"Exclusion" essay - WikiEN-l - lists.wikimedia.org

List overview All Threads
Download

"Exclusion" essay

Categories for deletion/discussion...

Re: [WikiEN-l] POV fork anyone?...

Steve Bennett

20 Jul 2006 20 Jul '06

1:23 p.m.

Hi all, I've written a short essay to tackle notability from a different direction: why do we want to exclude certain articles? It's at [[Wikipedia:Exclusion]]. I'd appreciate your thoughts and additions! Steve

Reply

Show replies by date

Peter Ansell

20 Jul 20 Jul

1:29 p.m.

On 20/07/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all, I've written a short essay to tackle notability from a different direction: why do we want to exclude certain articles? It's at [[Wikipedia:Exclusion]]. I'd appreciate your thoughts and additions! Steve

I think it is a much better tack to come at the issue from. Peter Ansell

Reply

Oldak Quill

4:08 p.m.

The last section on "Imaginary universes" seems out of keeping with the rest of the essay. Articles about things in imaginary universes are usually very well maintained and monitored by a high number of users. Conflicts rarely serve as distractions and, since we are not paper, they do little to harm us fiscally. The following sentence makes obvious the real reason for you dislike of these articles, elitism: "The harm is mostly the maintenance of large numbers of pages, and to our reputation: a serious encyclopedia". Ultimately, and sadly, it is not hard to imagine that more people wish to read about [[Bulbasaur]] than [[Operation Barbarossa]]. I, personally, am not a fan of Pokemon at all, but I certainly don't object to articles on Pokemon characters if they are factually accurate and verifiable. These articles are of great interest to some, they bring thousands of users to Wikipedia and they do no harm. What is more, no other article will *ever* be placed at Bulbasaur or Pikachu and, if they were, a simple disambiguation would be required. With all this in mind the only reason I can see for your objection to them is that traditional encyclopedias would not have such articles. Traditional encyclopedias would not have the space or the expertise for these articles. They did not need or want to appeal to teenagers and teenagers interests, we can and do. -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

Reply

Steve Bennett

4:29 p.m.

On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote:

The following sentence makes obvious the real reason for you dislike of these articles, elitism: "The harm is mostly the maintenance of large numbers of pages, and to our reputation: a serious encyclopedia".

Ok, bear in mind I'm not trying to express what I personally like and dislike, but attempt to identify the unstated reasoning that leads people to nominate fancruft for AfD. It can't just be because they personally hate it, can it? Maybe take it from the other point of view: the *only* problem with excessive fancruft is that it damages our credibility. If you want to rework the essay a bit, go ahead. Steve

Reply

Oldak Quill

4:36 p.m.

Maybe take it from the other point of view: the *only* problem with excessive fancruft is that it damages our credibility.

I don't believe we should compromise our acceptance of content because we worry that some will think less of us. It is not our aim to perfectly match the role of the traditional encyclopedia. We are going to include some content that some think is below them (or should not be in an encyclopedia), that's fine and it isn't our problem. If a user doesn't wish to read about [[Bulbasaur]] then they should take my lead and avoid it. -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

Reply

Steve Bennett

4:48 p.m.

On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I don't believe we should compromise our acceptance of content because we worry that some will think less of us. It is not our aim to perfectly match the role of the traditional encyclopedia. We are going to include some content that some think is below them (or should not be in an encyclopedia), that's fine and it isn't our problem. If a user doesn't wish to read about [[Bulbasaur]] then they should take my lead and avoid it.

Do you think there should be no limits to how much fictional universe should be covered? I'm attempting to explain the status quo, not change it. So if you disagree with me, either I'm failing to explain the status quo (most likely), or you actually want to extend it. The status quo, as I understand it, is that for seriously popular series/books etc, each major character can have its own article, otherwise they should be grouped. Each instalment/book/episode can have its own article. However, except for rare examples, *places* in fictional universes do not get articles, nor do events, types of vehicles (Star Wars is exceptional here) However, even still, minor characters in major series do not get their own articles. Why not? Well, that's the question we're trying to resolve here. Steve

Reply

Steve Bennett

4:54 p.m.

On 7/20/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

The status quo, as I understand it, is that for seriously popular series/books etc, each major character can have its own article, otherwise they should be grouped. Each instalment/book/episode can have its own article. However, except for rare examples, *places* in fictional universes do not get articles, nor do events, types of vehicles (Star Wars is exceptional here) However, even still, minor

Incidentally, how not to write a Wikipedia article on a fictional spacecraft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-wing How to write a Wikipedia article on fictional spacecraft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red Dwarf ships (note the massive difference in tone and focus) Steve

Reply

geni

5:14 p.m.

On 7/20/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/20/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

The status quo, as I understand it, is that for seriously popular series/books etc, each major character can have its own article, otherwise they should be grouped. Each instalment/book/episode can have its own article. However, except for rare examples, *places* in fictional universes do not get articles, nor do events, types of vehicles (Star Wars is exceptional here) However, even still, minor

Incidentally, how not to write a Wikipedia article on a fictional spacecraft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-wing How to write a Wikipedia article on fictional spacecraft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red Dwarf ships (note the massive difference in tone and focus) Steve

That is at least partly due to the different focus of the parent media. -- geni

Reply

Steve Bennett

5:25 p.m.

On 7/20/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

That is at least partly due to the different focus of the parent media.

Sure, but what I'm getting at, is the RD focuses on which ship appears in which series, what it looks like, what the producers did etc. The Star Wars article places the reader firmly within the fictional universe. A key difference: [[X-Wing]] says the ship was "designed" by a character in the fictional universe. [[Red Dwarf Ships]] says the ships were "designed" by producers of the television series. Steve

Reply

geni

5:29 p.m.

On 7/20/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/20/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

That is at least partly due to the different focus of the parent media.

Sure, but what I'm getting at, is the RD focuses on which ship appears in which series, what it looks like, what the producers did etc. The Star Wars article places the reader firmly within the fictional universe. A key difference: [[X-Wing]] says the ship was "designed" by a character in the fictional universe. [[Red Dwarf Ships]] says the ships were "designed" by producers of the television series. Steve

Red Dwarf does not provide books with hundreds of pages of background information. -- geni

Reply

Oldak Quill

5:34 p.m.

On 20/07/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/20/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

A key difference: [[X-Wing]] says the ship was "designed" by a character in the fictional universe. [[Red Dwarf Ships]] says the ships were "designed" by producers of the television series. Steve

Red Dwarf does not provide books with hundreds of pages of background information.

Of course, there is a way to do both: "Ship X was designed by producer [[Matt Brown]]. According to the mythology of Red Trek Wars, Ship X was designed by [[Hans Solo]]." (just to expose my ignorance about all things Sci Fi ;)). -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

Reply

Alphax (Wikipedia email)

26 Jul 26 Jul

6:51 p.m.

