, ummm, looked at a map of New Zealand? There are indeed places that are accessible only by helicopter. It has little to do with military bases, and much to do with geography.
How is this related to NPOV?
-Phil
Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
What harm is done by keeping [[Invincible Snowfields]]? What does keeping it cause that is bad?
Bad precedent regarding inclusion of companies.
A "privately owned skifield" is essentially a company.
Regards, Peter
On 14/05/07, Peter Jacobi peter_jacobi@gmx.net wrote:
Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
What harm is done by keeping [[Invincible Snowfields]]? What does keeping it cause that is bad?
Bad precedent regarding inclusion of companies.
A "privately owned skifield" is essentially a company.
So is [[Microsoft]].
A "privately owned skifield" is essentially a company.
So is [[Microsoft]].
Ahem.
Deliberate misunderstanding of the problem doesn't solve it.
And so is [[Alpenhotel Oberjoch]] and about some ten millions other hotels. Most, even the smallest, companies in tourism have some secondary source at hand (e.g. the web site of the town, they are located in), so that by literal reading of the guidelines, they are includable.
Regards, Peter
On 5/15/07, Peter Jacobi peter_jacobi@gmx.net wrote:
A "privately owned skifield" is essentially a company.
So is [[Microsoft]].
Ahem.
Deliberate misunderstanding of the problem doesn't solve it.
And so is [[Alpenhotel Oberjoch]] and about some ten millions other hotels. Most, even the smallest, companies in tourism have some secondary source at hand (e.g. the web site of the town, they are located in), so that by literal reading of the guidelines, they are includable.
Regards, Peter
And the problem with this is...???
Johnleemk
"John Lee" johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
And so is [[Alpenhotel Oberjoch]] and about some ten millions other hotels. Most, even the smallest, companies in tourism have some secondary source at hand (e.g. the web site of the town, they are located in), so that by literal reading of the guidelines, they are includable.
And the problem with this is...???
Wasting human and material rersources for something which isn't our core business. I'm really baffled, that while arguing about WP:NPOV and and WP:V and WP:whatever, it is sometimes forgotten, that the project started with the mission to write an encyclopedia.
Regarding the argument to have zillions of articles in [[:Category:Bed and breakfasts in London]] and the like, doesn't disturb more "traditional" articles, just look how it dilutes our efforts of quality assurance.
There exists something where every fact, non-fact and opinion can be freely presented, it's called the WWW and you buy your server space yourself there.
Peter
On 5/15/07, Peter Jacobi peter_jacobi@gmx.net wrote:
"John Lee" johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
And so is [[Alpenhotel Oberjoch]] and about some ten millions other hotels. Most, even the smallest, companies in tourism have some secondary source at hand (e.g. the web site of the town, they are located in), so that by literal reading of the guidelines, they are includable.
And the problem with this is...???
Wasting human and material rersources for something which isn't our core business.
This zero-sum thinking ignores the fact that we're a volunteer project. Most volunteers in these areas would probably not do any other work anyway. The worst that could happen is that our stub categorisers, etc. waste a little more time - which is not a problem in the big scheme of things.
I'm really baffled, that while
arguing about WP:NPOV and and WP:V and WP:whatever, it is sometimes forgotten, that the project started with the mission to write an encyclopedia.
Er, yes, and being a tertiary source, is it a problem if we have articles on topics with existent secondary sources? The concept of notability is not relevant any more because we have finally been able to whittle the problem down to one of verifiability. If you can write a verifiable article on something, why not do it? An encyclopaedia should have information on anything where there are already existent secondary sources.
Regarding the argument to have zillions of articles
in [[:Category:Bed and breakfasts in London]] and the like, doesn't disturb more "traditional" articles, just look how it dilutes our efforts of quality assurance.
This immediatist thinking won't fly outside the problem of living people. I see no problem with stubs on everything with existent secondary sources - the exception of course being biographies of living people, since these types of articles have very troubling consequences if poorly maintained. With almost everything else, the cost of slightly less than par quality articles is very small.
There exists something where every fact, non-fact and
opinion can be freely presented, it's called the WWW and you buy your server space yourself there.
We're supposed to be a compendium of published human knowledge, so this sort of simplistic approach to notability isn't really conforming to our policies.
Peter
Johnleemk
On 5/15/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Er, yes, and being a tertiary source, is it a problem if we have articles on topics with existent secondary sources? The concept of notability is not relevant any more because we have finally been able to whittle the problem down to one of verifiability. If you can write a verifiable article on something, why not do it? An encyclopaedia should have information on anything where there are already existent secondary sources.
Well it would be if they were perfectly able to contain ad, copyvios and libel.
On 5/15/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
And the problem with this is...???
Cost/benefit. The cost in terms of trying to maintain the darn things would exceed our resources and outweigh any benefit by at least an order of magnitude.
On 5/15/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Cost/benefit. The cost in terms of trying to maintain the darn things would exceed our resources and outweigh any benefit by at least an order of magnitude.
Absolutely. This is by far the most compelling reason to draw a line somewhere. Whether we're an "encyclopaedia" and what that means doesn't actually matter much. But if it's too much effort for too little benefit to have some crappy little article on some crappy topic, then we shouldn't do it.
Conversely, having comprehensive coverage of a topic area is a big benefit compared to the small cost of one or two crappy articles that otherwise wouldn't belong.
Steve
I believe that horse has pretty much left the barn, hasn't it? We've got companies all over the wiki.
Philippe ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Jacobi To: English Wikipedia Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 5:03 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability on the skfields
Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
What harm is done by keeping [[Invincible Snowfields]]? What does keeping it cause that is bad?
Bad precedent regarding inclusion of companies.
A "privately owned skifield" is essentially a company.
Regards, Peter
-- Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kanns mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/15/07, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
I believe that horse has pretty much left the barn, hasn't it? We've got companies all over the wiki.
If anything, we have a massive shortage of company-related articles. According to Geoffrey Kohs (of WikiBiz fame), the large majority of Fortune 500 companies don't even have Wikipedia articles.
Many people seem to be biased against articles on for-profit businesses. That's the real POV we should be trying to correct.
Steve
On 5/14/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/15/07, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
I believe that horse has pretty much left the barn, hasn't it? We've
got companies all over the wiki.
If anything, we have a massive shortage of company-related articles. According to Geoffrey Kohs (of WikiBiz fame), the large majority of Fortune 500 companies don't even have Wikipedia articles.
Many people seem to be biased against articles on for-profit businesses. That's the real POV we should be trying to correct.
I find the "large majority" idea quite improbable, so I just went through and checked numbers 401-500 of the 2007 Fortune 500 list. In only 3 cases could I not find an article about the company at all - Reliance Steel, Liz Claiborne Inc. (redirects to a biography of Liz Claiborne), and Aleris International. There were quite a few that were quite short (I counted 19 very short articles, by a totally subjective measure).
Note that we have the article [[Fortune 1000]], which shows blue links for all 500 on the 2006 list but is somewhat unreliable for this metric since a number of the company names actually point to common words rather than articles about the company. But it does show pretty conclusively that we do heavily cover the (American) Fortune 500 companies.
-- Jonel
Nick Wilkins wrote:
On 5/14/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/15/07, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
I believe that horse has pretty much left the barn, hasn't it? We've
got companies all over the wiki.
If anything, we have a massive shortage of company-related articles. According to Geoffrey Kohs (of WikiBiz fame), the large majority of Fortune 500 companies don't even have Wikipedia articles.
Many people seem to be biased against articles on for-profit businesses. That's the real POV we should be trying to correct.
