Are software programs potential candidates for speedy deletion under CSD A7? The criterion states that potential candidates are a "real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content", which doesn't explicitly include software programs.
What must an article about a software program do to "assert the importance or significance of its subject"?
Anthony
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:34:54 -0500, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Are software programs potential candidates for speedy deletion under CSD A7? The criterion states that potential candidates are a "real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content", which doesn't explicitly include software programs.
Depends if you're Wikilawyering or not. A blatantly non-notable SourceForge project may well be speedied under A7 (or G11) rather than waste everybody's time with a longer process.
What must an article about a software program do to "assert the importance or significance of its subject"?
See [[WP:SOFTWARE]]
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:34:54 -0500, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Are software programs potential candidates for speedy deletion under CSD A7? The criterion states that potential candidates are a "real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content", which doesn't explicitly include software programs.
Depends if you're Wikilawyering or not. A blatantly non-notable SourceForge project may well be speedied under A7 (or G11) rather than waste everybody's time with a longer process.
It has nothing to do with "Wikilawyering." CSD A7 does not allow for speedying of software, and to do so is abusing the CSD criteria.
-Jeff
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 09:22:53 -0500, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
It has nothing to do with "Wikilawyering." CSD A7 does not allow for speedying of software, and to do so is abusing the CSD criteria.
Like I said, a blatantly non-notable SourceForge project may well be speedied under A7 or G11. You can Wikilawyer about it, but in the end most of us don't actually think it's worth spending five days to get three !votes on AfD, all of which endorse the blindingly obvious.
If, of course, it is not blatantly non-notable, then this does not apply, honest mistakes notwithstanding.
Your favourite guideline, [[WP:SNOW]], applies.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 09:22:53 -0500, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
It has nothing to do with "Wikilawyering." CSD A7 does not allow for speedying of software, and to do so is abusing the CSD criteria.
Like I said, a blatantly non-notable SourceForge project may well be speedied under A7 or G11. You can Wikilawyer about it, but in the end most of us don't actually think it's worth spending five days to get three !votes on AfD, all of which endorse the blindingly obvious.
Most of you are wrong, then. This is a great example of why A7 is an abject failure. And yes, I've done the newpage thing.
Your favourite guideline, [[WP:SNOW]], applies.
This is also untrue.
-Jeff
G11 might well apply depending on the article, but in case of doubt, just do AFD. You can't be accused of abusing CSD if you use AFD instead.
Mgm
On 1/14/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 09:22:53 -0500, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
It has nothing to do with "Wikilawyering." CSD A7 does not allow for speedying of software, and to do so is abusing the CSD criteria.
Like I said, a blatantly non-notable SourceForge project may well be speedied under A7 or G11. You can Wikilawyer about it, but in the end most of us don't actually think it's worth spending five days to get three !votes on AfD, all of which endorse the blindingly obvious.
Most of you are wrong, then. This is a great example of why A7 is an abject failure. And yes, I've done the newpage thing.
Your favourite guideline, [[WP:SNOW]], applies.
This is also untrue.
-Jeff
-- Name: Jeff Raymond E-mail: jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com IM: badlydrawnjeff Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else." - Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.
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 Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:05:29 -0500, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Like I said, a blatantly non-notable SourceForge project may well be speedied under A7 or G11. You can Wikilawyer about it, but in the end most of us don't actually think it's worth spending five days to get three !votes on AfD, all of which endorse the blindingly obvious.
Most of you are wrong, then. This is a great example of why A7 is an abject failure. And yes, I've done the newpage thing.
Process versus policy. Policy states we can't have articles on unverifiable subjects written in biased terms. Process in this case would, if applied legalistically, impede the inevitable and desirable. Standard disclaimers apply, but I don't see a problem here.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Process versus policy. Policy states we can't have articles on unverifiable subjects written in biased terms. Process in this case would, if applied legalistically, impede the inevitable and desirable. Standard disclaimers apply, but I don't see a problem here.
I'm with you. But process AND policy and whatever else don't let you just junk an article based on sourcing alone, as sourcing could be found. Part of that five day thing, etc.
You'll never see me complain about losing an article because sources weren't found for it (although I have my opinions on reliable sources in general), but I will complain if a simple effort can't be made.