Steve Bennett wrote:

On 7/20/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

The status quo, as I understand it, is that for seriously popular series/books etc, each major character can have its own article, otherwise they should be grouped. Each instalment/book/episode can have its own article. However, except for rare examples, *places* in fictional universes do not get articles, nor do events, types of vehicles (Star Wars is exceptional here) However, even still, minor

Incidentally, how not to write a Wikipedia article on a fictional spacecraft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-wing How to write a Wikipedia article on fictional spacecraft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dwarf_ships (note the massive difference in tone and focus)

I can't agree strongly enough. Another comparison (which you've picked up on before): Mark Gallagher wrote:

I think a lot of our fiction articles could be dramatically improved by taking a real-world approach: "here is what this fictional entity should look like to people who aren't wrapped up in the fictional universe". Our /Doctor Who/ articles largely get this right; our /Star Wars/ and particularly /Gundam/ articles often don't. As a Trekkie, I haven't bothered looking at our /Star Trek/ collection, for fear it would only depress me. Compare [[Light saber]] with [[Dalek]]. Then choose any Gundam article at random, and marvel at the statistics presented therein, instantly forgetting any criticisms you may have had for [[Light saber]].

But, better than just saying "oh yes, it's such a shame that some of our articles are complete crap" and doing nothing, we need to look at /why/ this happens. Here is a short true/false quiz which you should fill out and submit (and pass!) before you will be allowed to continue this thread: 1. Red Dwarf and Doctor Who are cooler than Star Wars and Gundam 2. People who watch Red Dwarf and Doctor Who are cooler than people who watch Star Wars and Gundam 3. People who watch Red Dwarf and Doctor Who are smarter than people who watch Star Wars and Gundam 4. People who watch Red Dwarf and Doctor Who are older than people who watch Star Wars and Gundam 5. People who watch Red Dwarf and Doctor Who are more mature than people who watch Star Wars and Gundam 6. People who watch Red Dwarf and Doctor Who have a greater sense of perspective than people who watch Star Wars and Gundam 7. People who watch Red Dwarf and Doctor Who are more likely to live in the real worlds than people who watch Star Wars and Gundam 8. People who watch Red Dwarf and Doctor Who are more attractive, make better friends, and smell nicer than people who watch Star Wars and Gundam -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

Reply

Steve Bennett

7:33 p.m.

On 7/26/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:

But, better than just saying "oh yes, it's such a shame that some of our articles are complete crap" and doing nothing, we need to look at /why/ this happens. Here is a short true/false quiz which you should fill out and submit (and pass!) before you will be allowed to continue this thread: 1. Red Dwarf and Doctor Who are cooler than Star Wars and Gundam

<snip> Speaking for myself, most of those comparisons are true. The "perspective" one is closest to the truth, probably, as Red Dwarf and Doctor Who don't take themselves seriously. It's hard *not* to notice the continuity problems in Red Dwarf, and hence it's hard to really believe in the fictional universe. Whereas the Star Wars universe "exists" to a greater extent. Which doesn't mean that Wikipedia exists in the Star Wars fictional universe. And I don't see a good reason why the same approach should not be followed for both: Liberal use of "According to the film X, Y is a ..." and especially "Between series A and B, the producers chose to introduce...". I'm undecided on whether it's generally better to say "X happened because of Y (an explanation invented to cover the real life death of Z)" or "Z died. This was explained by the scriptwriters as Y happening". Steve Steve

Reply

Oldak Quill

20 Jul 20 Jul

5:27 p.m.

On 20/07/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

The status quo, as I understand it, is that for seriously popular series/books etc, each major character can have its own article, otherwise they should be grouped. Each instalment/book/episode can have its own article. However, except for rare examples, *places* in fictional universes do not get articles, nor do events, types of vehicles (Star Wars is exceptional here) However, even still, minor characters in major series do not get their own articles. Why not? Well, that's the question we're trying to resolve here.

I agree with this generally, though perhaps I'd be a little more liberal in certain aspects. I apologise if I misconceived your opinions, but the last part of the essay came across as a little too deletionist to be describing the status quo. I certainly think we could afford a little more space to a non-major characters, places and things; but I'm not way out there. I'll take another look at the essay this evening. -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

Reply

Steve Bennett

5:44 p.m.

On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with this generally, though perhaps I'd be a little more liberal in certain aspects. I apologise if I misconceived your opinions, but the last part of the essay came across as a little too deletionist to be describing the status quo. I certainly think we could afford a little more space to a non-major characters, places and things; but I'm not way out there. I'll take another look at the essay this evening.

That'd be cool. Let's think - what *is* the harm in boundless fancruft? There must be harm, or we would allow it. Perhaps it is simply that boundless fancruft strays too far from our mission, which is to produce an encyclopaedia that is not just a random collection of information. Someone help me out here - we all know that it's wrong to have 600 pages describing every fight ever shown in any Pokémon episode. But why? Steve

Reply

Guy Chapman aka JzG

6:46 p.m.

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:44:10 +0200, "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

That'd be cool. Let's think - what *is* the harm in boundless fancruft? There must be harm, or we would allow it. Perhaps it is simply that boundless fancruft strays too far from our mission, which is to produce an encyclopaedia that is not just a random collection of information.

The major problem is that most of it is OR, or at least terribly self-referential. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Reply

Bryan Derksen

7:05 p.m.

Steve Bennett wrote:

That'd be cool. Let's think - what *is* the harm in boundless fancruft? There must be harm, or we would allow it. Perhaps it is simply that boundless fancruft strays too far from our mission, which is to produce an encyclopaedia that is not just a random collection of information. Someone help me out here - we all know that it's wrong to have 600 pages describing every fight ever shown in any Pokémon episode. But why?

Please don't put words in my mouth. While your hypothetical example is extreme, I would still find it wrong only for technical reasons - each fight description would be rather short and low on context, they'd do much better IMO as something like [[List of Pokémon battles]] (subdivided by season if one page is too large). It's not a random collection of information if we apply uniform standards of quality and structure to it. I don't see how the "fancruft" we include is any more a "random collection of information" than the vast amounts of sportscruft, militarycruft, politiciancruft, and other sorts of subjectcruft that for some reason have an air of respectability about it that recent popular culture alone seems to lack. Who ever complains about how Wikipedia has articles for almost every ship that happened to participate in WWII, no matter how trivial its role? Or how there are articles about people whose sole claim to fame is an unspectacular one-year Senate position in Smallcounty, Iowa back in the 1820s? I think the massive inclusiveness of Wikipedia is one of its best traits. Wikipedia is like a specialist encyclopedia that specializes in _everything_. When I see an article about an obscure topic I don't ask myself "should there be an article about this in a general encyclopedia?", I ask myself "should there be an article about this in an Encyclopedia of Stamp Collecting, or Encyclopedia of Star Trek, or Encyclopedia of 18th Century Railroading, or Encyclopedia of Agriculture, etc.?"

