I don't post to the mailing list much, but deletion has recently become an area of great interest to me.
First off I don't think VfD is "broken." I think it is wonderful and in an ideal world every article would be given as much scrutiny as those of VfD receive. At least 99% of deletion decisions are valid.
I do, however, see some worrying trends. My concern is over the issue of notability. In the past the articles listed on VfD were there because they were pure fiction, vanities, nonsense, or advertising. In recent months, however, an increasing number of articles are being listed because simply because they are seen as not being notable enough for an encyclopedia.
This is despite there being nowhere in What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, or Wikipedia:Vanity articles where articles on non-notable things listed as being eligible for deletion. There is no consensus that things that are well-known but not notable should eligible for deletion.
Originally non-notable things and people were not deleted simply because they were not well known, but rather because articles on non-famous individuals, neologisms, garage bands, etc. are unverifiable and prone to bias. Over time "non-notable things should be deleted because they inevitably violate Wikipedia's goal of a neutral and high quality encyclopedia" was simplified to just "non-notable things should be deleted." With the original reasoning being lost the definition for what is not notable has increasingly been set by wholly arbitrary criteria. There are at least two users, for instance, who today vote to delete anything to do with fictional worlds and the only justification they feel is necessary is to declare these things "not notable" or "fancruft".
For the most part things that are well known, but considered by some not to be notable, do not get consensus for deletion. Those not getting deleted are also a problem because they clog VfD and waste everyone's time. Those occasional ones that do receive consensus for deletion are an even greater problem because content is being removed from Wikipedia counter to existing policy and against the consensus of all but the small VfD community.
There has been an attempt to add lack of notability as a reason for deletion (see [[Wikipedia:Importance]]). This effort seems to have failed and there is no current policy for deleting non-notable things, other than vanity articles.
I have recently been doing the majority of the removing of articles from VfD/Old. I am no longer going to delete articles that receive consensus for deletion purely because they are not notable. Rather I propose moving them to [[Wikipedia:List of articles awaiting a policy to be deleted]]. Articles that do not meet any of the 30 criteria listed on What Wikipedia is not and the Deletion policy page should be set aside. When and if new policies are worked out that provide a justification for deleting these articles they can then be quickly deleted.
- SimonP
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Wonderful. Let's not delete things that don't meet the criteria for deletion! Mark
--- Simon Pulsifer se_pulsifer@yahoo.ca wrote:
I don't post to the mailing list much, but deletion has recently become an area of great interest to me.
First off I don't think VfD is "broken." I think it is wonderful and in an ideal world every article would be given as much scrutiny as those of VfD receive. At least 99% of deletion decisions are valid.
I do, however, see some worrying trends. My concern is over the issue of notability. In the past the articles listed on VfD were there because they were pure fiction, vanities, nonsense, or advertising. In recent months, however, an increasing number of articles are being listed because simply because they are seen as not being notable enough for an encyclopedia.
This is despite there being nowhere in What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, or Wikipedia:Vanity articles where articles on non-notable things listed as being eligible for deletion. There is no consensus that things that are well-known but not notable should eligible for deletion.
Originally non-notable things and people were not deleted simply because they were not well known, but rather because articles on non-famous individuals, neologisms, garage bands, etc. are unverifiable and prone to bias. Over time "non-notable things should be deleted because they inevitably violate Wikipedia's goal of a neutral and high quality encyclopedia" was simplified to just "non-notable things should be deleted." With the original reasoning being lost the definition for what is not notable has increasingly been set by wholly arbitrary criteria. There are at least two users, for instance, who today vote to delete anything to do with fictional worlds and the only justification they feel is necessary is to declare these things "not notable" or "fancruft".
For the most part things that are well known, but considered by some not to be notable, do not get consensus for deletion. Those not getting deleted are also a problem because they clog VfD and waste everyone's time. Those occasional ones that do receive consensus for deletion are an even greater problem because content is being removed from Wikipedia counter to existing policy and against the consensus of all but the small VfD community.
There has been an attempt to add lack of notability as a reason for deletion (see [[Wikipedia:Importance]]). This effort seems to have failed and there is no current policy for deleting non-notable things, other than vanity articles.