-Jeff
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:47:56 -0500, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
I'm with you. But process AND policy and whatever else don't let you just junk an article based on sourcing alone, as sourcing could be found. Part of that five day thing, etc.
It all comes back to the firehose of crap. Mistakes get made in both directions, but this article was never deleted anyway.
Guy (JzG)
On 1/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:47:56 -0500, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
I'm with you. But process AND policy and whatever else don't let you just junk an article based on sourcing alone, as sourcing could be found. Part of that five day thing, etc.
It all comes back to the firehose of crap. Mistakes get made in both directions, but this article was never deleted anyway.
This thread was never supposed to be about that article. I brought it up as an example, because you asked for one, but my purpose was to see if there was some sort of consensus as to the meaning of CSD A7. Apparently, there really isn't. At least one person said that software categorically does not fall under A7, someone said it can, but only if the article is "blatantly non-notable", and others seemed to suggest that any article which doesn't claim to have two respectable independent published sources is a CSD under A7.
This particular article wound up staying, at least for now, most likely in part because I spent the 41 minutes I spent making sure that it didn't qualify under even the harshest of interpretations of A7. But it's still not clear whether or not that was necessary.
Anthony
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:16:24 -0500, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
This thread was never supposed to be about that article. I brought it up as an example, because you asked for one, but my purpose was to see if there was some sort of consensus as to the meaning of CSD A7. Apparently, there really isn't. At least one person said that software categorically does not fall under A7, someone said it can, but only if the article is "blatantly non-notable", and others seemed to suggest that any article which doesn't claim to have two respectable independent published sources is a CSD under A7.
If it doesn't even claim to be sourceable? Damn right. Why would we want an article that fails to make any allusion to the existence of potential sources? Have you any idea how many unsourced single-sentence articles get created every day? Visit [[Special:Newpages]] and you will see why the complete failure to make any claim to notability is perfectly legitimate grounds for deletion. Many articles about homebrewed software are made by the programmers and their friends, we delete them under A7 or G11 or Ignore All Rules or [[WP:NFT]] or whatever seems appropriate. And if it turns out that sources *do* exist but the author could not be bothered to add them, or was working from memory so did not have them to hand, well that's no big deal, the author can have another go when he has his references to hand. Verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view are policies, we can't assess neutrality or anything else without sources.
This has all the appearance of a breaching experiment. I'm sorry if it was not, but seriously, did you think your original submission was actually a valid article? I do hope not.
This particular article wound up staying, at least for now, most likely in part because I spent the 41 minutes I spent making sure that it didn't qualify under even the harshest of interpretations of A7. But it's still not clear whether or not that was necessary.
You are kidding, right? If you, the article's creator, don't care enough to make at least a decent stab at covering the subject in a way that justifies its inclusion, why the hell should anyone else care? Frequently on deletion review we see people who put more effort into their arguments for undeletion than they ever did into the article. We had one guy absolutely demanding restoration of the history of an article which had been speedied, when said history was a sentence of, if I recall rightly, under a dozen words, and the article had been re-created with *actual content* - whole paragraphs of it. It's a titanic waste of everyone's time. Wikipedia is a wiki - crap articles get deleted, people come along and create better ones that don't. I have a hard time seeing this as a big problem. A redlink is probably *better* than an unreferenced half-sentence stub, after all, because someone who gives a shit might come along and make an actual article.
This thread is now at least three orders of magnitude bigger than your original submission. Does that not strike you as absurd?
Guy (JzG)
On 1/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
This thread is now at least three orders of magnitude bigger than your original submission. Does that not strike you as absurd?
Yes, it does. That's one thing we can agree on.
Anthony
It has nothing to do with "Wikilawyering." CSD A7 does not allow for speedying of software, and to do so is abusing the CSD criteria.
So use your choice of [[WP:SNOW]], [[WP:IAR]], [[WP:TRUST_ADMINS_TO_KNOW_WHAT_THEY'RE_DOING_AND_LET_THEM_GET_ON_WITH_IT]]...
Generally when I speedy something I don't specify a particular CSD criterion, I just say why I'm deleting it (comes under the "make delete summaries understandable by non-wikipedians" instruction). The person reading it can make it fit whatever criterion they like - I know it should be deleted and is completely uncontroversial, so I delete it. Call it playing by the spirit of the rules rather than the rules themselves, if you like.