Reply

Oldak Quill

7 p.m.

Please don't put words in my mouth. While your hypothetical example is extreme, I would still find it wrong only for technical reasons - each fight description would be rather short and low on context, they'd do much better IMO as something like [[List of Pokémon battles]] (subdivided by season if one page is too large). It's not a random collection of information if we apply uniform standards of quality and structure to it. I don't see how the "fancruft" we include is any more a "random collection of information" than the vast amounts of sportscruft, militarycruft, politiciancruft, and other sorts of subjectcruft that for some reason have an air of respectability about it that recent popular culture alone seems to lack. Who ever complains about how Wikipedia has articles for almost every ship that happened to participate in WWII, no matter how trivial its role? Or how there are articles about people whose sole claim to fame is an unspectacular one-year Senate position in Smallcounty, Iowa back in the 1820s? I think the massive inclusiveness of Wikipedia is one of its best traits. Wikipedia is like a specialist encyclopedia that specializes in _everything_. When I see an article about an obscure topic I don't ask myself "should there be an article about this in a general encyclopedia?", I ask myself "should there be an article about this in an Encyclopedia of Stamp Collecting, or Encyclopedia of Star Trek, or Encyclopedia of 18th Century Railroading, or Encyclopedia of Agriculture, etc.?"

Well, you've done a better job of writing my opinion than I did. I completely agree with your every point. -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

Reply

Stephen Bain

7:15 p.m.

On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:

I don't see how the "fancruft" we include is any more a "random collection of information" than the vast amounts of sportscruft, militarycruft, politiciancruft, and other sorts of subjectcruft that for some reason have an air of respectability about it that recent popular culture alone seems to lack. Who ever complains about how Wikipedia has articles for almost every ship that happened to participate in WWII, no matter how trivial its role? Or how there are articles about people whose sole claim to fame is an unspectacular one-year Senate position in Smallcounty, Iowa back in the 1820s?

(This has been said many times before by many others, so ignore if this is familiar.) The problem is the context in which the information is provided. Yes, we have plenty of information on ships from World War II (that's [[List of World War II ships]], for those of you playing at home) but from what I've read they're all written in an appropriate encyclopaedic style and tone. Many of the popular culture articles which get labelled cruft are so labelled because they don't have an encyclopaedic style or tone; the context utilised is that of the fictional universe from which the subject comes, rather than the Real World from which the encyclopaedia comes. As an example, take [[Bulbasaur]]: well-written, well-referenced, indeed it is a featured article. It does an excellent job of staying (almost exclusively) to a discussion of the role of that particular Pokemon in the video games and in the cartoons. The lede evens uses CNN and Time in order to assess the importance of the subject. Many, many other articles (in all areas of pop culture, not just Pokemon) are not written in such an encyclopaedic fashion, they are written from a point of view within the fiction. The Pokemon WikiProject, to its credit, maintains a page to try to push articles into a format like the Bulbasaur article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pok%C3%A9mon_Adoption_Center/Style Other WikiProjects on fictional subjects, take heed. -- Stephen Bain stephen.bain(a)gmail.com

Reply

Ray Saintonge

23 Jul 23 Jul

12:38 a.m.

Bryan Derksen wrote:

I don't see how the "fancruft" we include is any more a "random collection of information" than the vast amounts of sportscruft, militarycruft, politiciancruft, and other sorts of subjectcruft that for some reason have an air of respectability about it that recent popular culture alone seems to lack. Who ever complains about how Wikipedia has articles for almost every ship that happened to participate in WWII, no matter how trivial its role? Or how there are articles about people whose sole claim to fame is an unspectacular one-year Senate position in Smallcounty, Iowa back in the 1820s?

Right! Considering that Iowa did not become a state until 1846 .... :-)

I think the massive inclusiveness of Wikipedia is one of its best traits. Wikipedia is like a specialist encyclopedia that specializes in _everything_. When I see an article about an obscure topic I don't ask myself "should there be an article about this in a general encyclopedia?", I ask myself "should there be an article about this in an Encyclopedia of Stamp Collecting, or Encyclopedia of Star Trek, or Encyclopedia of 18th Century Railroading, or Encyclopedia of Agriculture, etc.?"

Absolutely. It's just a matter of time before we have people dedicated enough to develop all these areas. Ec

Reply

Elisabeth Bauer

20 Jul 20 Jul

10:09 p.m.

Steve Bennett wrote:

That'd be cool. Let's think - what *is* the harm in boundless fancruft? There must be harm, or we would allow it. Perhaps it is simply that boundless fancruft strays too far from our mission, which is to produce an encyclopaedia that is not just a random collection of information. Someone help me out here - we all know that it's wrong to have 600 pages describing every fight ever shown in any Pokémon episode. But why?

One hypothesis: Allowing too much "fancruft" in Wikipedia creates an imbalance in the community structure. There is a really large pool of 15 year old, computer savy kids (some may be older) who get easily attracted to writing wikipedia articles about f.e. star trek compared to a very small pool of for example experts on let's say homer. The latter group won't be as easily drawn into writing for wikipedia than the first. And they will be less and less willing to do so, if they find a community dominated by 15 year old star trek fans. greetings, elian

Reply

Oldak Quill

10:13 p.m.

On 20/07/06, Elisabeth Bauer <elian(a)djini.de> wrote:

One hypothesis: Allowing too much "fancruft" in Wikipedia creates an imbalance in the community structure. There is a really large pool of 15 year old, computer savy kids (some may be older) who get easily attracted to writing wikipedia articles about f.e. star trek compared to a very small pool of for example experts on let's say homer. The latter group won't be as easily drawn into writing for wikipedia than the first. And they will be less and less willing to do so, if they find a community dominated by 15 year old star trek fans.

