I've created http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Notability_and_f... regarding notability and how it applies to fiction has been created in order to gauge community opinion on whether a guideline or an essay is most appropriate.
All editors are invited to present comments as to the current treatment of fiction on Wikipedia, especially with regards: *Whether a true consensus exists or whether the community is split *Whether a guideline other than the [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]] can be created *Whether an essay describing the differing views is better
Editors wishing to present specific proposals for a guideline, essay or another way forwards are free to do so. I'm sending this message in keeping with the instructions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advertising_discussions
What is the recent context for this RfC? I see that the two Episodes and Characters arbitration cases are cited as reasons for clarifying site policy on notability and fiction, but the newest of those cases is over a year old. If no context exists, then we may well be trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
AGK
Please see WT:NOT, WT:FICT, and the AFD logs. You'll have a lot of reading to do to catch up on this, but there is one helpful factor: it is endlessly repetitive.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 10:56 AM, AGKwikiagk@googlemail.com wrote:
What is the recent context for this RfC? I see that the two Episodes and Characters arbitration cases are cited as reasons for clarifying site policy on notability and fiction, but the newest of those cases is over a year old. If no context exists, then we may well be trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
AGK _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
As a result of the recent RFC on Notability and Fiction, I've drafted an essay at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_and_fiction. Feel free to edit and engage to reach a consensus on the issue, so that the current fractured state of play might be encouraged to heal itself. But please don't protect "positions". We don;t need to restate [[WP:V]] for the umpteenth time, we already have it. We just need to say that there are bad articles and there are good articles, and mainly bad articles are bad due to style rather than substance. When there's no substance, it is usually easy to see and such articles with regards fiction are not a "problem" for notability to "cure", they are a "problem" which is already "cured" by a number of other policies. Notability on Wikipedia has become too restricting and from my view it is time to roll it back and let each subject area define its own guidance, because we don't have a one size fits all approach, as evinced by [[WP:BLP]]. Every subject area is afflicted by different issues, and the solutions to those issues also differ. If Wikipedia is to continue, it needs to recognise that fact, and would that we had the leadership to recognise, reflect and build accordingly. Otherwise, I fear Wikipedia will stagnate. The greatest asset Wikipedia has is adaptability. That adaptability is in danger of becoming stifled.
User:Hiding
Surreptitiousness wrote:
As a result of the recent RFC on Notability and Fiction, I've drafted an essay at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_and_fiction. Feel free to edit and engage to reach a consensus on the issue, so that the current fractured state of play might be encouraged to heal itself. But please don't protect "positions". We don;t need to restate [[WP:V]] for the umpteenth time, we already have it. We just need to say that there are bad articles and there are good articles, and mainly bad articles are bad due to style rather than substance. When there's no substance, it is usually easy to see and such articles with regards fiction are not a "problem" for notability to "cure", they are a "problem" which is already "cured" by a number of other policies. Notability on Wikipedia has become too restricting and from my view it is time to roll it back and let each subject area define its own guidance, because we don't have a one size fits all approach, as evinced by [[WP:BLP]]. Every subject area is afflicted by different issues, and the solutions to those issues also differ. If Wikipedia is to continue, it needs to recognise that fact, and would that we had the leadership to recognise, reflect and build accordingly. Otherwise, I fear Wikipedia will stagnate. The greatest asset Wikipedia has is adaptability. That adaptability is in danger of becoming stifled.
I don't really see what is going on there: but the essay seems to be saying that an article is acceptable if it meets fundamental content policy OR various other things, while I would think it acceptable if it meets fundamental content policy AND various things. Further, it doesn't do to mix up the status of an article and a topic. I wrote about this once (from a different angle): http://brianna.modernthings.org/article/149/charles-matthews-on-notability
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
Surreptitiousness wrote:
As a result of the recent RFC on Notability and Fiction, I've drafted an essay at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_and_fiction. Feel free to edit and engage to reach a consensus on the issue, so that the current fractured state of play might be encouraged to heal itself. But please don't protect "positions". We don;t need to restate [[WP:V]] for the umpteenth time, we already have it. We just need to say that there are bad articles and there are good articles, and mainly bad articles are bad due to style rather than substance. When there's no substance, it is usually easy to see and such articles with regards fiction are not a "problem" for notability to "cure", they are a "problem" which is already "cured" by a number of other policies. Notability on Wikipedia has become too restricting and from my view it is time to roll it back and let each subject area define its own guidance, because we don't have a one size fits all approach, as evinced by [[WP:BLP]]. Every subject area is afflicted by different issues, and the solutions to those issues also differ. If Wikipedia is to continue, it needs to recognise that fact, and would that we had the leadership to recognise, reflect and build accordingly. Otherwise, I fear Wikipedia will stagnate. The greatest asset Wikipedia has is adaptability. That adaptability is in danger of becoming stifled.