I find the "large majority" idea quite improbable, so I just went through and checked numbers 401-500 of the 2007 Fortune 500 list. In only 3 cases could I not find an article about the company at all - Reliance Steel, Liz Claiborne Inc. (redirects to a biography of Liz Claiborne), and Aleris International. There were quite a few that were quite short (I counted 19 very short articles, by a totally subjective measure).
Note that we have the article [[Fortune 1000]], which shows blue links for all 500 on the 2006 list but is somewhat unreliable for this metric since a number of the company names actually point to common words rather than articles about the company. But it does show pretty conclusively that we do heavily cover the (American) Fortune 500 companies.
-- Jonel _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I don't see any tremendous bias against for-profit businesses, but since that's an area in which we're extremely likely to get spam (and much of it is of the subtle PR whitewash type rather than the blatant "BUY OUR STUFF TODAY!" variety), it's something we -should- monitor very carefully. It's not just for-profits, either, I've certainly seen nonprofits do their share of spamming. ("Donate to Good Cause Charity today!" is just as much spam as "Buy a Brand X Widget today!" is!)
On 5/15/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
Note that we have the article [[Fortune 1000]], which shows blue links for all 500 on the 2006 list but is somewhat unreliable for this metric since a number of the company names actually point to common words rather than articles about the company. But it does show pretty conclusively that we do heavily cover the (American) Fortune 500 companies.
Oh, cool. I'm glad I (mis-*)sourced my information :)
Steve * Sorry, Gregory.
On May 14, 2007, at 3:03 PM, Peter Jacobi wrote:
Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
What harm is done by keeping [[Invincible Snowfields]]? What does keeping it cause that is bad?
Bad precedent regarding inclusion of companies.
Explain.
-Phil
On 5/14/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Of course not, but this has little bearing on ski resorts. They are
unlikely
to want to promote the place as MySpace bands do
False. Most myspace bands are not in a position to make significant amounts of money ski resorts are.
and since it existed longer than any MySpace band and in all likelyhood had a much larger audience,
The same could be said for rather a lot of trees what of it?
People don't usually set out to visit specific trees. It's like comparing apples and oranges. I'm talking about cold statistics of visitor numbers like the ones you can count at any amusement park or concert.
I'd
say the ski resort has the edge. Also, arbitrary cut off points can be useful, but not if they kill the comprehensiveness of a list of all the
X's
in a country.
Haveing a comprehensive list is not a reason to include an article on every item.
But it is verifiable it exists and it is not violating any advertising rules or anything. We don't call a village non-notable for being small, so why is this any different?
Mgm
On 5/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
People don't usually set out to visit specific trees. It's like comparing apples and oranges. I'm talking about cold statistics of visitor numbers like the ones you can count at any amusement park or concert.
Most concerts do not rate articles.
But it is verifiable it exists and it is not violating any advertising rules or anything. We don't call a village non-notable for being small, so why is this any different?
Even the smallest villagewill rack up a lot of media coverage over the decades. Enought to be able to write a NPOV article not just a toned down version of marketing stuff.
On Sat, 12 May 2007 05:22:52 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I've yet to have it understandably explained to me why arbitrary notability bars are good for the reader typing a term into the search box, and why nothing is better than something (verifiable).
See [[User:Uncle G/On notability]] for a comprehensive answer to that question.
Guy (JzG)
On 12/05/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2007 05:22:52 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I've yet to have it understandably explained to me why arbitrary notability bars are good for the reader typing a term into the search box, and why nothing is better than something (verifiable).
See [[User:Uncle G/On notability]] for a comprehensive answer to that question.
See, that doesn't actually answer the question I asked - it just says "WRONG QUESTION!"
- d.
On May 12, 2007, at 5:22 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 12/05/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
See [[User:Uncle G/On notability]] for a comprehensive answer to that question.
See, that doesn't actually answer the question I asked - it just says "WRONG QUESTION!"
Though I appreciated the link, if only because it made me see one of the weirdest things about the current notability guidelines. By relying on multiple independent sources, they essentially establish a higher verifiability threshold for article topics than article content. In other words, nothing whatsoever prevents inclusion of this ski field on a list of NZ ski fields - that's verifiable information. But something now has to be super-verifiable to be an article topic.
What is gained by creating this second class of verifiability? Why do article topics need to be super-verified? Or, more specifically, why is normal, garden-variety verifiability not good enough for article topics? And if it's not good enough for article topics, why is it good enough for your garden variety information?
-Phil
Though I appreciated the link, if only because it made me see one of the weirdest things about the current notability guidelines. By relying on multiple independent sources, they essentially establish a higher verifiability threshold for article topics than article content. In other words, nothing whatsoever prevents inclusion of this ski field on a list of NZ ski fields - that's verifiable information. But something now has to be super-verifiable to be an article topic.
What is gained by creating this second class of verifiability? Why do article topics need to be super-verified? Or, more specifically, why is normal, garden-variety verifiability not good enough for article topics? And if it's not good enough for article topics, why is it good enough for your garden variety information?
Regardless of what you call it, it is perfectly obvious that the threshold for including something in an article should be lower than the threshold for giving something its own article. The alternative would result in Wikipedia being a website containing billions is interlinked stubs with nothing else since as soon as anything was deemed worthy of getting added to an article it would be split of into its own article.
On Saturday 12 May 2007 11:32, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Regardless of what you call it, it is perfectly obvious that the threshold for including something in an article should be lower than the threshold for giving something its own article.
No, it's not. It's not obvious at all.
The alternative would result in Wikipedia being a website containing billions is interlinked stubs with nothing else since as soon as anything was deemed worthy of getting added to an article it would be split of into its own article.
(1) Not necessarily (2) Even if it did happen, you seem to think it's a bad thing. Why?
On 12/05/07, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Saturday 12 May 2007 11:32, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Regardless of what you call it, it is perfectly obvious that the threshold for including something in an article should be lower than the threshold for giving something its own article.
No, it's not. It's not obvious at all.
The alternative would result in Wikipedia being a website containing billions is interlinked stubs with nothing else since as soon as anything was deemed worthy of getting added to an article it would be split of into its own article.
(1) Not necessarily (2) Even if it did happen, you seem to think it's a bad thing. Why?
1) Would you care to give a reason for your disagreement? 2) Every Wikipedia article being one sentence long is a bad thing. I'm not going to waste time explaining why - that really is obvious.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
What is gained by creating this second class of verifiability? Why do article topics need to be super-verified? Or, more specifically, why is normal, garden-variety verifiability not good enough for article topics? And if it's not good enough for article topics, why is it good enough for your garden variety information?
Regardless of what you call it, it is perfectly obvious that the threshold for including something in an article should be lower than the threshold for giving something its own article. The alternative would result in Wikipedia being a website containing billions is interlinked stubs with nothing else since as soon as anything was deemed worthy of getting added to an article it would be split of into its own article.
Sure, but when something falls in that intermediate range between the two levels we have an argument for merger, and clearly not for deletion.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
What is gained by creating this second class of verifiability? Why do article topics need to be super-verified? Or, more specifically, why is normal, garden-variety verifiability not good enough for article topics? And if it's not good enough for article topics, why is it good enough for your garden variety information?
Regardless of what you call it, it is perfectly obvious that the threshold for including something in an article should be lower than the threshold for giving something its own article. The alternative would result in Wikipedia being a website containing billions is interlinked stubs with nothing else since as soon as anything was deemed worthy of getting added to an article it would be split of into its own article.
Sure, but when something falls in that intermediate range between the two levels we have an argument for merger, and clearly not for deletion.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Merging is generally a much better option. "Fails notability" doesn't necessarily mean "must be immediately deleted and salted", if an appropriate parent topic or combination topic exists.