An entirely unrealistic hypothesis. en.Wikipedia, and its userbase, is too large to be subject to big changes in demographics as you suggest. -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

Reply

Sean Barrett

10:20 p.m.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Elisabeth Bauer stated for the record:

Allowing too much "fancruft" in Wikipedia creates an imbalance in the community structure. There is a really large pool of 15 year old, computer savy kids (some may be older) who get easily attracted to writing wikipedia articles about f.e. star trek compared to a very small pool of for example experts on let's say homer. The latter group won't be as easily drawn into writing for wikipedia than the first. And they will be less and less willing to do so, if they find a community dominated by 15 year old star trek fans. greetings, elian

What evidence do you have indicating that any such correlation exists? Have any studies have been done on the effects of fancruft on the average age and expertise of the editor population? Or do you just dislike Star Trek? - -- Sean Barrett | Back off, man, I'm a scientist. sean(a)epoptic.com | --Dr. Peter Venkman

...PGP SIGNATURE...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEv9eXMAt1wyd9d+URAl/ZAJ4rBq95EnYaylngZAVAuJ3CTa75RwCfb3DG fk4deRsmu6UYKIUBq4ccstw= =T9i2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply

Rob

11:03 p.m.

On 7/20/06, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.com> wrote:

What evidence do you have indicating that any such correlation exists? Have any studies have been done on the effects of fancruft on the average age and expertise of the editor population? Or do you just dislike Star Trek?

It's an entirely reasonable hypothesis worth exploring, and it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. The lack of studies? Seriously, what the hell? When Jimbo said demand references, I don't think he was referring to the mailing list. Yes, broad assertions should be backed up by evidence, but this broad assertion isn't any different than the dozens of broad assertions made on this list on a daily basis. And someone doesn't have to hate Star Trek (I certainly don't) to worry about the potentially deleterious effects of a horde of stub articles on dozens of different starships which were only mentioned in an offhand reference in a single episode. AGF, please.

Reply

Sam Pointon

11:16 p.m.

On 20/07/06, Elisabeth Bauer <elian(a)djini.de> wrote:

One hypothesis: Allowing too much "fancruft" in Wikipedia creates an imbalance in the community structure. There is a really large pool of 15 year old, computer savy kids (some may be older) who get easily attracted to writing wikipedia articles about f.e. star trek compared to a very small pool of for example experts on let's say homer. The latter group won't be as easily drawn into writing for wikipedia than the first. And they will be less and less willing to do so, if they find a community dominated by 15 year old star trek fans.

No group of valid editors and contributors should be treated as any less worthy than any other group. Just because you are young Caucasian techie doesn't mean you're less of an editor than a wizened African. Every single person who wants to contribute should be welcomed with open arms, whether they intend to improve our coverage of Star Trek or the fine nuances of Bose-Einstein condensates at higher temperatures. Now, I hear you crying out, how do we correct systemic bias if we can't turn young Caucasian techies away and vilify their areas of interest? Surely, the only way to lure in academic experts is to construct a social vacuum, and suck them in that way? Perhaps not. The current situation is that we are making editorial calls on what popular culture is worthy of an article. I would rather have enough popular culture contributors and articles (note - that's -good- popular culture articles, not bad ones) to be able to say "yes, that's too obscure, trans-delemerge it," than to be begging for contributors in this field. Now, the question is, how do we make Wikipedia just as attractive for other demographic groups, so that we can also be saying "that nuance of Bose-Einstein condensate is too obscure, trans-delemerge it." Positive solutions (attracting new users) are preferable to negative ones (taking a hard line on 15-year old Star Trek fans). --Sam

Reply

Steve Bennett

21 Jul 21 Jul

1:15 a.m.

On 7/20/06, Sam Pointon <free.condiments(a)gmail.com> wrote:

No group of valid editors and contributors should be treated as any less worthy than any other group. Just because you are young Caucasian

That's probably right if you're only referring to demographic or racial groups. But in general, 15 year olds aren't "less worthy" just because they're 15, they're "less worthy" because their interests are less useful to us, and their powers of copywriting and collaborative editing are less good. On average.

techie doesn't mean you're less of an editor than a wizened African. Every single person who wants to contribute should be welcomed with open arms, whether they intend to improve our coverage of Star Trek or the fine nuances of Bose-Einstein condensates at higher temperatures.

Sure. Some should be welcomed more than others :)

Perhaps not. The current situation is that we are making editorial calls on what popular culture is worthy of an article. I would rather

With very little success.

have enough popular culture contributors and articles (note - that's -good- popular culture articles, not bad ones) to be able to say "yes, that's too obscure, trans-delemerge it," than to be begging for contributors in this field.

Is that a choice we have to make?

Now, the question is, how do we make Wikipedia just as attractive for other demographic groups, so that we can also be saying "that nuance of Bose-Einstein condensate is too obscure, trans-delemerge it." Positive solutions (attracting new users) are preferable to negative ones (taking a hard line on 15-year old Star Trek fans).

Are there still 15 year old star trek fans? I thought they were all in their 30s by now. Seriously though, are you rejecting the basic premise that there ought to be limits to how much fictional universe stuff we want? I was hoping we could at least get consensus on that. I notice that every time I try to formalise the status quo, people think I'm trying to change it. This is interesting. Steve

Reply

Oldak Quill

1:33 a.m.

On 20/07/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

That's probably right if you're only referring to demographic or racial groups. But in general, 15 year olds aren't "less worthy" just because they're 15, they're "less worthy" because their interests are less useful to us, and their powers of copywriting and collaborative editing are less good. On average.

I would say that this is nonsense. 15 year olds who chose to edit Wikipedia tend to not stand out as having different tastes to everyone else. At least, that is the case in my experience. To say that any interests are "less useful to us" is nonsense. We have practically unlimited space and for this reason I deny we can ever really have too many factually accurate, verifiable articles on a particular subject. We can, of course, have too few articles on a given subject. For this reason, a common interest is not less useful to us, but a rare interest is more useful to us.

techie doesn't mean you're less of an editor than a wizened African. Every single person who wants to contribute should be welcomed with open arms, whether they intend to improve our coverage of Star Trek or the fine nuances of Bose-Einstein condensates at higher temperatures.

Sure. Some should be welcomed more than others :)

Yes, but no one should be less welcome than average.

Perhaps not. The current situation is that we are making editorial calls on what popular culture is worthy of an article. I would rather

With very little success.

Could you cite an example?

Are there still 15 year old star trek fans? I thought they were all in their 30s by now. Seriously though, are you rejecting the basic premise that there ought to be limits to how much fictional universe stuff we want? I was hoping we could at least get consensus on that. I notice that every time I try to formalise the status quo, people think I'm trying to change it. This is interesting.

Admittedly, I had thought people were more deletionist than they appear to be. This is good news for the project. -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

Reply

Steve Bennett

1:46 a.m.

On 7/21/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote:

To say that any interests are "less useful to us" is nonsense. We have practically unlimited space and for this reason I deny we can ever really have too many factually accurate, verifiable articles on a particular subject. We can, of course, have too few articles on a given subject. For this reason, a common interest is not less useful to us, but a rare interest is more useful to us.