I don't really see what is going on there: but the essay seems to be saying that an article is acceptable if it meets fundamental content policy OR various other things, while I would think it acceptable if it meets fundamental content policy AND various things. Further, it doesn't do to mix up the status of an article and a topic. I wrote about this once (from a different angle): http://brianna.modernthings.org/article/149/charles-matthews-on-notability
It's a wiki, go edit it. The essay should be saying, look, here's what happens, deal with it. Currently there is too much bickering and too many people interested more in "fighting the good fight" than accepting [[WP:IAR]]. Go read [[WP:FICT]] and the numerous archives to get a sense of the polarised viewpoints. I'd defend fundamental content policy for all it is worth, but anyone who thinks articles are always deleted at afd because they do not comply with fundamental content policy really needs to participate in afd a lot more, and also understand exactly how nuanced and disputed the meaning of fundamental content policy actually is. If it was clear what fundamental content policy actually meant, I doubt we'd be where we are. The original research policy has a number of different meanings and applications, and can mean different things in different fields. The central battleground is at what point does something become worth writing about: Is it when a book is available for sale in nigh on every bookshop in the country? Is that enough for an article? At what point do we stop ourselves and others from writing about something. My clearest experience of this is with regards the Wayne Rooney article, which in its earliest incarnation said something along the lines of "Remember the name". Yes, it's one example and can be countered by many others, but the point remains. When dealing with fiction, when is "too much information"? Coatracks don't tend to apply, unless we are seriously considering applying the force of a coatrack to an article on a minor character in Harry Potter by stating that such an article overstates the worth of the character to the point that a reader may come away with the impression that the character is central to the understanding of the work. Such a position will conflict with the view that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is not limited by paper, and since details regarding the character can be easily verified in primary source, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss that character in the article on the work itself, and also perfectly reasonable to split that section off when the article grows too large.
This is precisely about the status of "article" and "topic", and I agree with you when you say that "summary style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SUMMARY, highly desirable as it is, operate only through individually notable topics." The issue is what is a notable topic, and to what depth do we allow a topic to delve within its cluster of articles. Since, as seen at Featured Topics, we have defined a topic as being a cluster of articles related to that topic. Yes, we have very lofty principles. The problem is in recognising that not all of our editors subscribe to them, and also that our policies, save [[WP:NPOV]], are actually slaves to consensus. When consensus in a given area is not behind current policy, what happens? For example, a site wide poll on [[WP:PLOT]] found no consensus for it to remain policy. Yet some of those that wish it to remain will not accept its removal. If we have rejected WP:CONSENSUS as the means for determining policy, we should be more open about it. If we have now come to accept cabals, and that there is an elite who have a better understanding of what Wikipedia is and what policy means, great. But if that is not the case, we need to work out what the vast majority of Wikipedians actually desire, because otherwise Wikipedia is going to become either a battleground or a protected environment, either of which is detrimental. The ideas of collegiate discussion, civility and assuming good faith have long been eroded by a lack of respect for them amongst admins, and a long leash approach at arb-com, but nothing better has emerged to prop up collaboration. I am quite prepared to take an eventualist position through a restraint from editing, since it is impossible now to tell what guidance and policies actually apply. It was far easier when I first started, because you could write and edit without fear; that is no longer the case. It has become impossible to edit because the standard accepted tactic now is to revert rather than refine, and refuse to discuss other than restate a position.
Best regards,
User:Hiding
I've not involved in editing articles on fiction myself, but I often get involved in notability-related discussions.
Am I understanding your point right:
At the moment, from my understanding, notability is defined through a single guideline setting universal principles, supplemental by subsidiary guidelines that interpret this guideline. In the event of conflict between the central guideline and the subsidiary, the central one should prevail.
You're suggesting that [[WP:FICT]] and presumably other specific guidelines should be allowed to depart from the central guideline which would just become a default guideline to be applied where a subsidiary guideline doesn't exist?