On 5/13/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Regardless of what you call it, it is perfectly obvious that the threshold for including something in an article should be lower than the threshold for giving something its own article. The alternative would result in Wikipedia being a website containing billions is interlinked stubs with nothing else since as soon as anything was deemed worthy of getting added to an article it would be split of into its own article.
This is not obvious to me. Nor is it logical. Your argument is essentially: a) We would allow articles to be started on any topic with verifiable information b) Therefore that would happen immediately, to the greatest possible extent, with no regard for common sense, and our existing processes of merging and splitting for reasons other than "notability" would cease to exist.
Some extremely concrete topics would be good candidates for permastubs. Little known monks of the 13th century about whom we have sketchy information would be much better as a short article, than as some paragraph in [[Little-known 13th century monks]]. OTOH, some concept which is very obviously part of a greater whole would remain as part of that greater article. Why don't we have an article on [[4 of clubs]]? Because it makes more *sense* as part of [[Playing cards]].
Steve
On May 12, 2007, at 9:32 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Regardless of what you call it, it is perfectly obvious that the threshold for including something in an article should be lower than the threshold for giving something its own article. The alternative would result in Wikipedia being a website containing billions is interlinked stubs with nothing else since as soon as anything was deemed worthy of getting added to an article it would be split of into its own article.
I, at least, have little problem with the same information being presented on multiple pages. Nobody, to my knowledge, is presently advocating deletion of [[List of New Zealand ski fields]]. But if I type "Invincible Snowfields" into my search box, why should I be taken to an article on all the New Zealand ski fields? Even if there's not much information at [[Invincible Snowfields]], if that's the only thing I want information on, what is hurt by giving me that information instead of a list of all of the ski fields in New Zealand?
Seeing as most modern web-browsers have a copy-paste function, there does not seem to me to be a persuasive reason why information cannot be presented in multiple articles. And before somebody attacks this claim with the example of redirects, let me point out that redirects are sensible when there are multiple titles an article could reasonably go by. The issue there is that [[Chairman Mao]] and [[Mao Tse Tung]] should be the exact same article. But [[Invincible Snowfields]] and [[List of New Zealand ski fields]] do not have that same sort of 1:1 correspondence. Nor is it clear that Invincible Snowfields is a subtopic of a *list* of ski fields. They are reasonably distinct topics. So what is the harm, exactly, in keeping them separate? And, specifically, how does this harm relate sensibly to the standard of verifiability? (i.e. why is the best way of redressing this harm to create a second tier of verifiability for article topics)
-Phil
I, at least, have little problem with the same information being presented on multiple pages.
The problem with redundancy is primarily one of maintenance. If the information is in two places, there are two places that need to be updated when something changes. It can be worth it in some situations, so it might be worth having a borderline notable topic discussed both in a parent article and its own article, but with low notability topics it's not worth it.
On 5/14/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I, at least, have little problem with the same information being presented on multiple pages. Nobody, to my knowledge, is presently advocating deletion of [[List of New Zealand ski fields]]. But if I type "Invincible Snowfields" into my search box, why should I be taken to an article on all the New Zealand ski fields? Even if there's not much information at [[Invincible Snowfields]], if that's the only thing I want information on, what is hurt by giving me that information instead of a list of all of the ski fields in New Zealand?
What would this hypothetical merge into [[List of New Zealand ski fields]] look like anyway?
-- ... =====Otago===== *[[Coronet Peak]] *Invincible Snowfields is a private ski resort near [[Glenorchy, New Zealand|Glenorchy]] in the [[South Island]] of [[New Zealand]]. Accessible only by helicopter, it has a single ski tow, and no groomed trails. **External links ***[http://www.invincible.co.nz/ Official website] ***[http://www.theskimag.com/news/200410151483.htm The SKImag mini-review] *[[The Remarkables, New Zealand|The Remarkables]] *[[Round Hill, New Zealand|Round Hill]] *Around Wanaka **[[Cardrona Alpine Resort]] **[[Treble Cone]] **[[Snow Park, New Zealand|Snow Park]] **[[Snow Farm, New Zealand|Snow Farm]] (cross-country skiing only) --
Weird.
Steve
On 5/12/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On May 12, 2007, at 5:22 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 12/05/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
See [[User:Uncle G/On notability]] for a comprehensive answer to that question.
See, that doesn't actually answer the question I asked - it just says "WRONG QUESTION!"
Though I appreciated the link, if only because it made me see one of the weirdest things about the current notability guidelines. By relying on multiple independent sources, they essentially establish a higher verifiability threshold for article topics than article content. In other words, nothing whatsoever prevents inclusion of this ski field on a list of NZ ski fields - that's verifiable information. But something now has to be super-verifiable to be an article topic.
What is gained by creating this second class of verifiability? Why do article topics need to be super-verified? Or, more specifically, why is normal, garden-variety verifiability not good enough for article topics? And if it's not good enough for article topics, why is it good enough for your garden variety information?
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Context. It's the same reason we prohibit POV forks, but might perfectly well allow the same information from the POV fork in a comprehensive article that presents all sides. If all there is to be said about something is "It exists", and some very basic information about it, we should present it in the context of a more comprehensive article, not by itself.
Even in the same general subject area:
A/ Notability is a property of the topic B/ The judgement about notability depends on the availability of suitable sources C/ The presence of adequate sources about a particular individual subject depends to a considerable extent on how carefully the article is researched and written. D/ How carefully the article is done depends upon the skills and degree of involvement of the particular editors who are interested
E/ Notability has to be proven at AfD with a presumption against it. F/ How well the notability can be defended depends not only upon the underlying evidence, but upon the relative number and quality of the arguments between the defenders and the attackers G/ The judgment depends upon the numbers, skills, and degree of concern of the editors, both positive and negative, for the individual particular subject.
The inevitable result of this is that the presence of articles on people or places of essentially equal importance will not be consistent.
For example, the available sources for the ski resort being discussed are apparently more than is presently within the article (based on the above postings), but the article was not written to incorporate them.(& has not even incorporated them under the threat of AfD.) At the same time, several ski resorts near Washington DC have also been challenged, and the articles will almost certainly stay, due in large part to the presence at AfD of people who are familiar with the resorts.
DGG David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
On 12/05/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
For example, the available sources for the ski resort being discussed are apparently more than is presently within the article (based on the above postings), but the article was not written to incorporate them.(& has not even incorporated them under the threat of AfD.)
The attitude "why spend time working on the article if it's just going to be deleted anyway?" is quite understandable.
At the same time, several ski resorts near Washington DC have also been challenged, and the articles will almost certainly stay, due in large part to the presence at AfD of people who are familiar with the resorts.
Just another example of the intrinsic bias within the project towards United States-related topics...
James Farrar wrote:
On 12/05/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
For example, the available sources for the ski resort being discussed are apparently more than is presently within the article (based on the above postings), but the article was not written to incorporate them.(& has not even incorporated them under the threat of AfD.)
The attitude "why spend time working on the article if it's just going to be deleted anyway?" is quite understandable.
At the same time, several ski resorts near Washington DC have also been challenged, and the articles will almost certainly stay, due in large part to the presence at AfD of people who are familiar with the resorts.
Just another example of the intrinsic bias within the project towards United States-related topics...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And another great reason to flat ignore ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT/IHEARDOFIT/NEVERHEARDOFIT when closing AfDs.
On May 12, 2007, at 10:02 AM, Todd Allen wrote:
Context. It's the same reason we prohibit POV forks, but might perfectly well allow the same information from the POV fork in a comprehensive article that presents all sides. If all there is to be said about something is "It exists", and some very basic information about it, we should present it in the context of a more comprehensive article, not by itself.