Ok, I think we're talking about different things. A tenured professor who is world expert in his field and is taking the time to write high quality articles about some important field is immensely valuable to us. A 15 year old polishing up an article about the Battle Zoblaorgeth on Mondoorba is less valuable. Not worthless, but less valuable. That's all.

Yes, but no one should be less welcome than average.

:)

Perhaps not. The current situation is that we are making editorial calls on what popular culture is worthy of an article. I would rather

With very little success.

Could you cite an example?

Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28fiction%29 Summary: "Only start articles about minor characters and fictional things if the main articles are too long". That's the extent of our thinking on fictional subjects. Steve

Reply

Ray Saintonge

23 Jul 23 Jul

12:32 a.m.

Steve Bennett wrote:

On 7/21/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote:

To say that any interests are "less useful to us" is nonsense. We have practically unlimited space and for this reason I deny we can ever really have too many factually accurate, verifiable articles on a particular subject. We can, of course, have too few articles on a given subject. For this reason, a common interest is not less useful to us, but a rare interest is more useful to us.

Ok, I think we're talking about different things. A tenured professor who is world expert in his field and is taking the time to write high quality articles about some important field is immensely valuable to us. A 15 year old polishing up an article about the Battle Zoblaorgeth on Mondoorba is less valuable. Not worthless, but less valuable. That's all.

I don't consider him less valuable at all.

Summary: "Only start articles about minor characters and fictional things if the main articles are too long". That's the extent of our thinking on fictional subjects.

At least this has an element of objectivity to it. We have no basis for saying that "Star Wars" should be placed on a higher pedestal than other works of science fiction. Its popularity, however, will spawn a greater volume of writing than some other equally valuable story that has thus far nothing more than a mention in a list of its author's works. Not every Kuyper Belt object will grow up to be a comet. Ec

Reply

Erik Moeller

21 Jul 21 Jul

1:48 a.m.

On 7/20/06, Elisabeth Bauer <elian(a)djini.de> wrote:

One hypothesis: Allowing too much "fancruft" in Wikipedia creates an imbalance in the community structure. There is a really large pool of 15 year old, computer savy kids (some may be older) who get easily attracted to writing wikipedia articles about f.e. star trek compared to a very small pool of for example experts on let's say homer.

What? We have lots of Simpsons articles! ;-) An alternative hypothesis: The kind of editors who would avoid Wikipedia because it accepts the work of 15-year-old Star Trek fans might also be likely to run into social problems when arguing about the influence of the Iliad on modern storytelling -- because, in their character and their social interaction, they are simply not used to notions like the search for consensus, or collaboration in WikiLove. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia _built_ by a community, and the encyclopedia can only be successful if the social interactions of the community are healthy. Therefore, expertise cannot be an excuse for aggressive or dismissive behavior. If there is a group of knowledgeable people who cannot exist in the social environment of Wikipedia, then we should provide other means for them to contribute than being a full member of the community -- rather than trying to restructure our content and, by extension, our community to allow them to fit in. I personally find it amazing and wonderful that so many teenagers wish to contribute to a work of knowledge. That many of them do so in areas of popular culture is hardly surprising, and the environment of Wikipedia is well suited to gradually expose them to new ideas and knowledge. Erik

Reply

Ray Saintonge

23 Jul 23 Jul

12:20 a.m.

Erik Moeller wrote:

On 7/20/06, Elisabeth Bauer <elian(a)djini.de> wrote:

One hypothesis: Allowing too much "fancruft" in Wikipedia creates an imbalance in the community structure. There is a really large pool of 15 year old, computer savy kids (some may be older) who get easily attracted to writing wikipedia articles about f.e. star trek compared to a very small pool of for example experts on let's say homer.

What? We have lots of Simpsons articles! ;-)

Homer Simpson as a modern Ulysses would make an interesting essay topic.

An alternative hypothesis: The kind of editors who would avoid Wikipedia because it accepts the work of 15-year-old Star Trek fans might also be likely to run into social problems when arguing about the influence of the Iliad on modern storytelling -- because, in their character and their social interaction, they are simply not used to notions like the search for consensus, or collaboration in WikiLove.

Many of these skills are learned through participation. Traditionally, school systems have told children what to think and how to believe. They learned that God was in His heaven watching what they did ready to throw thunderbolts at bad children. Good and bad were determined by the priests who had a direct phone line to Thor. As society became more secular citizenship and patriotism became the new values. When you told a child to think it was assumed that he would do so on a sound foundation of those values that the society had previously inculcated in him. All this prepared him to be a contributing adult member of the society. What some of us would now do cost Socrates his life. We want our hypothetical 15-year-old to explore and ask questions. We want him to challenge the theologies that underlay our social structure. If The Simpsons, or Pokémon, or Star Trek are better suited to his explorations than the prevailing Christian, Islamic or Hindu fairy tales that's just fine with me. Indeed posing the questions in such fictional contexts is safer than a direct approach to the prevailing superstitions. Great messages have often been shrouded in fictional drapery. If our 15-year-olds can freely develop their ideas around topics that are important to them at this stage of life, they will certainly apply those skills at a later stage in life to topics which some of us would call "more important".

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia _built_ by a community, and the encyclopedia can only be successful if the social interactions of the community are healthy. Therefore, expertise cannot be an excuse for aggressive or dismissive behavior. If there is a group of knowledgeable people who cannot exist in the social environment of Wikipedia, then we should provide other means for them to contribute than being a full member of the community -- rather than trying to restructure our content and, by extension, our community to allow them to fit in. I personally find it amazing and wonderful that so many teenagers wish to contribute to a work of knowledge. That many of them do so in areas of popular culture is hardly surprising, and the environment of Wikipedia is well suited to gradually expose them to new ideas and knowledge.

Exactly, and to accomplish this we must begin by impressing on them that what they believe matters. Ec

Reply

MacGyverMagic/Mgm

20 Jul 20 Jul

8:10 p.m.

On 7/20/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I don't believe we should compromise our acceptance of content because we worry that some will think less of us. It is not our aim to perfectly match the role of the traditional encyclopedia. We are going to include some content that some think is below them (or should not be in an encyclopedia), that's fine and it isn't our problem. If a user doesn't wish to read about [[Bulbasaur]] then they should take my lead and avoid it.

Do you think there should be no limits to how much fictional universe should be covered? I'm attempting to explain the status quo, not change it. So if you disagree with me, either I'm failing to explain the status quo (most likely), or you actually want to extend it. The status quo, as I understand it, is that for seriously popular series/books etc, each major character can have its own article, otherwise they should be grouped. Each instalment/book/episode can have its own article. However, except for rare examples, *places* in fictional universes do not get articles, nor do events, types of vehicles (Star Wars is exceptional here) However, even still, minor characters in major series do not get their own articles. Why not? Well, that's the question we're trying to resolve here. Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I think [[WP:FICT]] explains all this quite well. Mgm

Reply

MacGyverMagic/Mgm

8:08 p.m.

