Didn't see anyone mention this article from yesterday,
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1882027,00.html
title, "I'm on Wikipedia, get me out of here", by [[Seth Finkelstein".
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Charles wrote:
Didn't see anyone mention this article from yesterday, http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1882027,00.html title, "I'm on Wikipedia, get me out of here", by [[Seth Finkelstein".
I was struck by Seth's account of how he "strongly argued the case against myself" at AFD. I suspect that a biographical article's subject tends to carry significant but paradoxical undue weight at AFD, in two contradictory directions. Subjects who argue that they are notable and that their articles should be kept are obviously vain self-promoters, so their articles should obviously be deleted. But subjects who argue that their articles should be deleted are obviously trying to hide something (or, at least, to unjustly influence the free flow of information), so their articles should obviously be kept.
Steve Summit wrote:
Charles wrote:
Didn't see anyone mention this article from yesterday, http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1882027,00.html title, "I'm on Wikipedia, get me out of here", by [[Seth Finkelstein".
I was struck by Seth's account of how he "strongly argued the case against myself" at AFD. I suspect that a biographical article's subject tends to carry significant but paradoxical undue weight at AFD, in two contradictory directions. Subjects who argue that they are notable and that their articles should be kept are obviously vain self-promoters, so their articles should obviously be deleted. But subjects who argue that their articles should be deleted are obviously trying to hide something (or, at least, to unjustly influence the free flow of information), so their articles should obviously be kept.
Strangely, this really is how it usually happens in my experience, mainly because the other two cases don't require the person in question to argue. Genuinely famous people who want an article don't have to create or argue for it themselves, because they're genuinely famous, so someone else will do it. Genuinely unknown people will have their article summarily deleted without any intervention on their part. (A few edge cases do buck this trend.)
-Mark
Charles wrote:
Didn't see anyone mention this article from yesterday, http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1882027,00.html title, "I'm on Wikipedia, get me out of here", by [[Seth Finkelstein".
Anyone who's at all interested should definitely read through [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seth_Finkelstein]] from July. Note in particular how Seth managed to maintain a civil and reasonable tone even while repeatedly trading the barb "repeating a fallacious argument does not make it any the less fallacious" with a remarkably insensitive, rulemongering wikilawyer. (Note also how little good it did him in the end.)
--- charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Didn't see anyone mention this article from yesterday,
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1882027,00.html
title, "I'm on Wikipedia, get me out of here", by [[Seth Finkelstein".
Interesting. A couple of comments:
* If a biography subject is genuinely notable, then whether or not he wants an article on himself or not to exist is irrelevant. We would try and communicate that fact tactfully, of course.
* There's lots of disagreement on Wikipedia about what is notable. (Yeah, I'm observant...) My personal definition would exclude a fair bit of current Wikipedia content (so I'm a theoretical deletionist), but I'm happy to live with it (and hence am a de facto inclusionist) because: 1) It does me no harm. I don't have to read articles that I think are non-notable. 2) It does other people no harm. That is, few other people want to read them either, and for the few who do, there's little real-world harm that comes from blantant falsehoods about (say) minor Pokémon characters.
However, in the case of living person bios, "2" may not hold. Malicious persons can write all kinds of false and libellous things that will quite possibly go completely unnoticed until they've been widely mirrored across the Web.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
On 29/09/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
- If a biography subject is genuinely notable, then whether or not he wants an
article on himself or not to exist is irrelevant. We would try and communicate that fact tactfully, of course.
Done that. "I'm afraid an MBE probably means you're at least marginally notable. It's a pretty important and public form of recognition."
- There's lots of disagreement on Wikipedia about what is notable.
* Wikipedia is inconsistent. * Making it consistent would mean arbitrary decisions that in practice upset people a lot. (e.g. arbitrary or culturally-biased notability cutoffs.) * Wikipedia tolerates things it does not condone (same reason) as long as they aren't too awful right now.