Why? The reason we don't allow POV forks is straightforward - a POV fork, by its nature, is an attempt to end-run NPOV. The problem with them is that they are intended to be POV - and they do the job masterfully. The archetypal example of what is wrong with POV forks remains the festival of original research at [[2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities]] and its ten sub-articles.
No comparable problem exists with a stub on a minor New Zealand ski- field. Yes, the information can (and should) be contained in other articles. But if somebody types the name of the ski field into their search box, there's no reason to dump them at [[List of New Zealand ski fields]]. They want information on that specific topic, and to date nobody has given a persuasive reason why they should be redirected elsewhere.
-Phil
On 5/11/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Just because people talkin' 'bout notability, doesn't mean they have a useful definition. But a 'private ski resort'? What does that even mean?
I'm not sure. There are definitely "public ski areas" in the world, places owned by the government that allow anyone to ski, pretty much like a park. But virtually every other ski resort is owned by a corporation of some kind as far as I know. I'm not sure whether the [[club skifield]]s in New Zealand would be considered "private" - they're owned and run by non-profit organisations. Still private, I guess.
I was thinking about this issue a little more, and realised that the idea of a "non notable ski resort" is, frankly, stupid. Why do we not want articles on non-notable garage bands? Because an encyclopaedia that had an entry on every single band ever formed would not be particularly interesting or valuable, compared to one that had an entry on every band of some notability.
But an encyclopaedia with an entry on every single ski area in the world? That would be great. There's just no reason to avoid entries on minor ski resorts. There can't be an infinite number of them, as there's a finite amount of skiable terrain in the world (ignoring ski resorts in Dubai, Adelaide etc.) Just as we have articles on even the least notable US presidents, it makes sense to have articles on even the least notable ski resorts, because all ski resorts are inherently interesting enough to warrant an article. IMHO.
In summary: Invincible Skifields is the least notable skifield in New Zealand, and is worth an article anyway.
Steve
On Friday 11 May 2007 22:40, Steve Bennett wrote:
Because an encyclopaedia that had an entry on every single band ever formed would not be particularly interesting or valuable, compared to one that had an entry on every band of some notability.
How does having more information make an encyclopedia less valuable?
That's patently insane.
On 5/12/07, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Friday 11 May 2007 22:40, Steve Bennett wrote:
Because an encyclopaedia that had an entry on every single band ever formed would not be particularly interesting or valuable, compared to one that had an entry on every band of some notability.
How does having more information make an encyclopedia less valuable?
That's patently insane.
When you have an article about every [[John Smith]] who has ever lived, finding the John Smiths who actually matter can be a tad difficult.
Johnleemk
John Lee wrote:
When you have an article about every [[John Smith]] who has ever lived, finding the John Smiths who actually matter can be a tad difficult.
Those would be the ones at the top of the list at [[John Smith (disambiguation)]]. We already have a mechanism for this.
Bryan Derksen schreef:
John Lee wrote:
When you have an article about every [[John Smith]] who has ever lived, finding the John Smiths who actually matter can be a tad difficult.
Those would be the ones at the top of the list at [[John Smith (disambiguation)]]. We already have a mechanism for this.
No, [[John Smith]] is categorized by occupation, not by notability. When there are perhaps 100 people on a disambiguation page, it is almost impossible to sort them by notability.
(There may not be 100 now, but there are a lot of pages in wikipedia linking directly to [[John Smith]], so I may have to add a lot of names to the list when I sort those links out.)
Eugene
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
Bryan Derksen schreef:
John Lee wrote:
When you have an article about every [[John Smith]] who has ever lived, finding the John Smiths who actually matter can be a tad difficult.
Those would be the ones at the top of the list at [[John Smith (disambiguation)]]. We already have a mechanism for this.
No, [[John Smith]] is categorized by occupation, not by notability. When there are perhaps 100 people on a disambiguation page, it is almost impossible to sort them by notability.
Yet it's possible to rate the articles for notability by some standard and delete the ones that fall short? Simply reorganize the page along the same lines, putting the ones you'd otherwise delete down at the bottom. Other disambiguation pages already list the most prominent examples first, eg [[Mars (disambiguation)]].
On 5/12/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
Bryan Derksen schreef:
John Lee wrote:
When you have an article about every [[John Smith]] who has ever lived, finding the John Smiths who actually matter can be a tad difficult.
Those would be the ones at the top of the list at [[John Smith (disambiguation)]]. We already have a mechanism for this.
No, [[John Smith]] is categorized by occupation, not by notability. When there are perhaps 100 people on a disambiguation page, it is almost impossible to sort them by notability.
Yet it's possible to rate the articles for notability by some standard and delete the ones that fall short? Simply reorganize the page along the same lines, putting the ones you'd otherwise delete down at the bottom. Other disambiguation pages already list the most prominent examples first, eg [[Mars (disambiguation)]].
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes, of course it's possible to do that. "Is there a significant amount of independent, reliable source material available on this subject, or is there not?" If there isn't, we run into several problems, and fails several core policies:
-Primary source only articles tend to irreparably fail NPOV. A band or company's own site will and should promote that band or company (why else would they have a site?) But if that's all that's out there, and we mirror that source (and we have to mirror sources, using our own interpretations would just shift the problem to NOR instead), we have nothing to print but marketing fluff. In that case, better to let their website or Myspace promote them, and say nothing at all until -someone else-, who's reliable and has no vested interest in promoting them, decides to say something about them.
-Primary source only articles fail V. "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
-Just accepting whatever gets thrown at us fails NOT. We're not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information. Using a bar, that -someone else- must have written about it in a decent amount of detail before we will, ensures that we stay true to those, and don't become an indiscriminate collection of trivia, factoids, or articles based on biased, promotional stuff if that's all that's out there on the subject.
Todd Allen wrote:
-Primary source only articles tend to irreparably fail NPOV.
This statement is remarkably shallow. Giving only the first side of the story does not imply NPOV. Amazing as it may seem to some, there is no obligation that every concept presented must have a disputable side. As Freud is reputed to have said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
A band or company's own site will and should promote that band or company (why else would they have a site?)
Just because a company will and should do this does not in any way lead to the logical conclusion that this is an exclusive obligation of their web site. There is still much neutral information on a company's site. A list of products that it produces, the members of the board of directors, where its offices and branches are located, whether it has issued recalls on any of its products, historical data about the corporation, stock prices, ... There is no reason to believe that any of these is necessarily included for the sole purpose of promotion.
But if that's all that's out there, and we mirror that source (and we have to mirror sources, using our own interpretations would just shift the problem to NOR instead), we have nothing to print but marketing fluff.
Only if the corporate site is exclusively "marketing fluff".
In that case, better to let their website or Myspace promote them, and say nothing at all until -someone else-, who's reliable and has no vested interest in promoting them, decides to say something about them.
IOW if a company has issued a warning that one of its own products is dangerous, and nobody else has picked up we should not mention it because our rules are more important than protecting the public from risk.
-Primary source only articles fail V. "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
Sometimes. Julius Caesar may be the only source for some of the material in his "Gallic Wars". Your position implies that he should not be used as a reference, and that we should restrict ourselves to the misinterpretation of others.
-Just accepting whatever gets thrown at us fails NOT. We're not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information. Using a bar, that -someone else- must have written about it in a decent amount of detail before we will, ensures that we stay true to those, and don't become an indiscriminate collection of trivia, factoids, or articles based on biased, promotional stuff if that's all that's out there on the subject.
That should depend on the nature of the information, and its entire context. It requires judgement rather than reckless robotism.
Ec
Todd Allen wrote:
Yes, of course it's possible to do that. "Is there a significant amount of independent, reliable source material available on this subject, or is there not?" If there isn't, we run into several problems, and fails several core policies:
The only policy I'm taking issue with here is notability (which, I might add, is actually just a guideline). Material that violates core policies such as NPOV, NOR, etc. would still removable on that basis.