On 7/20/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote:

The following sentence makes obvious the real reason for you dislike of these articles, elitism: "The harm is mostly the maintenance of large numbers of pages, and to our reputation: a serious encyclopedia".

Ok, bear in mind I'm not trying to express what I personally like and dislike, but attempt to identify the unstated reasoning that leads people to nominate fancruft for AfD. It can't just be because they personally hate it, can it? Maybe take it from the other point of view: the *only* problem with excessive fancruft is that it damages our credibility. If you want to rework the essay a bit, go ahead. Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

So what do you define as excessive fancruft? Surely a [[Bulbasaur]] article isn't considered fancruft? I'm afraid that personal hate of the subject and reputation paranoia are in fact the number 1 reasons for calling something fancruft. Any valid reason to exclude or delete such items could be explained with the regular policies without dumping the fancruft label on it. Mgm

Reply

Mark Wagner

8:44 p.m.

On 7/20/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:

So what do you define as excessive fancruft? Surely a [[Bulbasaur]] article isn't considered fancruft? I'm afraid that personal hate of the subject and reputation paranoia are in fact the number 1 reasons for calling something fancruft. Any valid reason to exclude or delete such items could be explained with the regular policies without dumping the fancruft label on it.

Any article on a fictional subject written largely as if the author were living in the fictional universe in question is fancruft. -- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]

Reply

Peter Ansell

23 Jul 23 Jul

4:12 a.m.

On 21/07/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/20/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:

So what do you define as excessive fancruft? Surely a [[Bulbasaur]] article isn't considered fancruft? I'm afraid that personal hate of the subject and reputation paranoia are in fact the number 1 reasons for calling something fancruft. Any valid reason to exclude or delete such items could be explained with the regular policies without dumping the fancruft label on it.

Any article on a fictional subject written largely as if the author were living in the fictional universe in question is fancruft.

Encyclopedic articles should not be in the first person though, and hence the position of the author should not be identifiable. Still seems like a roundabout definition to me. Also, what policy requires that the author be living in the "real universe" for their contribution to be accepted. Peter Ansell

Reply

Mark Gallagher

7:27 a.m.

G'day Peter,

On 21/07/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Any article on a fictional subject written largely as if the author were living in the fictional universe in question is fancruft.

Encyclopedic articles should not be in the first person though, and hence the position of the author should not be identifiable. Still seems like a roundabout definition to me. Also, what policy requires that the author be living in the "real universe" for their contribution to be accepted.

Fuck policy. Policy is just a stick to beat those people silly enough to refuse to do the Right Thing until we can point out "what policy requires that" ... oh, I see. Ho hum. There's three approaches I've seen taken towards fictional worlds: * The GUNDAM approach. This is: "Here, have some stastistics about our ships. which are really cool. They do 120 points of damage each throw!" * The STAR WARS approach. This is: "Okay, we all know that /Star Wars/ isn't real, and our guidelines on context and dealing with fiction oblige us to tell you that. Nevertheless, we'll pretend that it is, so you will not be able to understand this article unless you're prepared for that. Now, here's what the books tell you about /Star Wars/ --- what, you didn't know the books were more important than the films? You silly sausage! What follows is a biography of Wedge Antilles, who you've probably never even heard of, you prat." * The DOCTOR WHO approach. This is: "/Doctor Who/ is a television programme. One of its fictional creatures is a Dalek. The Dalek design was inspired by a pepper pot, or something, I dunno, and it's significant in the real world for <X reasons/>. In the /Doctor Who/ universe, the Dalek is <explain Dalek on-show/>." Now, the GUNDAM approach is impossible to understand if you aren't already a die-hard freak. The STAR WARS approach meets our guidelines (therefore, your "what policy?" approach is well satisfied) but is bloody difficult for someone who hasn't read the novels, watched the cartoons, and studied the website as if prospecting for gold, to understand --- imagine a /Star Trek/ article that gave Captain Kirk's birth and time-of-thriving only as stardates and based his early life "biography" on obscure comments from Gene Roddenberry. The DOCTOR WHO approach is *exactly* what we want to see: non-fans are able to find out what the hell is going on, and not required to live in the fictional universe the article describes, but those who want to read about the Fourth Doctor's exploits on the planet QXYTWLAZZXYX, where he first uncovered F9, his purrfect robot companion, may also do so. The approach names, of course, aren't meant as (much of) a slur on the authors of the respective universe articles. There's presumably one or two decent /Gundam/ articles around the place (it's rather improbable we could have so many, and all be crap), I just haven't seen them. And the /Star Wars/ folk are at least trying, but I'm sure they have the wrong approach (particularly when they spend ages arguing over how to list the credits for one movie, or adding screenshots to articles not to improve the articles but to Prove A Point). Finally, of course, there *are* crap /Doctor Who/ articles out there --- but on the whole, when someone gets it right, it's /Doctor Who/. (I note /Star Wars/ had an FA recently, and it was decent, too; good stuff --- now let's see "Lightsabre" raised to something approaching that.) -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse

Reply

Peter Ansell

25 Jul 25 Jul

10:03 a.m.

On 23/07/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:

G'day Peter,

On 21/07/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Any article on a fictional subject written largely as if the author were living in the fictional universe in question is fancruft.

Encyclopedic articles should not be in the first person though, and hence the position of the author should not be identifiable. Still seems like a roundabout definition to me. Also, what policy requires that the author be living in the "real universe" for their contribution to be accepted.