On 1/14/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:34:54 -0500, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Are software programs potential candidates for speedy deletion under CSD A7? The criterion states that potential candidates are a "real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content", which doesn't explicitly include software programs.
Depends if you're Wikilawyering or not. A blatantly non-notable SourceForge project may well be speedied under A7 (or G11) rather than waste everybody's time with a longer process.
What makes a software program "blatantly non-notable"? The one I have in mind is not a SourceForge project. To give an example, what about [[RoboGEO]]?
What must an article about a software program do to "assert the importance or significance of its subject"?
See [[WP:SOFTWARE]]
Are you saying you agree with that proposed guideline? It doesn't seem like many software programs fall under it. If I pick a random software program from download.com, should it probably be in, or probably be out?
Anthony
RoboGeo: the sources include two articles that are not written by its creators. One of those is even a book. I don't like how there's little content there and how it has a big "download here" sign, but I'd give it a chance due to the fact it has independant sources.
The software guidelines probably need to be stricter and more specific so for example random flash games without a lot of visitors and/or a widespead cult status are excluded.
Mgm
On 1/14/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 1/14/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:34:54 -0500, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Are software programs potential candidates for speedy deletion under CSD A7? The criterion states that potential candidates are a "real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content", which doesn't explicitly include software programs.
Depends if you're Wikilawyering or not. A blatantly non-notable SourceForge project may well be speedied under A7 (or G11) rather than waste everybody's time with a longer process.
What makes a software program "blatantly non-notable"? The one I have in mind is not a SourceForge project. To give an example, what about [[RoboGEO]]?
What must an article about a software program do to "assert the importance or significance of its subject"?
See [[WP:SOFTWARE]]
Are you saying you agree with that proposed guideline? It doesn't seem like many software programs fall under it. If I pick a random software program from download.com, should it probably be in, or probably be out?
Anthony
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 1/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
RoboGeo: the sources include two articles that are not written by its creators. One of those is even a book.
Well, the originally CSDed article didn't contain those sources. The current article does.
However, this seems to suggest that any article which doesn't contain two sources (or at least claim that two sources exist) is a CSD. In that respect it seems too easy to remove any article (speedily, at that) by wikilawyering about lack of sources.
I don't like how there's little content there and how it has a big "download here" sign, but I'd give it a chance due to the fact it has independant sources.
The software guidelines probably need to be stricter and more specific so for example random flash games without a lot of visitors and/or a widespead cult status are excluded.
They also need to be a lot less strict for software which does something useful, in my opinion. [[RoboGEO]] doesn't seem like it would pass [[WP:SOFTWARE]] by any stretch of the imagination (it most likely isn't the subject of any published works aside from some websites, and it's Windows software so it has no prayer of being included in a major operating system distribution).
Of course, maybe there is a consensus that only the most famous software programs belong in Wikipedia. If that's true, then WP:SOFTWARE should just be made a policy, as opposed to a proposed guideline, and people who wish to write wiki articles about non-famous software can move somewhere else. Incidentally, does anyone know of some good wikis that definitely do allow this sort of thing?
Anthony
It appears to be more of an article about the demo than the actual program...
On 1/14/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 1/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
RoboGeo: the sources include two articles that are not written by its creators. One of those is even a book.
Well, the originally CSDed article didn't contain those sources. The current article does.
However, this seems to suggest that any article which doesn't contain two sources (or at least claim that two sources exist) is a CSD. In that respect it seems too easy to remove any article (speedily, at that) by wikilawyering about lack of sources.
I don't like how there's little content there and how it has a big "download here" sign, but I'd give it a chance due
to
the fact it has independant sources.
The software guidelines probably need to be stricter and more specific
so
for example random flash games without a lot of visitors and/or a
widespead
cult status are excluded.
They also need to be a lot less strict for software which does something useful, in my opinion. [[RoboGEO]] doesn't seem like it would pass [[WP:SOFTWARE]] by any stretch of the imagination (it most likely isn't the subject of any published works aside from some websites, and it's Windows software so it has no prayer of being included in a major operating system distribution).
Of course, maybe there is a consensus that only the most famous software programs belong in Wikipedia. If that's true, then WP:SOFTWARE should just be made a policy, as opposed to a proposed guideline, and people who wish to write wiki articles about non-famous software can move somewhere else. Incidentally, does anyone know of some good wikis that definitely do allow this sort of thing?