On 12/05/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
The only policy I'm taking issue with here is notability (which, I might add, is actually just a guideline). Material that violates core policies such as NPOV, NOR, etc. would still removable on that basis.
Indeed.
Can anyone actually derive Notability from neutrality, verifiability and no original research in elegant and obvious steps? Or work toward this?
(For a previous example, our living bios policy is workable primarily because it is just those three rules hammered home, with extra emphasis on the verifiability.)
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 12/05/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
The only policy I'm taking issue with here is notability (which, I might add, is actually just a guideline). Material that violates core policies such as NPOV, NOR, etc. would still removable on that basis.
Indeed.
Can anyone actually derive Notability from neutrality, verifiability and no original research in elegant and obvious steps? Or work toward this?
(For a previous example, our living bios policy is workable primarily because it is just those three rules hammered home, with extra emphasis on the verifiability.)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well, let's take a stab here.
1. V indicates that "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." There is, then, in core policy, a clear differentiation between first-party and third-party sourcing. 2. From NPOV: "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias." If the only source we have is first-party, the article will be inherently biased, as it is nearly impossible to write fairly and neutrally about oneself. 3. From NOR, we cannot use our own perception or viewpoint to "correct" a source. 4. From NOT, we're not an indiscriminate collection of information. If this only meant we don't accept unverifiable information, it would be redundant to V. If it only meant we don't accept original research, redundant to NOR. If it only meant we don't allow insertion of bias, it would be redundant to NPOV. If it only meant that we don't accept dicdefs, personal webpages, etc., it would be redundant to the rest of NOT. Since it is indeed there, it indicates we intend to discriminate beyond those principles. 5. From WP:CONSENSUS, it's pretty evident, by the fact that we have been deleting articles on the grounds of lack of notability for quite some time, there is consensus to do so. (Of course, consensus can change, but more such articles will be deleted today, and more after that tomorrow.)
To sum up: We need independent and reliable sources on a subject so that information is -verified- and -neutral-, and so that we need not use -original research- to interpret that ourselves. We're -not- an indiscriminate collection information, and we've generally demonstrated -consensus- to delete articles which do not meet these criteria.
How's that?
On 12/05/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
- From NOT, we're not an indiscriminate collection of information. If
this only meant we don't accept unverifiable information, it would be redundant to V. If it only meant we don't accept original research, redundant to NOR. If it only meant we don't allow insertion of bias, it would be redundant to NPOV. If it only meant that we don't accept dicdefs, personal webpages, etc., it would be redundant to the rest of NOT. Since it is indeed there, it indicates we intend to discriminate beyond those principles.
That's the arse-backwards bit: NOT implies we *can*, not that we *have to*, and it's not a fundamental the way the other three are.
- From WP:CONSENSUS, it's pretty evident, by the fact that we have been
deleting articles on the grounds of lack of notability for quite some time, there is consensus to do so. (Of course, consensus can change, but more such articles will be deleted today, and more after that tomorrow.)
The strong objections remain, however, so this one is also questionable.
To sum up: We need independent and reliable sources on a subject so that information is -verified- and -neutral-, and so that we need not use -original research- to interpret that ourselves. We're -not- an indiscriminate collection information, and we've generally demonstrated -consensus- to delete articles which do not meet these criteria.
First sentence good, second sentence bad. What's the result of leaving the second sentence off?
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 12/05/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
- From NOT, we're not an indiscriminate collection of information. If
this only meant we don't accept unverifiable information, it would be redundant to V. If it only meant we don't accept original research, redundant to NOR. If it only meant we don't allow insertion of bias, it would be redundant to NPOV. If it only meant that we don't accept dicdefs, personal webpages, etc., it would be redundant to the rest of NOT. Since it is indeed there, it indicates we intend to discriminate beyond those principles.
That's the arse-backwards bit: NOT implies we *can*, not that we *have to*, and it's not a fundamental the way the other three are.
- From WP:CONSENSUS, it's pretty evident, by the fact that we have been
deleting articles on the grounds of lack of notability for quite some time, there is consensus to do so. (Of course, consensus can change, but more such articles will be deleted today, and more after that tomorrow.)
The strong objections remain, however, so this one is also questionable.
To sum up: We need independent and reliable sources on a subject so that information is -verified- and -neutral-, and so that we need not use -original research- to interpret that ourselves. We're -not- an indiscriminate collection information, and we've generally demonstrated -consensus- to delete articles which do not meet these criteria.
First sentence good, second sentence bad. What's the result of leaving the second sentence off?
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Actually, really nothing. If you like the first sentence, I think it would stand on its own.
On 12/05/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
To sum up: We need independent and reliable sources on a subject so that information is -verified- and -neutral-, and so that we need not use -original research- to interpret that ourselves. We're -not- an indiscriminate collection information, and we've generally demonstrated -consensus- to delete articles which do not meet these criteria.
Actually, really nothing. If you like the first sentence, I think it would stand on its own.
I'd say "verifiable" instead, as that's the verb of "verifiability" - which is subtly different, but important. Otherwise, excellent. Now how to get everyone else to think it's a good idea ...
- d.
On 13/05/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I'd say "verifiable" instead, as that's the verb of "verifiability" - which is subtly different, but important. Otherwise, excellent. Now how to get everyone else to think it's a good idea ...
I've put a take on this on the blag as well, for the blag-o-scape to tetch over:
http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/05/13/notability-for-deletion/
- d.
On Sat, 12 May 2007, Todd Allen wrote:
Can anyone actually derive Notability from neutrality, verifiability and no original research in elegant and obvious steps? Or work toward this?
Well, let's take a stab here. 2. From NPOV: "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias." If the only source we have is first-party, the article will be inherently biased, as it is nearly impossible to write fairly and neutrally about oneself.
etc.
This reminds me of why Sherlock Holmes deductions don't work in the real world. Holmes makes a plausible-sounding deduction that completely ignores the fact that each step is not 100% certain, and the uncertainty accumulates from step to step. If you string together ten steps, each of which is 90% certain, your result will be useless.
Each of your steps is true most of the time, but occasionally not true (you even had to admit it in the one quoted above, by adding the word "nearly"). The derivation won't work, for the same reason that Holmes won't work.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2007, Todd Allen wrote:
Can anyone actually derive Notability from neutrality, verifiability and no original research in elegant and obvious steps? Or work toward this?
Well, let's take a stab here. 2. From NPOV: "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias." If the only source we have is first-party, the article will be inherently biased, as it is nearly impossible to write fairly and neutrally about oneself.
etc.
This reminds me of why Sherlock Holmes deductions don't work in the real world. Holmes makes a plausible-sounding deduction that completely ignores the fact that each step is not 100% certain, and the uncertainty accumulates from step to step. If you string together ten steps, each of which is 90% certain, your result will be useless.
Each of your steps is true most of the time, but occasionally not true (you even had to admit it in the one quoted above, by adding the word "nearly"). The derivation won't work, for the same reason that Holmes won't work.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"It's damn near impossible to write objectively about yourself or something you have a vested interest in promoting" has a lot higher certainty than 90%. I'd put it somewhere around 99.999%, and even that's generous, that's saying 1 in 100,000 people could do it. And the other two are just logical deductions, there's no probability there.
On May 12, 2007, at 11:40 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
"It's damn near impossible to write objectively about yourself or something you have a vested interest in promoting" has a lot higher certainty than 90%. I'd put it somewhere around 99.999%, and even that's generous
{{fact}}
-Phil
Todd Allen wrote:
"It's damn near impossible to write objectively about yourself or something you have a vested interest in promoting" has a lot higher certainty than 90%. I'd put it somewhere around 99.999%, and even that's generous, that's saying 1 in 100,000 people could do it.