I have recently been doing the majority of the removing of articles from VfD/Old. I am no longer going to delete articles that receive consensus for deletion purely because they are not notable. Rather I propose moving them to [[Wikipedia:List of articles awaiting a policy to be deleted]]. Articles that do not meet any of the 30 criteria listed on What Wikipedia is not and the Deletion policy page should be set aside. When and if new policies are worked out that provide a justification for deleting these articles they can then be quickly deleted.
- SimonP
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW
Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
This page has no basis in any deletion policy, which says nothing about criteria for deletion on VfD. It notes only that rough consensus on VfD is grounds for deletion.
-Snowspinner
On Oct 22, 2004, at 12:44 PM, Simon Pulsifer wrote:
I don't post to the mailing list much, but deletion has recently become an area of great interest to me.
First off I don't think VfD is "broken." I think it is wonderful and in an ideal world every article would be given as much scrutiny as those of VfD receive. At least 99% of deletion decisions are valid.
I do, however, see some worrying trends. My concern is over the issue of notability. In the past the articles listed on VfD were there because they were pure fiction, vanities, nonsense, or advertising. In recent months, however, an increasing number of articles are being listed because simply because they are seen as not being notable enough for an encyclopedia.
This is despite there being nowhere in What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, or Wikipedia:Vanity articles where articles on non-notable things listed as being eligible for deletion. There is no consensus that things that are well-known but not notable should eligible for deletion.
Originally non-notable things and people were not deleted simply because they were not well known, but rather because articles on non-famous individuals, neologisms, garage bands, etc. are unverifiable and prone to bias. Over time "non-notable things should be deleted because they inevitably violate Wikipedia's goal of a neutral and high quality encyclopedia" was simplified to just "non-notable things should be deleted." With the original reasoning being lost the definition for what is not notable has increasingly been set by wholly arbitrary criteria. There are at least two users, for instance, who today vote to delete anything to do with fictional worlds and the only justification they feel is necessary is to declare these things "not notable" or "fancruft".
For the most part things that are well known, but considered by some not to be notable, do not get consensus for deletion. Those not getting deleted are also a problem because they clog VfD and waste everyone's time. Those occasional ones that do receive consensus for deletion are an even greater problem because content is being removed from Wikipedia counter to existing policy and against the consensus of all but the small VfD community.
There has been an attempt to add lack of notability as a reason for deletion (see [[Wikipedia:Importance]]). This effort seems to have failed and there is no current policy for deleting non-notable things, other than vanity articles.
I have recently been doing the majority of the removing of articles from VfD/Old. I am no longer going to delete articles that receive consensus for deletion purely because they are not notable. Rather I propose moving them to [[Wikipedia:List of articles awaiting a policy to be deleted]]. Articles that do not meet any of the 30 criteria listed on What Wikipedia is not and the Deletion policy page should be set aside. When and if new policies are worked out that provide a justification for deleting these articles they can then be quickly deleted.
- SimonP
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Oct 22, 2004, at 12:44 PM, Simon Pulsifer wrote: I do, however, see some worrying trends. My concern is over the issue of notability.
There is absolutely no reason why WP should try to become an encyclopedia. In my site wikinerds.org I use the term "knowledge base" to describe my wikis, meaning that any kind of knowledge is accepted there.
I suggest WP to do the same: Stop trying to compete with Encyclopaedia Britannica and become a "neutral factual verifiable knowledge base".
I should also note that many WP articles in scientific and technical subjects have so little information that they are useful only to the general public who is totally ignorant of such things, while the scientists and technologists who have the knowledge will probably think that WP "is just another popular non-scientific site" and turn to other more specialised resources. WP should try to become less popularistic (articles in musical albums and movies shine, but many articles on hard science and technology just aren't good).
I think the fact that Wikipedia describes itself as "The Free Encyclopedia" provides a somewhat convincing reason to be an encyclopedia.
-Snowspinner
On Oct 22, 2004, at 7:02 PM, NSK wrote:
On Oct 22, 2004, at 12:44 PM, Simon Pulsifer wrote: I do, however, see some worrying trends. My concern is over the issue of notability.
There is absolutely no reason why WP should try to become an encyclopedia. In my site wikinerds.org I use the term "knowledge base" to describe my wikis, meaning that any kind of knowledge is accepted there.