(Yeah, I'm observant...) My personal definition would exclude a fair bit of current Wikipedia content (so I'm a theoretical deletionist), but I'm happy to live with it (and hence am a de facto inclusionist) because:
- It does me no harm. I don't have to read articles that I think are
non-notable. 2) It does other people no harm. That is, few other people want to read them either, and for the few who do, there's little real-world harm that comes from blantant falsehoods about (say) minor Pokémon characters.
Yeah. That we have a Britannica volume of Pokemon isn't painfully in the reader's face.
However, in the case of living person bios, "2" may not hold. Malicious persons can write all kinds of false and libellous things that will quite possibly go completely unnoticed until they've been widely mirrored across the Web.
Hence the new nutshell for WP:BIO. (Which I wrote *preens* Any other bad nutshells in need of clarity?)
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
However, in the case of living person bios, "2" may not hold. Malicious
persons
can write all kinds of false and libellous things that will quite possibly
go
completely unnoticed until they've been widely mirrored across the Web.
Hence the new nutshell for WP:BIO. (Which I wrote *preens* Any other bad nutshells in need of clarity?)
You mean WP:LIVING, I presume. Cool. One for WP:BIO wouldn't hurt, though.
Precisely because Wikipedia articles about living people can affect the subject's life, how about we have some sort of "presumption in favour of non-notability" for living bios? That is, if an AfD offered no consensus, then it would be deleted, rather than kept as at present.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
On 29/09/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
You mean WP:LIVING, I presume. Cool. One for WP:BIO wouldn't hurt, though.
So it wouldn't :-)
Precisely because Wikipedia articles about living people can affect the subject's life, how about we have some sort of "presumption in favour of non-notability" for living bios? That is, if an AfD offered no consensus, then it would be deleted, rather than kept as at present.
Not sure ... something about that looks like a quick hack that doesn't naturally flow from the content policies. OTOH whether defaulting to keep does is a good question that I'm sure no-one on this list has anything to say about.
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Gerard stated for the record:
On 29/09/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
- If a biography subject is genuinely notable, then whether or not he wants an
article on himself or not to exist is irrelevant. We would try and communicate that fact tactfully, of course.
Done that. "I'm afraid an MBE probably means you're at least marginally notable. It's a pretty important and public form of recognition."
O RLY? If a mere MBA is borderline notable (it isn't, of course) I may have to rethink taking the [[PMP]] exam.
Not really, but the thought did cross my mind.
- -- Sean Barrett | Let us all go worship Loki. sean@epoptic.com | He's the Norse God of Chaos, | Which is why this verse | doesn't rhyme or scan or nuthin'.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Sean Barrett wrote:
O RLY? If a mere MBA is borderline notable (it isn't, of course) I may have to rethink taking the [[PMP]] exam.
Not really, but the thought did cross my mind.
An MBE is different from an MBA. One is a UK honour, the other is an exam. Unless that was a typo, in which case I'll shut up :)
Cynical
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Russell stated for the record:
Sean Barrett wrote:
O RLY? If a mere MBA is borderline notable (it isn't, of course) I may have to rethink taking the [[PMP]] exam.
Not really, but the thought did cross my mind.
An MBE is different from an MBA. One is a UK honour, the other is an exam. Unless that was a typo, in which case I'll shut up :)
Cynical
No, it was a failure somewhere between my reading of the original and typing of my reply, probably caused by bad drugs. I'll have a word with my LDS dealer.
Thanks for the correction.
- -- Sean Barrett | Let us all go worship Loki. sean@epoptic.com | He's the Norse God of Chaos, | Which is why this verse | doesn't rhyme or scan or nuthin'.
Sean Barrett wrote:
David Russell stated for the record:
An MBE is different from an MBA. One is a UK honour, the other is an
exam. Unless that was a typo, in which case I'll shut up :)
No, it was a failure somewhere between my reading of the original and typing of my reply, probably caused by bad drugs. I'll have a word with my LDS dealer.
This seems to bring out an inaccuracy in Marx. Religion may be the opium for some people, but for other religions the effect may be that of a different drug.
Gasoline fumes from hanging around NASCAR tracks anybody?
Ec