(Sorry I'm late to this discussion, I was out of town.)
So this sounds like a new position, the idea of a middle ground. Some things should not be encouraged, but should not be deleted either. Right?
Where does What Wikipedia Is Not fit in to this? I always assumed that WWIN listed the criteria for whether something should be deleted or not. Or more specifically, it lists the criteria for whether something should be fixed - but if it's unfixable, then delete it (e.g. if it can never become more than a dictionary definition).
The problem I've had all along is that WWIN doesn't say anything about trivia or ephemera. So there's no agreement on whether to delete them or not. So I take it that Jimbo's position is that these things would fall into a new category in WWIN - those things that should be discouraged but not deleted. If someone is motivated enough to create a list of songs whose title does not appear anywhere in their lyrics, then we shouldn't delete it, but we shouldn't encourage it either. So "Wikipedia is not for trivia" isn't really either true or false. Does that sound like what you were saying?
Alex (axlrosen)
=======================
tarquin wrote:
So can I write about the cat that was stuck up a tree in the next street from me? The local press gave in plenty of coverage!
Are there links? Would it be possible for others to confirm the story?
I hope people don't waste much time writing such pages, but it strikes me as much more of a waste to fight against someone who wanted to include them. I have no problem with a social stigma against writing such pages (just as there is and should be a social stigma against writing articles about ourselves), but a policy of deletion that goes beyond confirmability seems to me to invite more conflict than it would be worth.
Such pages...
1. Do not belong in Wikipedia 1.0 (paper edition), because such will be selected with an eye towards the cost of production
2. Ought not to be linked from the front page (which is space-constrained to deal with only big events and major conceptual topics)
But other than that, what's the harm?
One possible objection I can imagine is cluttering the search results. But the best solution to that, I think, would be to have a refined search engine that limits the impact of minor pages. There are a number of ways to do that, but in any event, it seems unlikely to be a huge problem anyway just because people aren't going to be so interested in writing that many pages of this type.
And that's especially true if we more or less just ignore the practice.
--Jimbo
(Sorry I'm late to this discussion, I was out of town.)
So this sounds like a new position, the idea of a middle ground. Some things should not be encouraged, but should not be deleted either. Right?
Where does What Wikipedia Is Not fit in to this? I always assumed that WWIN listed the criteria for whether something should be deleted or not. Or more specifically, it lists the criteria for whether something should be fixed - but if it's unfixable, then delete it (e.g. if it can never become more than a dictionary definition).
The problem I've had all along is that WWIN doesn't say anything about trivia or ephemera. So there's no agreement on whether to delete them or not. So I take it that Jimbo's position is that these things would fall into a new category in WWIN - those things that should be discouraged but not deleted. If someone is motivated enough to create a list of songs whose title does not appear anywhere in their lyrics, then we shouldn't delete it, but we shouldn't encourage it either. So "Wikipedia is not for trivia" isn't really either true or false. Does that sound like what you were saying?
Alex (axlrosen)
I think one viewpoint is that trivia and ephemera are fun and add interest to the encyclopedia.
I think we are somewhat protected by the obvious fact that before someone puts trivia or ephemera up it has to be interesting enough to get their attention; thus is likely to get the attention of others. The cat up the tree article just doesn't get written, but Mike the headless chicken does (and could in his time tour the country).
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
I think one viewpoint is that trivia and ephemera are fun and add interest to the encyclopedia.
I think we are somewhat protected by the obvious fact that before someone puts trivia or ephemera up it has to be interesting enough to get their attention; thus is likely to get the attention of others. The cat up the tree article just doesn't get written, but Mike the headless chicken does (and could in his time tour the country).
As evidence of the tremendous attractive power of trivia, there has always been the persistent popularity of "The Guinness Book of Records".
Ec