Highly implausible. Wikipedia has 4,300,000 registered accounts (probably fewer individual users since a lot might be sock puppets or throwaways, but this also doesn't count anons so call it an order of magnitude estimate). So you're suggesting that, on average, there have only ever been 43 registered users in the history of Wikipedia who have been capable of writing "objectively about themselves or something they have a vested interest in promoting?" That's _generous_? I think you've got an overly pessimistic view of our contributors and would like to know how you arrived at that figure.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Todd Allen wrote:
"It's damn near impossible to write objectively about yourself or something you have a vested interest in promoting" has a lot higher certainty than 90%. I'd put it somewhere around 99.999%, and even that's generous, that's saying 1 in 100,000 people could do it.
Highly implausible. Wikipedia has 4,300,000 registered accounts (probably fewer individual users since a lot might be sock puppets or throwaways, but this also doesn't count anons so call it an order of magnitude estimate). So you're suggesting that, on average, there have only ever been 43 registered users in the history of Wikipedia who have been capable of writing "objectively about themselves or something they have a vested interest in promoting?" That's _generous_? I think you've got an overly pessimistic view of our contributors and would like to know how you arrived at that figure.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
For one, we're talking about primary sources, not necessarily Wikipedia editors. If a (band/company/etc.) sets up a website, chances are that website will be specifically intended to promote them. I don't blame people for that-if I had a company and set up a website for it, you bet it would be promotional! But that information isn't accurate or complete. If you could get honest, unbiased, neutral information from companies, Consumer Reports wouldn't have a single subscriber, and the Better Business Bureau would be, well, out of business.
Aside from that, it's simple human nature, when describing oneself or something one has an interest in, to accentuate the good and gloss over the bad. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have a conflict of interest guideline. But that guideline, and indeed NPOV, are useless, if we're just going to use self-published sources without demanding independent verification.
So, like I said, I think 1 in 100,000 is conservative. I doubt one in a million people could write fairly in the presence of a conflict of interest, and much self-published material isn't even -intended- to be neutral, at that. (At the very least, the previous figure of 90%, presuming that 1 in 10 people can write neutrally and objectively on themself or something they have a vested interest in, is pretty unquestionably overly generous.) Even if we presume I'm pessimistic, and it's 1 in 10,000 or even 1 in 1,000, that makes it a totally unreliable source.
For that matter, presume 90% is right! If that's the case, 1 out of every 10 self-published sources is accurate and neutral. Well...I don't know about you, but I wouldn't consider a source that gets it wrong 9 out of 10 times to be reliable. Self-published sources are not, then, reliable verification (even by the 90% metric), and so articles that rely solely or mainly on them fail verifiability (and likely NPOV as well.) And I stand by my assertion that the reality is far less than 1 in 10.
Todd Allen wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Todd Allen wrote:
"It's damn near impossible to write objectively about yourself or something you have a vested interest in promoting" has a lot higher certainty than 90%. I'd put it somewhere around 99.999%, and even that's generous, that's saying 1 in 100,000 people could do it.
Highly implausible. Wikipedia has 4,300,000 registered accounts (probably fewer individual users since a lot might be sock puppets or throwaways, but this also doesn't count anons so call it an order of magnitude estimate). So you're suggesting that, on average, there have only ever been 43 registered users in the history of Wikipedia who have been capable of writing "objectively about themselves or something they have a vested interest in promoting?" That's _generous_? I think you've got an overly pessimistic view of our contributors and would like to know how you arrived at that figure.
For one, we're talking about primary sources, not necessarily Wikipedia editors. If a (band/company/etc.) sets up a website, chances are that website will be specifically intended to promote them. I don't blame people for that-if I had a company and set up a website for it, you bet it would be promotional! But that information isn't accurate or complete. If you could get honest, unbiased, neutral information from companies, Consumer Reports wouldn't have a single subscriber, and the Better Business Bureau would be, well, out of business.
Aside from that, it's simple human nature, when describing oneself or something one has an interest in, to accentuate the good and gloss over the bad. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have a conflict of interest guideline. But that guideline, and indeed NPOV, are useless, if we're just going to use self-published sources without demanding independent verification.
So, like I said, I think 1 in 100,000 is conservative. I doubt one in a million people could write fairly in the presence of a conflict of interest, and much self-published material isn't even -intended- to be neutral, at that. (At the very least, the previous figure of 90%, presuming that 1 in 10 people can write neutrally and objectively on themself or something they have a vested interest in, is pretty unquestionably overly generous.) Even if we presume I'm pessimistic, and it's 1 in 10,000 or even 1 in 1,000, that makes it a totally unreliable source.
For that matter, presume 90% is right! If that's the case, 1 out of every 10 self-published sources is accurate and neutral. Well...I don't know about you, but I wouldn't consider a source that gets it wrong 9 out of 10 times to be reliable. Self-published sources are not, then, reliable verification (even by the 90% metric), and so articles that rely solely or mainly on them fail verifiability (and likely NPOV as well.) And I stand by my assertion that the reality is far less than 1 in 10.
Time to go to bed before I start accusing you of wikilawyering an sophistry. :-)
Ec
You've presented no additional evidence or reasoning in response to my question, just repeated yourself and bumped your estimate down another order of magnitude to one in a million. So now there's only been about _four registered editors_ in the history of Wikipedia who you think could be objective about themselves.
This is simply silly, and hardly worth debating any more. You're just throwing random numbers around.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
You've presented no additional evidence or reasoning in response to my question, just repeated yourself and bumped your estimate down another order of magnitude to one in a million. So now there's only been about _four registered editors_ in the history of Wikipedia who you think could be objective about themselves.
This is simply silly, and hardly worth debating any more. You're just throwing random numbers around.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
As I stated-even if we accept that only 90% of people are incapable of writing neutrally about themselves, that's a pretty unreliable source. Would you cite a source in an article that's known to get it wrong 9 of 10 times?
On 5/13/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
As I stated-even if we accept that only 90% of people are incapable of writing neutrally about themselves, that's a pretty unreliable source. Would you cite a source in an article that's known to get it wrong 9 of 10 times?
Considering the crazy things I've seen in newspapers on any subject I actually know about, I'd say we already do, tens of thousands of times over.
-Kat
On 5/13/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
On 5/13/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
As I stated-even if we accept that only 90% of people are incapable of writing neutrally about themselves, that's a pretty unreliable source. Would you cite a source in an article that's known to get it wrong 9 of 10 times?
Considering the crazy things I've seen in newspapers on any subject I actually know about, I'd say we already do, tens of thousands of times over.
-Kat
Ah, sorry, misread as "get it right 9 or 10 times". Still... considering some articles I've read... ;-)
-Kat
Todd Allen wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2007, Todd Allen wrote:
Can anyone actually derive Notability from neutrality, verifiability and no original research in elegant and obvious steps? Or work toward this?
Well, let's take a stab here. 2. From NPOV: "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias." If the only source we have is first-party, the article will be inherently biased, as it is nearly impossible to write fairly and neutrally about oneself.
This reminds me of why Sherlock Holmes deductions don't work in the real world. Holmes makes a plausible-sounding deduction that completely ignores the fact that each step is not 100% certain, and the uncertainty accumulates from step to step. If you string together ten steps, each of which is 90% certain, your result will be useless.
Each of your steps is true most of the time, but occasionally not true (you even had to admit it in the one quoted above, by adding the word "nearly"). The derivation won't work, for the same reason that Holmes won't work.