Andrew
----- "Surreptitiousness" surreptitious.wikipedian@googlemail.com wrote:
From: "Surreptitiousness" surreptitious.wikipedian@googlemail.com To: "charles r matthews" charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com, "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, 1 July, 2009 12:44:36 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability and Fiction
Charles Matthews wrote:
Surreptitiousness wrote:
As a result of the recent RFC on Notability and Fiction, I've drafted an essay at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_and_fiction. Feel free to edit and engage to reach a consensus on the issue, so that the current fractured state of play might be encouraged to heal itself. But please don't protect "positions". We don;t need to restate [[WP:V]] for the umpteenth time, we already have it. We just need to say that there are bad articles and there are good articles, and mainly bad articles are bad due to style rather than substance. When there's no substance, it is usually easy to see and such articles with regards fiction are not a "problem" for notability to "cure", they are a "problem" which is already "cured" by a number of other policies. Notability on Wikipedia has become too restricting and from my view it is time to roll it back and let each subject area define its own guidance, because we don't have a one size fits all approach, as evinced by [[WP:BLP]]. Every subject area is afflicted by different issues, and the solutions to those issues also differ. If Wikipedia is to continue, it needs to recognise that fact, and would that we had the leadership to recognise, reflect and build accordingly. Otherwise, I fear Wikipedia will stagnate. The greatest asset Wikipedia has is adaptability. That adaptability is in danger of becoming stifled.
I don't really see what is going on there: but the essay seems to be saying that an article is acceptable if it meets fundamental content policy OR various other things, while I would think it acceptable if it meets fundamental content policy AND various things. Further, it doesn't do to mix up the status of an article and a topic. I wrote about this once (from a different angle): http://brianna.modernthings.org/article/149/charles-matthews-on-notability
It's a wiki, go edit it. The essay should be saying, look, here's what happens, deal with it. Currently there is too much bickering and too many people interested more in "fighting the good fight" than accepting [[WP:IAR]]. Go read [[WP:FICT]] and the numerous archives to get a sense of the polarised viewpoints. I'd defend fundamental content policy for all it is worth, but anyone who thinks articles are always deleted at afd because they do not comply with fundamental content policy really needs to participate in afd a lot more, and also understand exactly how nuanced and disputed the meaning of fundamental content policy actually is. If it was clear what fundamental content policy actually meant, I doubt we'd be where we are. The original research policy has a number of different meanings and applications, and can mean different things in different fields. The central battleground is at what point does something become worth writing about: Is it when a book is available for sale in nigh on every bookshop in the country? Is that enough for an article? At what point do we stop ourselves and others from writing about something. My clearest experience of this is with regards the Wayne Rooney article, which in its earliest incarnation said something along the lines of "Remember the name". Yes, it's one example and can be countered by many others, but the point remains. When dealing with fiction, when is "too much information"? Coatracks don't tend to apply, unless we are seriously considering applying the force of a coatrack to an article on a minor character in Harry Potter by stating that such an article overstates the worth of the character to the point that a reader may come away with the impression that the character is central to the understanding of the work. Such a position will conflict with the view that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is not limited by paper, and since details regarding the character can be easily verified in primary source, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss that character in the article on the work itself, and also perfectly reasonable to split that section off when the article grows too large.
This is precisely about the status of "article" and "topic", and I agree with you when you say that "summary style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SUMMARY, highly desirable as it is, operate only through individually notable topics." The issue is what is a notable topic, and to what depth do we allow a topic to delve within its cluster of articles. Since, as seen at Featured Topics, we have defined a topic as being a cluster of articles related to that topic. Yes, we have very lofty principles. The problem is in recognising that not all of our editors subscribe to them, and also that our policies, save [[WP:NPOV]], are actually slaves to consensus. When consensus in a given area is not behind current policy, what happens? For example, a site wide poll on [[WP:PLOT]] found no consensus for it to remain policy. Yet some of those that wish it to remain will not accept its removal. If we have rejected WP:CONSENSUS as the means for determining policy, we should be more open about it. If we have now come to accept cabals, and that there is an elite who have a better understanding of what Wikipedia is and what policy means, great. But if that is not the case, we need to work out what the vast majority of Wikipedians actually desire, because otherwise Wikipedia is going to become either a battleground or a protected environment, either of which is detrimental. The ideas of collegiate discussion, civility and assuming good faith have long been eroded by a lack of respect for them amongst admins, and a long leash approach at arb-com, but nothing better has emerged to prop up collaboration. I am quite prepared to take an eventualist position through a restraint from editing, since it is impossible now to tell what guidance and policies actually apply. It was far easier when I first started, because you could write and edit without fear; that is no longer the case. It has become impossible to edit because the standard accepted tactic now is to revert rather than refine, and refuse to discuss other than restate a position.