Fuck policy. Policy is just a stick to beat those people silly enough to refuse to do the Right Thing until we can point out "what policy requires that" ... oh, I see. Ho hum. There's three approaches I've seen taken towards fictional worlds: * The GUNDAM approach. This is: "Here, have some stastistics about our ships. which are really cool. They do 120 points of damage each throw!" * The STAR WARS approach. This is: "Okay, we all know that /Star Wars/ isn't real, and our guidelines on context and dealing with fiction oblige us to tell you that. Nevertheless, we'll pretend that it is, so you will not be able to understand this article unless you're prepared for that. Now, here's what the books tell you about /Star Wars/ --- what, you didn't know the books were more important than the films? You silly sausage! What follows is a biography of Wedge Antilles, who you've probably never even heard of, you prat." * The DOCTOR WHO approach. This is: "/Doctor Who/ is a television programme. One of its fictional creatures is a Dalek. The Dalek design was inspired by a pepper pot, or something, I dunno, and it's significant in the real world for <X reasons/>. In the /Doctor Who/ universe, the Dalek is <explain Dalek on-show/>." Now, the GUNDAM approach is impossible to understand if you aren't already a die-hard freak. The STAR WARS approach meets our guidelines (therefore, your "what policy?" approach is well satisfied) but is bloody difficult for someone who hasn't read the novels, watched the cartoons, and studied the website as if prospecting for gold, to understand --- imagine a /Star Trek/ article that gave Captain Kirk's birth and time-of-thriving only as stardates and based his early life "biography" on obscure comments from Gene Roddenberry. The DOCTOR WHO approach is *exactly* what we want to see: non-fans are able to find out what the hell is going on, and not required to live in the fictional universe the article describes, but those who want to read about the Fourth Doctor's exploits on the planet QXYTWLAZZXYX, where he first uncovered F9, his purrfect robot companion, may also do so. The approach names, of course, aren't meant as (much of) a slur on the authors of the respective universe articles. There's presumably one or two decent /Gundam/ articles around the place (it's rather improbable we could have so many, and all be crap), I just haven't seen them. And the /Star Wars/ folk are at least trying, but I'm sure they have the wrong approach (particularly when they spend ages arguing over how to list the credits for one movie, or adding screenshots to articles not to improve the articles but to Prove A Point). Finally, of course, there *are* crap /Doctor Who/ articles out there --- but on the whole, when someone gets it right, it's /Doctor Who/. (I note /Star Wars/ had an FA recently, and it was decent, too; good stuff --- now let's see "Lightsabre" raised to something approaching that.)

Thanks for the rather lengthy reply. I was more or less being a devils advocate to get something constructive from the other side of the argumentm which you did quite well with your approaches to different fan orientated subjects. However... I do not see why a user has to be able to read an article without knowing any of the background. Isn't that the purpose of the Simple English wikipedia? The background to an article about the real world is their experience... so what! I always thought an encyclopedia was for things you had not got around to experiencing in real life, and as usual, learning them online requires some initiative to learn the basics first, ie, the basic universe structures in fiction. Peter Ansell

Reply

Alphax (Wikipedia email)

26 Jul 26 Jul

7:02 p.m.

Mark Wagner wrote:

On 7/20/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:

So what do you define as excessive fancruft? Surely a [[Bulbasaur]] article isn't considered fancruft? I'm afraid that personal hate of the subject and reputation paranoia are in fact the number 1 reasons for calling something fancruft. Any valid reason to exclude or delete such items could be explained with the regular policies without dumping the fancruft label on it.

Any article on a fictional subject written largely as if the author were living in the fictional universe in question is fancruft.

Precisely. My preferred writing style for the lede of an article on a "special subject" is: "In (context) (subject) is..." with the article going on to explain the subject not just in it's specialised context, but with relation to the broader context it resides in. This should be *strongly* enforced with respect to articles on fictional subjects; otherwise, we're going to end up with ledes along the lines of: "In 'real life' (subject) is..." -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

Reply

Steve Bennett

7:28 p.m.

On 7/26/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Precisely. My preferred writing style for the lede of an article on a "special subject" is: "In (context) (subject) is..." with the article going on to explain the subject not just in it's specialised context, but with relation to the broader context it resides in. This should be *strongly* enforced with respect to articles on fictional subjects; otherwise, we're going to end up with ledes along the lines of: "In 'real life' (subject) is..."

Yep, "In the fictional universe of Star Wars, " works very well for me. Steve

Reply

maru dubshinki

27 Jul 27 Jul

2:46 a.m.

On 7/26/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Yep, "In the fictional universe of Star Wars, " works very well for me. Steve

Well, actually you should really be specifying whether it is from the movie SW universe, the [[Expanded Universe (Star Wars)]] or whether it is [[fanon]], [[fanfiction]], or [[Star Wars canon|non-canonical]]. ~maru

Reply

Ray Saintonge

26 Jul 26 Jul

11:37 p.m.

Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

Mark Wagner wrote:

On 7/20/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:

So what do you define as excessive fancruft? Surely a [[Bulbasaur]] article isn't considered fancruft? I'm afraid that personal hate of the subject and reputation paranoia are in fact the number 1 reasons for calling something fancruft. Any valid reason to exclude or delete such items could be explained with the regular policies without dumping the fancruft label on it.

Any article on a fictional subject written largely as if the author were living in the fictional universe in question is fancruft.

Precisely. My preferred writing style for the lede of an article on a "special subject" is: "In (context) (subject) is..." with the article going on to explain the subject not just in it's specialised context, but with relation to the broader context it resides in. This should be *strongly* enforced with respect to articles on fictional subjects; otherwise, we're going to end up with ledes along the lines of: "In 'real life' (subject) is..."

I wouldn't object to some kind of fictional material graphic that could be at the head of each relevant article. It doesn't have to be really big. Ec

Reply

Lord Voldemort

11:46 p.m.

On 7/26/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

I wouldn't object to some kind of fictional material graphic that could be at the head of each relevant article. It doesn't have to be really big.

Encyclopedia. We don't need any such graphic, as it should be obvious that the subject matter is fiction. --LV

Reply

Ray Saintonge

27 Jul 27 Jul

11:38 a.m.

Lord Voldemort wrote:

On 7/26/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

I wouldn't object to some kind of fictional material graphic that could be at the head of each relevant article. It doesn't have to be really big.

Encyclopedia. We don't need any such graphic, as it should be obvious that the subject matter is fiction. --LV

Never assume that something which should be obvious actually is. Cluebats should be big enough to do the job. A few years someone on the editorial staff at "Scientific American" was amazed to realize that many readers of that magazine thought that most of the covers of the magazine were photographs rather than artists' interpretations. Ec

Reply

Ray Saintonge

23 Jul 23 Jul

12:42 a.m.

Peter Ansell wrote:

On 20/07/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all, I've written a short essay to tackle notability from a different direction: why do we want to exclude certain articles? It's at [[Wikipedia:Exclusion]]. I'd appreciate your thoughts and additions! Steve

I think it is a much better tack to come at the issue from.

Definitely a constructive approach. Can we read something into the fact that all the heavy discussion in this thread has focussed on only one of the four areas outlined in the essay? Ec

Reply

Steve Bennett

3 p.m.

On 7/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

Definitely a constructive approach. Can we read something into the fact that all the heavy discussion in this thread has focussed on only one of the four areas outlined in the essay?

Yes. It's apparently very difficult to define the problem with fictional universes, besides the fact that people are biased against them. I, too, am biased against them, but can't find many decent reasons for that. Steve

Reply

Guy Chapman aka JzG

3:09 p.m.

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:00:51 +0200, "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

It's apparently very difficult to define the problem with fictional universes, besides the fact that people are biased against them.