Anthony
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 1/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
It appears to be more of an article about the demo than the actual program...
Good point, though I don't see the relevance of that. A demo of a program is, in itself, a program.
Anthony
Anthony schreef:
On 1/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
RoboGeo: the sources include two articles that are not written by its creators. One of those is even a book.
However, this seems to suggest that any article which doesn't contain two sources (or at least claim that two sources exist) is a CSD. In that respect it seems too easy to remove any article (speedily, at that) by wikilawyering about lack of sources.
In another thread, Jeff Raymond wrote (about [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles]]):
"The chance of that gaining consensus are next to nil."
Nevertheless, this example shows that there are a number of people who already seem to follow WP:CSDUA.
<rant> This is part of a wider trend towards "reliability" at the cost of "usefulness". By deleting uncontroversial but unsourced statements and articles, of course we increase Wikipedia's reliability, because a part of this unsourced information is not true. But most of that deleted material is true, and useful for the reader of that article.
For me, it is fun to write an article (probably a stub) about a topic I know nothing about. A large part of the fun is to find reliable sources with Google, and I have no problem citing them.
It is fun to write an article about a topic I know a lot about as well. But I don't need sources for that, so if I have to go look for them, I'd only do that pro forma, to make the article look good to the "reliability cabal". That is not fun. So I leave those articles unsourced.
There are people who think this is a bad thing. IT IS NOT! Adding unsourced information to Wikipedia is a good thing. It improves the usefulness of the encyclopedia for its readers. (As long as it isn't nonsense, of course. So we'll have to trust our editors to a degree. And we'll have to be very clear to our readers that nothing on Wikipedia is guaranteed accurate. Just like all competing encyclopedias, in fact.)
I'd rather have an encyclopedia that has few sources but has 95% relevant and useful information on 100% of the subjects, that I can use as a starting point for real research if the veridity of the material is really important for me, than an encyclopedia that claims to be 100% verified, but with only 10% of the content.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that there is a lot of pressure to move towards the wrong side of the scale. It is understandable. Citizendification of Wikipedia look attractive. But it's the wrong way to go. IMHO. </rant>
Sorry about the length of my post. It's just something I'm noticing more and more. But maybe it's just me.
Anyway. Adding unsourced information to Wikipedia is a good thing. That is really all I wanted to say.
Eugene
How is someone else to know your information is reliable when you don't cite your sources? Readers can't see the difference between an expert and someone pretending to be one when they're reading. And while you may well know something, it's easy to make mistakes with information you think you remember. It has happened to me personally that what I thought was true was in fact an urban legend or a misunderstanding on my part. Really, citing sources is better for the reliability of the article. If you don't feel like using citation templates on the sentences, at least put a few links and titles in a references section.
Mgm
On 1/14/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Anthony schreef:
On 1/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
RoboGeo: the sources include two articles that are not written by its creators. One of those is even a book.
However, this seems to suggest that any article which doesn't contain two sources (or at least claim that two sources exist) is a CSD. In that respect it seems too easy to remove any article (speedily, at that) by wikilawyering about lack of sources.
In another thread, Jeff Raymond wrote (about [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles]]):
"The chance of that gaining consensus are next to nil."
Nevertheless, this example shows that there are a number of people who already seem to follow WP:CSDUA.
<rant> This is part of a wider trend towards "reliability" at the cost of "usefulness". By deleting uncontroversial but unsourced statements and articles, of course we increase Wikipedia's reliability, because a part of this unsourced information is not true. But most of that deleted material is true, and useful for the reader of that article.
For me, it is fun to write an article (probably a stub) about a topic I know nothing about. A large part of the fun is to find reliable sources with Google, and I have no problem citing them.
It is fun to write an article about a topic I know a lot about as well. But I don't need sources for that, so if I have to go look for them, I'd only do that pro forma, to make the article look good to the "reliability cabal". That is not fun. So I leave those articles unsourced.
There are people who think this is a bad thing. IT IS NOT! Adding unsourced information to Wikipedia is a good thing. It improves the usefulness of the encyclopedia for its readers. (As long as it isn't nonsense, of course. So we'll have to trust our editors to a degree. And we'll have to be very clear to our readers that nothing on Wikipedia is guaranteed accurate. Just like all competing encyclopedias, in fact.)