Best regards,
User:Hiding
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm suggesting nothing more than that the community work out how to heal the fracture that exists. Wikipedia:Notability itself is not fully accepted on Wikipedia as thing stands. I've got a long history and involvement with notability on Wikipedia, and my guiding imperative has always been to try and reflect what the community will accept. Sadly, that's lacking from a lot of current guidance, thinking and editors. Too many editors are starting from a position of "what should Wikipedia be", rather than "What is the consensus on this issue"? Since you are starting from a position of "what should Wikipedia be", I can't really engage with that anymore. There are fifty odd archives where I've engaged with that issue. I'd rather people engage with the issue of what the consensus is. I'd also point out that current consensus and current guidance itself conflicts with your assertion and understanding that "notability is defined through a single guideline setting universal principles, supplemental by subsidiary guidelines that interpret this guideline." A recent RFC showed a rough consensus for the idea that subject specific criteria can depart from the central guidance, and [[WP:MUSIC]], in existence longer than [[WP:N]], quite drastically does depart. Since your understanding is flawed, wouldn't it be better to address the actuality of what happens rather than any given editor's desirability of what should happen? I'm not suggesting anything radical, and in fact, if we look at current guidance and consensus, I think I've demonstrated that it is your thinking which deviates and is perhaps radical, and is certainly proposing something new. I'm only asking that editors actually acknowledge the current state of affairs, rather than simply restate their preconceptions or desires. As I said before, please don't protect "positions". Engage with the guidance and work towards a consensus.
User:Hiding
Andrew Turvey wrote:
I've not involved in editing articles on fiction myself, but I often get involved in notability-related discussions.
Am I understanding your point right:
At the moment, from my understanding, notability is defined through a single guideline setting universal principles, supplemental by subsidiary guidelines that interpret this guideline. In the event of conflict between the central guideline and the subsidiary, the central one should prevail.
You're suggesting that [[WP:FICT]] and presumably other specific guidelines should be allowed to depart from the central guideline which would just become a default guideline to be applied where a subsidiary guideline doesn't exist?
Andrew
----- "Surreptitiousness" surreptitious.wikipedian@googlemail.com wrote:
From: "Surreptitiousness" surreptitious.wikipedian@googlemail.com To: "charles r matthews" charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com, "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, 1 July, 2009 12:44:36 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability and Fiction
Charles Matthews wrote:
Surreptitiousness wrote:
As a result of the recent RFC on Notability and Fiction, I've drafted an essay at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_and_fiction. Feel free to edit and engage to reach a consensus on the issue, so that the current fractured state of play might be encouraged to heal itself. But please don't protect "positions". We don;t need to restate [[WP:V]] for the umpteenth time, we already have it. We just need to say that there are bad articles and there are good articles, and mainly bad articles are bad due to style rather than substance. When there's no substance, it is usually easy to see and such articles with regards fiction are not a "problem" for notability to "cure", they are a "problem" which is already "cured" by a number of other policies. Notability on Wikipedia has become too restricting and from my view it is time to roll it back and let each subject area define its own guidance, because we don't have a one size fits all approach, as evinced by [[WP:BLP]]. Every subject area is afflicted by different issues, and the solutions to those issues also differ. If Wikipedia is to continue, it needs to recognise that fact, and would that we had the leadership to recognise, reflect and build accordingly. Otherwise, I fear Wikipedia will stagnate. The greatest asset Wikipedia has is adaptability. That adaptability is in danger of becoming stifled.