I know at least one major problem: the lack of objective external coverage. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Reply

Ray Saintonge

25 Jul 25 Jul

7:09 a.m.

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:00:51 +0200, "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

It's apparently very difficult to define the problem with fictional universes, besides the fact that people are biased against them.

I know at least one major problem: the lack of objective external coverage.

In Wikipedia or elsewhere? You can't trust the fan sites. And there's so much being produced that it's difficult for even a site that limits itself to one genre to keep up. We have chosen to comprehensively attempt a documentation of all genres to the point where many would see us as leading the pack in such things. Other, more "serious" subjects are still doing respectably well, but our greatest success is in what many people see as trivial. We still demand NPOV on these articles, but can be more relaxed about original research. The good secondary material is just not there, and you don't maintain a lead by waiting for other sites or books to put something decent together. Ec

Reply

Guy Chapman aka JzG

9:57 p.m.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:09:20 -0700, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

I know at least one major problem: the lack of objective external coverage.

In Wikipedia or elsewhere?

Elsewhere - after all [[WP:NOR]].

You can't trust the fan sites. And there's so much being produced that it's difficult for even a site that limits itself to one genre to keep up. We have chosen to comprehensively attempt a documentation of all genres to the point where many would see us as leading the pack in such things.

Hmmm. Not what we're supposed to be for, though, is it? Leading the pack in documenting things? I thought we were supposed to collect information from reliable secondary sources? Without novel syntheses?

Other, more "serious" subjects are still doing respectably well, but our greatest success is in what many people see as trivial. We still demand NPOV on these articles, but can be more relaxed about original research.

But we shouldn't be. Unless we want to change our mission to being the *first* secondary source to document things neutrally from *primary* sources?

The good secondary material is just not there, and you don't maintain a lead by waiting for other sites or books to put something decent together.

Who needs to maintain a lead in doing what is, after all, primarily a job of documenting a heavily commercialised fad largely aimed at extracting money from gullible kids? Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Reply

Erik Moeller

26 Jul 26 Jul

4:36 a.m.

On 7/25/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:

Hmmm. Not what we're supposed to be for, though, is it? Leading the pack in documenting things? I thought we were supposed to collect information from reliable secondary sources? Without novel syntheses?

[...]

But we shouldn't be. Unless we want to change our mission to being the *first* secondary source to document things neutrally from *primary* sources?

There is no policy against primary sources. In fact, [[WP:NOR]] explicitly states: "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged." People have been overinterpreting WP:RS recently (which itself is a guideline, not policy). This is a problematic trend. Erik

Reply

Steve Bennett

5:24 p.m.

On 7/26/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote:

People have been overinterpreting WP:RS recently (which itself is a guideline, not policy). This is a problematic trend.

Yes. There is very much confusion between the concepts of "verifiability" (we can determine where information came from), "verifiable sources" (we can actually get hold of the sources of the information), and "reliable sources" (those sources aren't hate blogs). It might help to establish some kind of scale of good to bad: 1. Information is cited to a high quality source which is easily obtained. 2. Information is cited to a high quality source which is not easily obtained. 3. Information came from a high quality source, but was not cited. 4. Information is cited to a low quality source which is easily obtained. 5. Information is cited to a low quality source which is not easily obtained. 6. Information came from a low quality source, which was not cited. Do people agree with that ranking? I place 3 above 4 because at least in 3 the information is, at the end of the day, very likely correct. And I imagine we prefer having high quality, unsourced information, rather than low quality, sourced information. Though it's certainly better to have low quality sourced information than low quality unsourced information. Interestingly, when I reanalyse that list, it gives the following priorities: 1. Use high quality sources [[WP:RS]] 2. Cite your sources [[WP:CS]] 3. Use sources that are easily obtained [[WP:V]] Steve

Reply

Ray Saintonge

27 Jul 27 Jul

9:55 a.m.

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:09:20 -0700, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

You can't trust the fan sites. And there's so much being produced that it's difficult for even a site that limits itself to one genre to keep up. We have chosen to comprehensively attempt a documentation of all genres to the point where many would see us as leading the pack in such things.

Hmmm. Not what we're supposed to be for, though, is it? Leading the pack in documenting things? I thought we were supposed to collect information from reliable secondary sources? Without novel syntheses?

I prefer to avoid preconceived ideas about what we're supposed to be for. Very recent material and ideas are the history of the future, but it's difficult to know which will last.

Other, more "serious" subjects are still doing respectably well, but our greatest success is in what many people see as trivial. We still demand NPOV on these articles, but can be more relaxed about original research.

But we shouldn't be. Unless we want to change our mission to being the *first* secondary source to document things neutrally from *primary* sources?

Whether we draw from primary or secondary sources shouldn't matter.

The good secondary material is just not there, and you don't maintain a lead by waiting for other sites or books to put something decent together.

Who needs to maintain a lead in doing what is, after all, primarily a job of documenting a heavily commercialised fad largely aimed at extracting money from gullible kids?

I agree that much of these materials were designed to extract money, and not just from kids. It would also be nice to have articles on the economics and marketting of entertainment products. What would you think of a warning to kids on each of these pop articles telling kids how badly they are being ripped off. ;-)

Reply

Guy Chapman aka JzG

28 Jul 28 Jul

3 a.m.

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:55:19 -0700, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

I prefer to avoid preconceived ideas about what we're supposed to be for. Very recent material and ideas are the history of the future, but it's difficult to know which will last.

It is the nature of encyclopaedias to be backward-looking. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Reply

Ray Saintonge

25 Jul 25 Jul

6:44 a.m.

Steve Bennett wrote:

On 7/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

Definitely a constructive approach. Can we read something into the fact that all the heavy discussion in this thread has focussed on only one of the four areas outlined in the essay?

Yes. It's apparently very difficult to define the problem with fictional universes, besides the fact that people are biased against them. I, too, am biased against them, but can't find many decent reasons for that.

Maybe many of us are just plain ambiguous about these pop-culture related topics. At the same time I was heartened by the thread about the Australian newspaper that praised Wikipedia for its work in this area. I confess that when I am being the passive user I am more likely to use Wikipedia as a first choice to find out about pop-culture questions than about almost any other subject. Ec

Reply

6480

days inactive

6488

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

52 comments

19 participants

tags (0)

participants (19)

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
Bryan Derksen
Elisabeth Bauer
Erik Moeller
geni
Guy Chapman aka JzG
Lord Voldemort
MacGyverMagic/Mgm
Mark Gallagher
Mark Wagner
maru dubshinki
Oldak Quill
Peter Ansell
Ray Saintonge
Rob
Sam Pointon
Sean Barrett
Stephen Bain
Steve Bennett