"It's damn near impossible to write objectively about yourself or something you have a vested interest in promoting" has a lot higher certainty than 90%. I'd put it somewhere around 99.999%, and even that's generous, that's saying 1 in 100,000 people could do it. And the other two are just logical deductions, there's no probability there.
Just because you choose to make up this data does not make it true. Your comment is complete balderdash. Your figure of 99.999% is composed of wishful thinking and speculation. What you suggest implies that virtually no-one is capable of providing even the most routine data about himself (date of birth, schools attended, name of children, etc.) without pushing some point of view. Get real!
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Todd Allen wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2007, Todd Allen wrote:
Can anyone actually derive Notability from neutrality, verifiability and no original research in elegant and obvious steps? Or work toward this?
Well, let's take a stab here. 2. From NPOV: "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias." If the only source we have is first-party, the article will be inherently biased, as it is nearly impossible to write fairly and neutrally about oneself.
This reminds me of why Sherlock Holmes deductions don't work in the real world. Holmes makes a plausible-sounding deduction that completely ignores the fact that each step is not 100% certain, and the uncertainty accumulates
from step to step. If you string together ten steps, each of which is 90%
certain, your result will be useless.
Each of your steps is true most of the time, but occasionally not true (you even had to admit it in the one quoted above, by adding the word "nearly"). The derivation won't work, for the same reason that Holmes won't work.
"It's damn near impossible to write objectively about yourself or something you have a vested interest in promoting" has a lot higher certainty than 90%. I'd put it somewhere around 99.999%, and even that's generous, that's saying 1 in 100,000 people could do it. And the other two are just logical deductions, there's no probability there.
Just because you choose to make up this data does not make it true. Your comment is complete balderdash. Your figure of 99.999% is composed of wishful thinking and speculation. What you suggest implies that virtually no-one is capable of providing even the most routine data about himself (date of birth, schools attended, name of children, etc.) without pushing some point of view. Get real!
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Very well. Change it to "Provide anything but the most trivial factual information about oneself", and it stands. (And by the way, while I've never heard of anyone lying about their children's names, there are plenty of people that have gotten in trouble for lying about where they went to school, and a -ton- of people that lie about their age.)
On 5/13/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Very well. Change it to "Provide anything but the most trivial factual information about oneself", and it stands. (And by the way, while I've never heard of anyone lying about their children's names, there are plenty of people that have gotten in trouble for lying about where they went to school, and a -ton- of people that lie about their age.)
Indeed we have an article on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_fabrication
On 13/05/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
plenty of people that have gotten in trouble for lying about where they went to school, and a -ton- of people that lie about their age.)
The single most common specific OTRS complaint is "please correct my date of birth"... I can't offhand think of any who've asked us to correct which university they went to - at least, none where it might have been wishful puffery. (There have been a couple who wanted us to fix that we had them down as attending a prestigious university they didn't, but I don't remember any the other way around)
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 13/05/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
plenty of people that have gotten in trouble for lying about where they went to school, and a -ton- of people that lie about their age.)
The single most common specific OTRS complaint is "please correct my date of birth"... I can't offhand think of any who've asked us to correct which university they went to - at least, none where it might have been wishful puffery. (There have been a couple who wanted us to fix that we had them down as attending a prestigious university they didn't, but I don't remember any the other way around)
That actually illustrates the issue very well, though. If someone contacts you saying "Hey, correct my article, I have a PhD from Harvard!" do you just go make the edit, or do you request independent verification?
On 13/05/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 13/05/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
plenty of people that have gotten in trouble for lying about where they went to school, and a -ton- of people that lie about their age.)
The single most common specific OTRS complaint is "please correct my date of birth"... I can't offhand think of any who've asked us to correct which university they went to - at least, none where it might have been wishful puffery. (There have been a couple who wanted us to fix that we had them down as attending a prestigious university they didn't, but I don't remember any the other way around)
That actually illustrates the issue very well, though. If someone contacts you saying "Hey, correct my article, I have a PhD from Harvard!" do you just go make the edit, or do you request independent verification?
If it seems plausible and trivial, and doesn't disagree with any cited source in the page, I take their word for it and make the correction. If it seems unlikely, or it's significant - "you forgot to mention my time in Parliament", I try to check further.
If it directly contradicts an existing source, then I decide which one seems most likely to be true and proceed from there :-) Usually it's fairly easy to smell a whitewashing request...
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 13/05/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
plenty of people that have gotten in trouble for lying about where they went to school, and a -ton- of people that lie about their age.)
The single most common specific OTRS complaint is "please correct my date of birth"... I can't offhand think of any who've asked us to correct which university they went to - at least, none where it might have been wishful puffery. (There have been a couple who wanted us to fix that we had them down as attending a prestigious university they didn't, but I don't remember any the other way around)
In the absence of credible alternative information, one should begin from a position of assuming good faith on the part of these people when it comes to basic biographical data. Sometimes there will be controversies, but one should not assume that there is controversy. Otherwise reliable sources can make innocent mistakes, and those become copied by other reliable sources until the wrong information dominates the sources. By the time the subject notices the source of the original error may no longer exist, and nobody can determine where the idea came from.
In the extreme case the subject may be willing to fax us documentary proof of the facts, but since this is contrary to the claims of an overwhelming majority of "reliable" sources we find this proof unacceptable. I really would like to poot in a good word for good judgement, and being able to evaluate between some poor sap that's just trying to set the record straight and another that's trying to elevate his own reputation above reality. Inevitably, our judgement will be wrong about some of them, but probably less often than blind acceptance of "reliable" sources.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 13/05/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
plenty of people that have gotten in trouble for lying about where they went to school, and a -ton- of people that lie about their age.)
The single most common specific OTRS complaint is "please correct my date of birth"... I can't offhand think of any who've asked us to correct which university they went to - at least, none where it might have been wishful puffery. (There have been a couple who wanted us to fix that we had them down as attending a prestigious university they didn't, but I don't remember any the other way around)
In the absence of credible alternative information, one should begin from a position of assuming good faith on the part of these people when it comes to basic biographical data. Sometimes there will be controversies, but one should not assume that there is controversy. Otherwise reliable sources can make innocent mistakes, and those become copied by other reliable sources until the wrong information dominates the sources. By the time the subject notices the source of the original error may no longer exist, and nobody can determine where the idea came from.
In the extreme case the subject may be willing to fax us documentary proof of the facts, but since this is contrary to the claims of an overwhelming majority of "reliable" sources we find this proof unacceptable. I really would like to poot in a good word for good judgement, and being able to evaluate between some poor sap that's just trying to set the record straight and another that's trying to elevate his own reputation above reality. Inevitably, our judgement will be wrong about some of them, but probably less often than blind acceptance of "reliable" sources.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In that case, the subject would do better by both himself and us by -having the sources correct themselves-. Reputable sources will be willing to publish corrections if you can show them they're wrong. And in that case, all the erroneous material out there is corrected. Now, I'd have no problem with us simply refraining from mentioning the particular issue at all while the subject attempts to get it sorted. But we shouldn't just "take someone's word for it", especially if reliable sources specifically say otherwise. Have them get the sources to correct. They have a lot more involved fact-checking facilities then we do.
Todd Allen wrote:
In that case, the subject would do better by both himself and us by -having the sources correct themselves-. Reputable sources will be willing to publish corrections if you can show them they're wrong.
The case that amuses and frustrates me most along these lines is the [[Angela Beesley]] article. Initially, it had her date of birth sourced from her own statements - she explicitly posted it herself on a list of Wikipedians by birthday. That got taken out as an unreliable "autobiographical" reference. So someone went and actually checked the birth records of a hospital in her home town to confirm it. That got taken out as "original research", with one person even commenting that going to such lengths was something a crazed stalker might do. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. :)
On Sun, 13 May 2007, Todd Allen wrote:
In that case, the subject would do better by both himself and us by -having the sources correct themselves-. Reputable sources will be willing to publish corrections if you can show them they're wrong.