I don't really see what is going on there: but the essay seems to be saying that an article is acceptable if it meets fundamental content policy OR various other things, while I would think it acceptable if it meets fundamental content policy AND various things. Further, it doesn't do to mix up the status of an article and a topic. I wrote about this once (from a different angle): http://brianna.modernthings.org/article/149/charles-matthews-on-notability
It's a wiki, go edit it. The essay should be saying, look, here's what happens, deal with it. Currently there is too much bickering and too many people interested more in "fighting the good fight" than accepting [[WP:IAR]]. Go read [[WP:FICT]] and the numerous archives to get a sense of the polarised viewpoints. I'd defend fundamental content policy for all it is worth, but anyone who thinks articles are always deleted at afd because they do not comply with fundamental content policy really needs to participate in afd a lot more, and also understand exactly how nuanced and disputed the meaning of fundamental content policy actually is. If it was clear what fundamental content policy actually meant, I doubt we'd be where we are. The original research policy has a number of different meanings and applications, and can mean different things in different fields. The central battleground is at what point does something become worth writing about: Is it when a book is available for sale in nigh on every bookshop in the country? Is that enough for an article? At what point do we stop ourselves and others from writing about something. My clearest experience of this is with regards the Wayne Rooney article, which in its earliest incarnation said something along the lines of "Remember the name". Yes, it's one example and can be countered by many others, but the point remains. When dealing with fiction, when is "too much information"? Coatracks don't tend to apply, unless we are seriously considering applying the force of a coatrack to an article on a minor character in Harry Potter by stating that such an article overstates the worth of the character to the point that a reader may come away with the impression that the character is central to the understanding of the work. Such a position will conflict with the view that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is not limited by paper, and since details regarding the character can be easily verified in primary source, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss that character in the article on the work itself, and also perfectly reasonable to split that section off when the article grows too large.
This is precisely about the status of "article" and "topic", and I agree with you when you say that "summary style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SUMMARY, highly desirable as it is, operate only through individually notable topics." The issue is what is a notable topic, and to what depth do we allow a topic to delve within its cluster of articles. Since, as seen at Featured Topics, we have defined a topic as being a cluster of articles related to that topic. Yes, we have very lofty principles. The problem is in recognising that not all of our editors subscribe to them, and also that our policies, save [[WP:NPOV]], are actually slaves to consensus. When consensus in a given area is not behind current policy, what happens? For example, a site wide poll on [[WP:PLOT]] found no consensus for it to remain policy. Yet some of those that wish it to remain will not accept its removal. If we have rejected WP:CONSENSUS as the means for determining policy, we should be more open about it. If we have now come to accept cabals, and that there is an elite who have a better understanding of what Wikipedia is and what policy means, great. But if that is not the case, we need to work out what the vast majority of Wikipedians actually desire, because otherwise Wikipedia is going to become either a battleground or a protected environment, either of which is detrimental. The ideas of collegiate discussion, civility and assuming good faith have long been eroded by a lack of respect for them amongst admins, and a long leash approach at arb-com, but nothing better has emerged to prop up collaboration. I am quite prepared to take an eventualist position through a restraint from editing, since it is impossible now to tell what guidance and policies actually apply. It was far easier when I first started, because you could write and edit without fear; that is no longer the case. It has become impossible to edit because the standard accepted tactic now is to revert rather than refine, and refuse to discuss other than restate a position.
Best regards,
User:Hiding
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Surreptitiousness wrote:
Currently there is too much bickering and too many people interested more in "fighting the good fight" than accepting [[WP:IAR]].
There's a reason for this: In a dispute, the side who can point to a rule gets to win. If there are two sides of a dispute, one pointing to a rule, the other saying to use IAR, the IAR loses. It's how we've set up the system. We arranged it so that rules are extremely important and must be obeyed at all costs--otherwise we couldn't use the rules as a bludgeon against troublemakers. Now that we have placed such importance on rules, it turns out that rules can also be used as a bludgeon by rule-wonks.
"We arranged it so that rules are extremely important and must be obeyed at all costs--otherwise we couldn't use the rules as a bludgeon against troublemakers"
Not for notability. We've never boxed ourselves in that much. WP:N remains a guideline, and in fact says it will not always be applicable.
it's not a question of an article being justified buy Notability OR something else. Hiding's proposal, which I have modified a little, is saying that Notability is defined by either the general notability guideline OR by other factors. There's a tendency to assume that the GNG is identical to the concept of notability; we could still have notability guidelines if we removed the GNG entirely, or used it only as a last resort if there was not other basis for deciding. That last phrase is what I'd prefer, but I do not think there is agreement on it , at least not yet. I do think there's agreement to consider notability using both the GNG and other factors, co-ordinately.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Ken Arromdeearromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Surreptitiousness wrote:
Currently there is too much bickering and too many people interested more in "fighting the good fight" than accepting [[WP:IAR]].
There's a reason for this: In a dispute, the side who can point to a rule gets to win. If there are two sides of a dispute, one pointing to a rule, the other saying to use IAR, the IAR loses. It's how we've set up the system. We arranged it so that rules are extremely important and must be obeyed at all costs--otherwise we couldn't use the rules as a bludgeon against troublemakers. Now that we have placed such importance on rules, it turns out that rules can also be used as a bludgeon by rule-wonks.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l