I'd rather have an encyclopedia that has few sources but has 95% relevant and useful information on 100% of the subjects, that I can use as a starting point for real research if the veridity of the material is really important for me, than an encyclopedia that claims to be 100% verified, but with only 10% of the content.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that there is a lot of pressure to move towards the wrong side of the scale. It is understandable. Citizendification of Wikipedia look attractive. But it's the wrong way to go. IMHO.
</rant>
Sorry about the length of my post. It's just something I'm noticing more and more. But maybe it's just me.
Anyway. Adding unsourced information to Wikipedia is a good thing. That is really all I wanted to say.
Eugene
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
MacGyverMagic/Mgm schreef:
How is someone else to know your information is reliable when you don't cite your sources?
Yes, that is a good example of the emphasis on reliability at the cost of usefulness.
Really, citing sources is better for the reliability of the article.
Yes. Citing sources is better. That in no way contradicts my main point:
Adding unsourced information to Wikipedia is a good thing.
Eugene
On 1/14/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm schreef:
How is someone else to know your information is reliable when you don't
cite
your sources?
Yes, that is a good example of the emphasis on reliability at the cost of usefulness.
Really, citing sources is better for the reliability of the article.
Yes. Citing sources is better. That in no way contradicts my main point:
Adding unsourced information to Wikipedia is a good thing.
Eugene
"This is part of a wider trend towards "reliability" at the cost of "usefulness". By deleting uncontroversial but unsourced statements and articles, of course we increase Wikipedia's reliability, because a part of this unsourced information is not true. But most of that deleted material is true, and useful for the reader of that article."
At some point, though, Wikipedia has to decide what it is, a reliable source of information on the Internet, or a place for its editors. At one of the top 10 sites, it should be leaning towards the former, with, eventually, all information reliable and sourced.
Right now there is a place for some unsourced information, namely in articles tagged that they're unsourced, or "let the reader beware."
A lot of the obvious solutions (all information has to be sourced) detract from what I see as the primary Wikipedia force that will eventually make it THE most useful site on the Internet: anyone can edit.
KP
K P schreef:
Right now there is a place for some unsourced information, namely in articles tagged that they're unsourced, or "let the reader beware."
That is encouraging a dangerous perception: the place for unsourced information is in articles with {{unsourced}} on top, and therefore Wikipedia guarantees that articles that do not have a template are correct.
Let's take a random article: [[Shoshone National Forest]]. It contains in the first sentence the assertion that it "spans nearly 2.5 million acres (10,000 km²)". This "fact" is not cited, is not repeated (and cited) later in the article, and cannot be found on any of the sites in "General references". In other words, it is unsourced, even though the article is not tagged (presumably; I have made the {{unsourced}} template invisible in my personal css).
That is no problem however, because if this fact was really important for me, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia anyway, whether it is tagged or not. "Let the reader beware" should be the attitude for all of Wikipedia; sources cited or not.
A lot of the obvious solutions (all information has to be sourced) detract
from what I see as the primary Wikipedia force that will eventually make it
THE most useful site on the Internet: anyone can edit.
"eventually"? It may already be. Because anyone can edit.
Eugene
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
That is no problem however, because if this fact was really important for me, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia anyway, whether it is tagged or not. "Let the reader beware" should be the attitude for all of Wikipedia; sources cited or not.
Exactly, and not only all of Wikipedia, but for any source of information.
-Jeff
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
K P schreef:
Right now there is a place for some unsourced information, namely in articles tagged that they're unsourced, or "let the reader beware."
That is encouraging a dangerous perception: the place for unsourced information is in articles with {{unsourced}} on top, and therefore Wikipedia guarantees that articles that do not have a template are correct.
Wikipedia should not be guaranteeing anything. If the reader is foolish enough to believe everything we say he deserves the consequences. Collectively we are not going out to intentionally deceive him. We should be encouraging a culture of doubt about everything on the internet including ourselves. More discrete notices about information being unsourced will help that along.
Let's take a random article: [[Shoshone National Forest]]. It contains in the first sentence the assertion that it "spans nearly 2.5 million acres (10,000 km²)". This "fact" is not cited, is not repeated (and cited) later in the article, and cannot be found on any of the sites in "General references". In other words, it is unsourced, even though the article is not tagged (presumably; I have made the {{unsourced}} template invisible in my personal css).