I suggest WP to do the same: Stop trying to compete with Encyclopaedia Britannica and become a "neutral factual verifiable knowledge base".
I should also note that many WP articles in scientific and technical subjects have so little information that they are useful only to the general public who is totally ignorant of such things, while the scientists and technologists who have the knowledge will probably think that WP "is just another popular non-scientific site" and turn to other more specialised resources. WP should try to become less popularistic (articles in musical albums and movies shine, but many articles on hard science and technology just aren't good).
-- NSK Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Saturday 23 October 2004 03:13, Phil Sandifer wrote:
I think the fact that Wikipedia describes itself as "The Free Encyclopedia" provides a somewhat convincing reason to be an encyclopedia.
Well, I do recognise that this claim ("the free encyclopedia") may have helped you in WP marketing. I wonder whether WP's popularity would have achieved if you hadn't made that claim. Have you ever thought about that?
NSK wrote:
On Saturday 23 October 2004 03:13, Phil Sandifer wrote:
I think the fact that Wikipedia describes itself as "The Free Encyclopedia" provides a somewhat convincing reason to be an encyclopedia.
Well, I do recognise that this claim ("the free encyclopedia") may have helped you in WP marketing. I wonder whether WP's popularity would have achieved if you hadn't made that claim. Have you ever thought about that?
As Wikipedia has claimed all along to be a free encyclopedia, and in fact keeps this as its main goal, I have no doubt that this is the reason we are popular. In fact, I have no doubt that is ONE of the reasons we remain popular!
Wikipedia claims to be a free encylopedia, and has always claimed this. We have never claimed to be a knowledge-base. Sure, there are articles that are not encylopedic, but these are articles that need to be either a) moved to wikibooks, or b) altered to make them encyclopedic. A good example here would be the [[Internet Explorer]] article, where there was the potential for including a howto on removing it from the O/S. This would be inappropriate for the article, and I would move this to Wikibooks.
TBSDY
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 03:02:43 +0300, NSK nsk2@wikinerds.org wrote:
I suggest WP to do the same: Stop trying to compete with Encyclopaedia Britannica and become a "neutral factual verifiable knowledge base".
You can be both.
Jimbo has said: "I would view [a traditional encyclopedia] as a competitor, except that I think they will be crushed out of existence within 5 years."
http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/04/07/28/1351230.shtml?tid=146&...
On 23 Oct 2004, at 02:02, NSK wrote:
There is absolutely no reason why WP should try to become an encyclopedia.
Well, first you wanted to exclude anons, restrict editing privileges, totally changing our consensus and editing processes in the wake of it...
Somehow your above sentence just doesn't even surprise me anymore.
IMHO most of what you said might have a place with hypothetical or already existing Wikipedia forks, but, well, I mean, if you don't even agree upon us building an '''encyclopedia''' here, well, that's not a lot of common ground, now is it?
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
On Saturday 23 October 2004 03:53, Jens Ropers wrote:
if you don't even agree upon us building an '''encyclopedia''' here, well, that's not a lot of common ground, now is it?
I do not agree that WP should be an "encyclopedia" because I believe that encyclopedias are obsolete products of the 18th century. The future is the creation of interconnected "knowledge bases". It's a philosophical distinction. WP, however, is also an almanac ([[2004]]) and I do agree that WP should be an almanac, so there is certainly some common ground.
Isn't this mailing list a good place to have discussions and propose things, or should I refrain from posting here?
I think I have some nice things to propose to WP that can help your community as well as perhaps having some form of future cooperation. Some proposed ideas might be bad but others might be good. After some discussion the bad ones will be identified and the good ones can be implemented. I think this kind of discussion can be beneficial.
It was my understanding that your mailing lists are the proper place to have this kind of discussion. But if I misunderstood, I have no problem to go elsewhere. You only have to tell me.
NSK wrote:
On Saturday 23 October 2004 03:53, Jens Ropers wrote:
if you don't even agree upon us building an '''encyclopedia''' here, well, that's not a lot of common ground, now is it?
I do not agree that WP should be an "encyclopedia" because I believe that encyclopedias are obsolete products of the 18th century. The future is the creation of interconnected "knowledge bases". It's a philosophical distinction. WP, however, is also an almanac ([[2004]]) and I do agree that WP should be an almanac, so there is certainly some common ground.
