I think it proves that certain factions or editors are becoming too deletionist.
| Tyler | Zorin Deckiller | | Wikipedia Administrator | Former SWU member | | _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deckiller_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deckiller) | | _http://www.myspace.com/redsectora_ (http://www.myspace.com/redsectora) |
SonOfYoungwood@aol.com wrote:
I think it proves that certain factions or editors are becoming too deletionist.
The sooner we start making RS subject-specific the better. This nonsense has got to stop.
-Jeff
Friday, February 16, 2007, 3:48:59 AM, Jeff wrote:
I think it proves that certain factions or editors are becoming too deletionist.
The sooner we start making RS subject-specific the better. This nonsense has got to stop.
Exactly. Reliable sources suck! For web content, we should have less strict standards and allow regular blogs and forum/usenet posts as sources!
PS: I can't wait for the policy to change, in order to start writing a few articles about me and my blog, referencing them from the blogs of my friends and family.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:34:00 +0200, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
Exactly. Reliable sources suck! For web content, we should have less strict standards and allow regular blogs and forum/usenet posts as sources!
Nope. What we should do is assess sources according to - well, their reliability. A random blogger is not reliable. A politically opinionated blog is often not reliable. Some blogs are reliable for some things and not for others. Blogs are ephemeral, and often someone will post an error then correct it in a subsequent posting.
If the sole sources for an article are blogs, I would say that is prima facie evidence that the subject is not encyclopaedic. I have little problem with a blog traceable to an identified authority being used as a source for individual facts.
However, if there are no substantial independent secondary sources - meaning profiles of the subject in the news media and the like - then we can't have an article because without sources of independent critical review we can't verify neutrality. Plus it's likely ephemera, take it to Cruftpedia :-)
Guy (JzG)
It proves nothing about deletionism and it doesn't mean reliable sources suck either. It means the reason for a nomination actually has to be checked before an article is deleted. If the nominator says the site has no Alexa ranking you check the site to see if it actually is about the article's subject, and you check if a relevant site indeed has no Alexa ranking.
He tricked the real people in this debate because they were simply sloppy in handling it.
The rules are fine as they are as long as the deleting admin actually applies them.
Mgm
On 2/16/07, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
Friday, February 16, 2007, 3:48:59 AM, Jeff wrote:
I think it proves that certain factions or editors are becoming too deletionist.
The sooner we start making RS subject-specific the better. This nonsense has got to stop.
Exactly. Reliable sources suck! For web content, we should have less strict standards and allow regular blogs and forum/usenet posts as sources!
PS: I can't wait for the policy to change, in order to start writing a few articles about me and my blog, referencing them from the blogs of my friends and family.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
He tricked the real people in this debate because they were simply sloppy in handling it.
Sure, but he also proved something - he knows that Wikipedia believes - falsely - that webcomics aren't "notable," and that he can say anything about any webcomic and likely get it deleted.
The rules are fine as they are as long as the deleting admin actually applies them.
Yeah, but that can't be trusted anymore, either. Look at how the DRV is going for it. Look at how the DRV is going for Gregory Kohs. It doesn't matter if the rules are applied properly, it simply matters as to whether the rules are applied in a way that fits Wikipedia's biases in some subject areas.
-Jeff
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:37:49 -0500, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Sure, but he also proved something - he knows that Wikipedia believes - falsely - that webcomics aren't "notable," and that he can say anything about any webcomic and likely get it deleted.
No, he knows that lack of notability is grounds for deletion, and that some people on AfD will !vote delete without checking. That applies to anything, not just webcruft.
Guy (JzG)
Jeff Raymond wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
He tricked the real people in this debate because they were simply sloppy in handling it.
Sure, but he also proved something - he knows that Wikipedia believes - falsely - that webcomics aren't "notable," and that he can say anything about any webcomic and likely get it deleted.
The rules are fine as they are as long as the deleting admin actually applies them.
Yeah, but that can't be trusted anymore, either. Look at how the DRV is going for it. Look at how the DRV is going for Gregory Kohs. It doesn't matter if the rules are applied properly, it simply matters as to whether the rules are applied in a way that fits Wikipedia's biases in some subject areas.
I would be inclined to distinguish between Wikipedia's biases and the biases of some Wikipedians.
Ec
Bogdan Giusca wrote:
Friday, February 16, 2007, 3:48:59 AM, Jeff wrote:
I think it proves that certain factions or editors are becoming too deletionist.
The sooner we start making RS subject-specific the better. This nonsense has got to stop.
Exactly. Reliable sources suck! For web content, we should have less strict standards and allow regular blogs and forum/usenet posts as sources!
PS: I can't wait for the policy to change, in order to start writing a few articles about me and my blog, referencing them from the blogs of my friends and family.
I wasn't sure whether you intended to put a smiley on that last part. :-\
I very much agree with subject-specific reviews, but would proceed with extreme caution when it comes to accepting blogs as reference.
Ec
SonOfYoungwood@aol.com wrote:
I think it proves that certain factions or editors are becoming too deletionist.
And how. Just a few days ago someone posted on the talk page of a webcomic's article that they were interested in doing some cleanup work on it, including splitting a section on some characters out of the main article, but they were concerned that it would draw the attention of AfD and get both the character article and the main article deleted. I was initially quite annoyed that it has come to this, with editors becoming hesitant to _make improvements_ for fear of being noticed, but after checking out the current kerfuffle over webcomics I grudgingly agreed that the split attempt should be put off for now in favor of a more careful incremental approach. Some excessive details started getting trimmed, some references started getting added.
Today I find the article posted on AfD anyway. It's a five-year-old Keenspot comic that's had two books published and currently ranks #11 out of the 1796 webcomics rated by topwebcomics.com. By the Alexa rankings it's got about half the readership of Sluggy Freelance. It was described by the nominator as "yet another non-notable web comic, whose notability, influence, and appeal seems very limited."
If the article had been just about the printed paper books would this have ever even been an issue?