That is no problem however, because if this fact was really important for me, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia anyway, whether it is tagged or not. "Let the reader beware" should be the attitude for all of Wikipedia; sources cited or not.
Hiding the tag doesn't help. When non-controverial facts like this are not sourced we want to encourage the new reader to correct this. The example fact should be an easy one to track down. Doing the easy ones can build a potential editor's confidence.
Ec
On 1/14/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
At some point, though, Wikipedia has to decide what it is, a reliable source of information on the Internet, or a place for its editors. At one of the top 10 sites, it should be leaning towards the former, with, eventually, all information reliable and sourced.
See, if I *had* to make a choice, I'd choose the latter. In fact, I'd shut off the search engines through robots.txt and send everyone to one of the mirrors before I'd lose focus on the goal of *creating* the best encyclopedia. Being a top 10 website is not the goal (in my opinion). At best it is a means to attract new contributors - at worst it is a distraction due to people saying exactly what you just said.
Do I think a choice *has* to be made? No, not really. I think it's quite possible to have a single site that does both; or alternatively, for the foundation to run both sites.
Right now there is a place for some unsourced information, namely in articles tagged that they're unsourced, or "let the reader beware."
A lot of the obvious solutions (all information has to be sourced) detract from what I see as the primary Wikipedia force that will eventually make it THE most useful site on the Internet: anyone can edit.
KP
The multiple non-trivial sources thing is to shut out self-promotion and ad campaigns. Unfortunately a neccesary evil. The point I'm trying to make is that your unsourced info may be accurate and useful, but it would be indistiguishable from spam or a hoax if you don't cite it. You'd effectively be making others spend more time tracking down sources you presumably have readily available. Do you really want to give others 15 minutes of work when you can fix it yourself in less than 5?
Mgm
On 1/14/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 1/14/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
At some point, though, Wikipedia has to decide what it is, a reliable
source
of information on the Internet, or a place for its editors. At one of
the
top 10 sites, it should be leaning towards the former, with, eventually,
all
information reliable and sourced.
See, if I *had* to make a choice, I'd choose the latter. In fact, I'd shut off the search engines through robots.txt and send everyone to one of the mirrors before I'd lose focus on the goal of *creating* the best encyclopedia. Being a top 10 website is not the goal (in my opinion). At best it is a means to attract new contributors - at worst it is a distraction due to people saying exactly what you just said.
Do I think a choice *has* to be made? No, not really. I think it's quite possible to have a single site that does both; or alternatively, for the foundation to run both sites.
Right now there is a place for some unsourced information, namely in articles tagged that they're unsourced, or "let the reader beware."
A lot of the obvious solutions (all information has to be sourced)
detract
from what I see as the primary Wikipedia force that will eventually make
it
THE most useful site on the Internet: anyone can edit.
KP
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 1/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
The multiple non-trivial sources thing is to shut out self-promotion and ad campaigns. Unfortunately a neccesary evil.
Well, it's not *necessary* to shut out self-promotion and ad campaigns, if by that you mean useful neutral information related to the subject of the article which might cause some people to buy some things.
The point I'm trying to make is that your unsourced info may be accurate and useful, but it would be indistiguishable from spam or a hoax if you don't cite it.
If it takes 5 seconds to type the subject of the article into Google and see that it's not a hoax, then it's *not* indistinguishable from a hoax.
You'd effectively be making others spend more time tracking down sources you presumably have readily available. Do you really want to give others 15 minutes of work when you can fix it yourself in less than 5?
A valid point, but 1) not everyone knows this or thinks of this, in part because *it isn't a rule and in fact was rejected as a rule*; and 2) people sometimes forget. If we really want a source for every new article, why not force people to write down a source when they create an article. Yes, some people will write "sadkjfhuks isdiof" as their source - requiring them to write *something* doesn't cure maliciousness, but it does solve those cases where the person just didn't think to write a source.
Anthony
On 1/14/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
- people sometimes forget.
True, but you indicated you did it because it was easier. That's why I had a problem with it.
Mgm
On 1/15/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/14/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
- people sometimes forget.
True, but you indicated you did it because it was easier. That's why I had a problem with it.