Isn't this mailing list a good place to have discussions and propose things, or should I refrain from posting here?
I think I have some nice things to propose to WP that can help your community as well as perhaps having some form of future cooperation. Some proposed ideas might be bad but others might be good. After some discussion the bad ones will be identified and the good ones can be implemented. I think this kind of discussion can be beneficial.
It was my understanding that your mailing lists are the proper place to have this kind of discussion. But if I misunderstood, I have no problem to go elsewhere. You only have to tell me.
NSK, you are more than welcome to discuss issues about Wikipedia on this mailing list. We value your contribution, however don't expect us to agree with you all the time or implement all your suggestions. Some of them may not mesh in with our objectives.
I was thinking your knowledgebase idea is a good one, just not appropriate to Wikipedia. Perhaps it would be better to include this in Wikibooks? Perhaps, even, its more appropriate for Wikinerds! :)
So just to let you know: you are most definitely welcome here.
TBSDY
On Saturday 23 October 2004 09:49, csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
don't expect us to agree with you all the time
I have no reason to expect something like this
I was thinking your knowledgebase idea is a good one
Thanks
just not appropriate to Wikipedia
My impression was that some people prefer to participate in endless discussions about whether a particular article is encyclopedic or not or whether it should be deleted or moved instead of editing or improving the actual content. But it may be just an impression.
csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
I was thinking your knowledgebase idea is a good one, just not appropriate to Wikipedia. Perhaps it would be better to include this in Wikibooks? Perhaps, even, its more appropriate for Wikinerds! :)
I've been thinking about the knowledge base thing, too.
Wikipedia operates as a combination of a traditional encyclopedia and a knowledge base. I'm wondering if it might not be appropriate to create a knowledge base that continues to operate on NPOV and factuality but without substantial limits on what subjects can be written about and in how much detail (the scar on my right leg, for instance, would be a legitimate candidate for a thirty-five page article if someone wants to write it), and retain Wikipedia largely as-is but with tightened and clarified guidelines on what should be included and in how much detail, basically operating a little bit more like a traditional encyclopedia while keeping the core principles intact.
This is a rough idea that just came out of my head in a semi-incoherent rush, but I thought I'd toss it out there.
On Saturday 23 October 2004 16:15, Nicholas Knight wrote:
Wikipedia operates as a combination of a traditional encyclopedia and a knowledge base.
Traditional encyclopedias were the products of 18th century thought. Now we live in the modern digital era so we need knowledge bases.
In a perfect knowledge base every word should be hyperlinked.
I'm wondering if it might not be appropriate to create a knowledge base that continues to operate on NPOV and factuality but
You may be interested to visit this: http://jnana.wikinerds.org
This is a rough idea that just came out of my head in a semi-incoherent rush, but I thought I'd toss it out there.
I like this kind of ideas.
NSK (nsk2@wikinerds.org) [041023 11:11]:
I think I have some nice things to propose to WP that can help your community
Whether good ideas or not, I hope you can see that they are unlikely to achieve traction if presented as "help your community" rather than "help our community". An outside view is useful, but to achieve traction it would need to be presented from the inside viewpoint.
- d.
NSK (nsk2@wikinerds.org) [041023 09:58]:
I suggest WP to do the same: Stop trying to compete with Encyclopaedia Britannica and become a "neutral factual verifiable knowledge base".
I suggest you spend a bit longer around WP and get a feel for the culture. This proposal appears to show very little comprehension of how it works. Everyone is here to write an encyclopedia. I would guess quite a few are here to write *the* Encyclopedia.
- d.
On Saturday 23 October 2004 20:39, David Gerard wrote:
This proposal appears to show very little comprehension of how it works.
I am sure that I know how it works.
Everyone is here to write an encyclopedia.
I think there are many people here who do not actually care about building an encyclopedia.
I think your characterization is as faulty as your logic.
RickK
NSK nsk2@wikinerds.org wrote: On Saturday 23 October 2004 20:39, David Gerard wrote:
This proposal appears to show very little comprehension of how it works.
I am sure that I know how it works.
Everyone is here to write an encyclopedia.
I think there are many people here who do not actually care about building an encyclopedia.