Or instead, we could try to keep up with growth by implementing some more advanced soft controls of our own.
I know I've seen some people stating on their userpages something to the effect that if you can produce verification that you are an expert in a field, they will kill an AfD on an article in that field on your word that it is notable.
I'm curious if anyone takes them up on this?
Dan
On 19/09/06, dmehkeri@swi.com dmehkeri@swi.com wrote:
Or instead, we could try to keep up with growth by implementing some more advanced soft controls of our own.
I know I've seen some people stating on their userpages something to the effect that if you can produce verification that you are an expert in a field, they will kill an AfD on an article in that field on your word that it is notable.
I'm curious if anyone takes them up on this?
Dan
Im curious as to whether that goes against the typical ethic portrayed by [[Wikipedia:Notability]] where things seem to be never notable unless people _outside_ of a field say they are, which would trump everyone interested in a topic, __especially__ experts.
Just to put it in perspective, you have experts on a number of topics, sciences, history, and then there are experts on Star Trek... Why do people distinguish between them? I dunno...
Peter Ansell
On 19/09/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Im curious as to whether that goes against the typical ethic portrayed by [[Wikipedia:Notability]] where things seem to be never notable unless people _outside_ of a field say they are, which would trump everyone interested in a topic, __especially__ experts.
IIRC this was something put in by Aaron Brenneman with the aim of keeping Phil Sandifer from saying anything about webcomics.
- d.
On 9/19/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
IIRC this was something put in by Aaron Brenneman with the aim of keeping Phil Sandifer from saying anything about webcomics.
Understanding that things like this happen is key to realising why not everything written in Wikipedia pages that claim to be policy really is, and why IAR exists.
-Matt
Peter Ansell wrote:
Im curious as to whether that goes against the typical ethic portrayed by [[Wikipedia:Notability]] where things seem to be never notable unless people _outside_ of a field say they are, which would trump everyone interested in a topic, __especially__ experts.
This is mainly directed at experts in sociological phenomena I think, because there's some contingent of Wikipedians who are irrationally afraid of "fancruft", as if more articles on webcomics equals a worse encyclopedia.
In less contentious areas, this "policy" is ignored---we don't delete obscure mathematics articles, even if nobody outside professional mathematics has ever heard of the topic.
-Mark
On 18/09/06, dmehkeri@swi.com dmehkeri@swi.com wrote:
Or instead, we could try to keep up with growth by implementing some more advanced soft controls of our own.
I know I've seen some people stating on their userpages something to the effect that if you can produce verification that you are an expert in a field, they will kill an AfD on an article in that field on your word that it is notable. I'm curious if anyone takes them up on this?
I've had no takers so far.
I've occasionally commented on Australian music AFDs saying "hello, expert here, this stuff is not in Google but it is in printed books. Mine are in Australia, I'm in London. But yes, this is notable and shouldn't be deleted. I'll see if I can fix it up." So far they've been kept.
- d.