Mgm
I don't remember saying that, and it's not really true. I would have gladly stuck http://robogeo.com/ into a box which said "Enter your source here:" if it was required. Of course, if I had put it in the original article, that would have just made it look like an ad (as it is some people already thought it looked like an ad, even though if anything I meant the article as a warning for others not to bother downloading the crippled software like I had).
Now, did I know that there was a way to add those fancy schmancy reference tags to an article. Yes. I didn't know the syntax of the tags, but I did know they existed. In the end I did finally figure out how to add the sources, which was done 41 minutes later. But someone else who knew the syntax could have added those same sources a lot faster and more easily.
IMO wikis are supposed to be about collaboration, not about figuring out all the rules you have to follow to keep your contributions from being removed. My little contribution to the sum of human knowledge was supposed to be that the demo for RoboGEO "intentionally adds errors of around a kilometer into the data". As far as I'm concerned, once you know that about it, nothing else matters.
Anthony
K P wrote:
At some point, though, Wikipedia has to decide what it is, a reliable source of information on the Internet, or a place for its editors. At one of the top 10 sites, it should be leaning towards the former, with, eventually, all information reliable and sourced.
I think that misses the whole point of Wikipedia. We're here primarily to create the content for reuse by other people, it's why we use a free license rather than something site-specific.
Mirrors who publish Wikipedia's content already cull out stuff like talk pages and old versions of articles, they can cull out the uncited stuff too if it's really a problem for them. I'm hoping version flagging will help with this as well once it's implemented.
Right now there is a place for some unsourced information, namely in articles tagged that they're unsourced, or "let the reader beware."
According to the disclaimer linked to on every Wikipedia article the reader should beware of _everything_ in Wikipedia to some degree or another. The site is a work in progress, not a finished product. If being one of the top 10 sites is hindering that then perhaps "being a top 10 site" is the problem in need of fixing.
A lot of the obvious solutions (all information has to be sourced) detract from what I see as the primary Wikipedia force that will eventually make it THE most useful site on the Internet: anyone can edit.
Indeed. Sourced information is an improvement over unsourced information, but unsourced information is still usually an improvement over a blank space.
K P wrote:
"This is part of a wider trend towards
"reliability" at the cost of "usefulness". By deleting uncontroversial but unsourced statements and articles, of course we increase Wikipedia's reliability, because a part of this unsourced information is not true. But most of that deleted material is true, and useful for the reader of that article."
At some point, though, Wikipedia has to decide what it is, a reliable source of information on the Internet, or a place for its editors. At one of the top 10 sites, it should be leaning towards the former, with, eventually, all information reliable and sourced.
Right now there is a place for some unsourced information, namely in articles tagged that they're unsourced, or "let the reader beware."
A lot of the obvious solutions (all information has to be sourced) detract from what I see as the primary Wikipedia force that will eventually make it THE most useful site on the Internet: anyone can edit.
Ths all appears sound. Sourcing is good but we should not be having fits of anxiety over it. Every article needs to evolve in its own time frame. Sourcing and fact checking are all a part of that evolution from a rough stub to a feature article. It can happen at different rates depending on, among other factors, the popularity of the subject. The project as a whole will never be fully sourced because we will always be adding new articles which themselves will need to go through their own evolution.
"Unsourced" and "beware" tags are important too, but with flexible and often long time limits for cleaning up the problem. I support the stable version concept, though I would go further than a simple "not-vandalized" marker. I think there is room for a far more sophisticated system of ratings. A simple system that invites people to add their ratings will also be good for drawing people. Ones who might not now be inclined to edit may be willing to rate an article if its something as simple as putting in a number and sending. When they do so they would get a message like, "Your rating has been recorded; if you think that something in the article needs to be fixed please clich here."
In the light of assuming good faith the anticipation of vandals can be obsessive. We do need to be vigilant about vandals, but we also need to maintain a presumption of trust.
Ec
K P wrote:
On 1/14/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm schreef:
How is someone else to know your information is reliable when you don't
cite
your sources?
Yes, that is a good example of the emphasis on reliability at the cost of usefulness.
Really, citing sources is better for the reliability of the article.
Yes. Citing sources is better. That in no way contradicts my main point:
Adding unsourced information to Wikipedia is a good thing.
Eugene
"This is part of a wider trend towards "reliability" at the cost of "usefulness". By deleting uncontroversial but unsourced statements and articles, of course we increase Wikipedia's reliability, because a part of this unsourced information is not true. But most of that deleted material is true, and useful for the reader of that article."