Really?
Does that mean that if the source refuses to publish a correction they aren't a reputable source any more and Wikipedia has to stop using it?
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sun, 13 May 2007, Todd Allen wrote:
In that case, the subject would do better by both himself and us by -having the sources correct themselves-. Reputable sources will be willing to publish corrections if you can show them they're wrong.
Really?
Does that mean that if the source refuses to publish a correction they aren't a reputable source any more and Wikipedia has to stop using it?
IIRC when Seigenthaler was maligned on Wikipedia the problem was fixed as soon as we were aware of it, but he had difficulty getting the attention of a site that had used the Wikipedia material.
When a "reputable" source receives information contrary to what they have already published fixing it is no easy task. They need to put someone to work investigating claims that may not have an easy answer. If the source is in a paper book publishing a new edition just to correct this error is not a practical soulution. But for the controversies, it's easier for us to make corrections than for the reputable sources to do it.
Ec
On Sun, 13 May 2007 18:36:23 +0100, "Andrew Gray" shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
The single most common specific OTRS complaint is "please correct my date of birth"
...or "please remove my date of birth" for those who have been or are concerned about being victims of identity theft, stalking or whatever.
Guy (JzG)
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 10:08:26AM -0700, Todd Allen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Todd Allen wrote:
[stuff snipped]]
Very well. Change it to "Provide anything but the most trivial factual information about oneself", and it stands. (And by the way, while I've never heard of anyone lying about their children's names, there are plenty of people that have gotten in trouble for lying about where they went to school, and a -ton- of people that lie about their age.)
This is true and I think it is a bigger problem than you think. Your answer is to go to secondary sources. However, it is more than likely that the secondary sources get the information about age, children, school, etc. from the primary source. To get the information from anywhere else would take much more time. It is also possible, and if they are a cub reporter in a newspaper very possible, that they will add errors in so doing. The more they rewrite the source so it does not look like a direct copy, the more likely they are to make errors. It is impossible to know whether a secondary source has taken the information from the primary source we want to avoid.
We are often better getting simple facts from the primary sources, in spite of possible errors, but of course we do need some secondary sources.
Brian.
On Sat, 12 May 2007, Todd Allen wrote:
- From NPOV: "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias." If
the only source we have is first-party, the article will be inherently biased, as it is nearly impossible to write fairly and neutrally about oneself.
Each of your steps is true most of the time, but occasionally not true (you even had to admit it in the one quoted above, by adding the word "nearly"). The derivation won't work, for the same reason that Holmes won't work.
"It's damn near impossible to write objectively about yourself or something you have a vested interest in promoting" has a lot higher certainty than 90%. I'd put it somewhere around 99.999%, and even that's generous, that's saying 1 in 100,000 people could do it.
But that's not what the statement is saying. The statement is saying that if the source isn't objective, the article written from the source must also be non-objective. This isn't true anywhere near 99.999% of the time.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2007, Todd Allen wrote:
Can anyone actually derive Notability from neutrality, verifiability and no original research in elegant and obvious steps? Or work toward this?
Well, let's take a stab here. 2. From NPOV: "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias." If the only source we have is first-party, the article will be inherently biased, as it is nearly impossible to write fairly and neutrally about oneself.
This reminds me of why Sherlock Holmes deductions don't work in the real world. Holmes makes a plausible-sounding deduction that completely ignores the fact that each step is not 100% certain, and the uncertainty accumulates from step to step. If you string together ten steps, each of which is 90% certain, your result will be useless.
The probability of a correct result is 0.9^10 or a little less than 35%, But I would expect that Holmes would engage in some hypothesis testing on the way, a practice normally spurned by those claiming that a situation is obvious.
Ec
On Sat, 12 May 2007 22:39:58 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Can anyone actually derive Notability from neutrality, verifiability and no original research in elegant and obvious steps? Or work toward this?
Yup, but you need to add [[WP:NOT]] indiscriminate / a directory to get the definition usually used.
How can we ensure an article is unbiased and not original research if the subject has not been the primary subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources?
Guy (JzG)
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Friday 11 May 2007 22:40, Steve Bennett wrote:
Because an encyclopaedia that had an entry on every single band ever formed would not be particularly interesting or valuable, compared to one that had an entry on every band of some notability.
How does having more information make an encyclopedia less valuable?
That's patently insane.
Especially for an electronic encyclopedia with a search function. One can't even claim that the "important" information gets lost in the "clutter".
It's not like anyone is going to sit down and try reading Wikipedia cover-to-cover. People look for specific information, even if only by clicking links that catch their eye while browsing.
On Fri, 11 May 2007 23:04:36 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Especially for an electronic encyclopedia with a search function. One can't even claim that the "important" information gets lost in the "clutter".
You really think the kind of person who can afford a ski resort accessible only by helicopter is going to use Wikipedia as a reference for it?
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2007 23:04:36 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Especially for an electronic encyclopedia with a search function. One can't even claim that the "important" information gets lost in the "clutter".
You really think the kind of person who can afford a ski resort accessible only by helicopter is going to use Wikipedia as a reference for it?
Guy (JzG)
Why not? If it's the best encyclopedic source, of course they might.
Or are you suggesting that wealthy people aren't too smart? :)
-Rich
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2007 23:04:36 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Especially for an electronic encyclopedia with a search function. One can't even claim that the "important" information gets lost in the "clutter".
You really think the kind of person who can afford a ski resort accessible only by helicopter is going to use Wikipedia as a reference for it?
This question is a non sequitur but I'll bite. Why would only someone who plans to go skiing there want to read an article about it? What if they're a student doing a report on the vacation spots of New Zealand, an environmentalist wanting to check out the impact of ski resorts, or even just some weirdo with a fetish for remote ski resorts? We have plenty of other articles about places too expensive for most Wikipedia readers to actually visit.
And even if literally _no one_ ever goes looking for the information, what harm does it do to have it? The point I was actually making in the post you're responding to is that articles about stuff people aren't interested in don't significantly get in the way of finding out about stuff that people _are_ interested in.
On 5/12/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
You really think the kind of person who can afford a ski resort accessible only by helicopter is going to use Wikipedia as a reference for it?
Well, I'm considering going. That's why I wrote the article on it. It's like $700 a day.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/12/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
You really think the kind of person who can afford a ski resort accessible only by helicopter is going to use Wikipedia as a reference for it?
Well, I'm considering going. That's why I wrote the article on it. It's like $700 a day.
At least the price is notable. :-)
Ec
On 5/13/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
At least the price is notable. :-)
Heh. Heli-skiing is mostly in that price range.
Steve
On 5/12/07, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Friday 11 May 2007 22:40, Steve Bennett wrote:
Because an encyclopaedia that had an entry on every single band ever formed would not be particularly interesting or valuable, compared to one that had an entry on every band of some notability.
How does having more information make an encyclopedia less valuable?
That's patently insane.
Encyclopaedia A has an entry on every band of some level of interest. Put the bar low if you like, like every band that has even recorded and released a CD, or played in any public venue. Encyclopaedia B has an entry on every band ever. Even a bunch of school kids that played in their mum's garage, and never ventured into public.
Encyclopaedia C has an entry on every "notable" skifield. Encyclopaedia D has an entry on every skifield.
I contend that B is at best as useful as A. It is not significantly more useful than A. I contend that D is much more useful than C.
I contend that B creates a lot more headaches than A. It is more work to maintain, and is more subject to spam and wp:blp problems. I contend that D does not create a lot more headaches than C. The extra burden is minimal.
Steve