At some point, though, Wikipedia has to decide what it is, a reliable source of information on the Internet, or a place for its editors. At one of the top 10 sites, it should be leaning towards the former, with, eventually, all information reliable and sourced.
Right now there is a place for some unsourced information, namely in articles tagged that they're unsourced, or "let the reader beware."
It's a shame we don't have as many people manning the firehose of salvage as we do manning the firehose of crap. I'm with Jeff and Eugene on this one in spirit. Let's not colour this as a process dispute please, because it isn't. It's about the best ways to fix articles, either through deletion or sourcing. These articles should go through afd, and it's not a notability csd, it's an importance one. Nobody should be speedy deleting because an article fails any notability guideline, that's not and never has been policy. The policy is to speedy delete articles on a certain topic which fail to assert and claim of importance or significance. I usually interpret that as being a credible one, since otherwise we can't technically speedy articles on Gary Barnes who is the biggest gay in the world, and in actuality, I don't believe much harm comes to Wikipedia through stretching csd criteria, because I believe most of our admins act in good faith and will restore an article if a strong case is made. I have openly stated, and will openly restate, anyone who can write a sourced article on a deleted subject, I will quite happily restore the deleted article and merge histories. I admit there will be quibbling over the sources, I'm not keen to see article built only on primary sources, but I'm happy to use afd in such instances.
Steve block
On 1/14/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Anthony schreef:
On 1/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
RoboGeo: the sources include two articles that are not written by its creators. One of those is even a book.
However, this seems to suggest that any article which doesn't contain two sources (or at least claim that two sources exist) is a CSD. In that respect it seems too easy to remove any article (speedily, at that) by wikilawyering about lack of sources.
In another thread, Jeff Raymond wrote (about [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles]]):
"The chance of that gaining consensus are next to nil."
Nevertheless, this example shows that there are a number of people who already seem to follow WP:CSDUA.
Maybe, but [[WP:SOFTWARE]] is much much harsher than [[WP:CSDUA]]. Requiring a single source which shows that something definitely exists is one thing. Requiring that thing *to be the subject of* multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself is yet another.
I really wouldn't have a problem with WP:CSDUA, in any of the proposed forms, which entail either a 14 day waiting period in which *anyone* can add a single source, or a mere moving of the article somewhere else as opposed to outright deletion (where non-admins can't see the article any more). While at it it would be nice to have a mandatory freeform field required for new article creation where the creator can type in a source. But that's not what this speedy deletion criterion is apparently being interpreted to mean.
Anthony
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:29:35 +0100, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
This is part of a wider trend towards "reliability" at the cost of "usefulness"
Indeed. Terrible, how they've made [[WP:V]] a policy while [[WP:USEFUL]] is only listed as an argument to avoid in deletion debates.
Guy (JzG)
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 16:36:06 +0100, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
RoboGeo: the sources include two articles that are not written by its creators.
So, an article was tagged for speedy which said, in its entirety, "RoboGEO is a program to synchronize a GPS tracklog with a collection of time-coded pictures. A demo is available for download on the Internet. It intentionally adds errors of around a kilometer into the data."
It was created by an account "Iwanttocreateanarticle", whose contributions to that date were precisely nothing other than this article. Since creating RoboGeo, that editor has added a new category, Category:Demoware, which currently has one article (RoboGeo), and added links to RoboGeo in [[TopoFusion]], [[Google Earth]] and [[Geocoded photo]]. There are some evil-hearted bastards who would call that a single-purpose account.
It's certainly not especially surprising that someone was a bit suspicious, is it? And frankly if the article *had* been speedied and then re-created as it is now, with sources, it would not have been speedied again. As it is, *it was never deleted*.
I think we should be very wary of inferring anything from the tagging (and non-deletion) of this article.
Guy (JzG)
I'd imagine they'd have to do the same a company, website or person needs to do. Establish notability through wide use, awards or some other thing that's probably mentioned in WP:SOFTWARE. Any particular article in mind?
Mgm
On 1/14/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Are software programs potential candidates for speedy deletion under CSD A7? The criterion states that potential candidates are a "real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content", which doesn't explicitly include software programs.
What must an article about a software program do to "assert the importance or significance of its subject"?
Anthony
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l