It has been suggested that people who are not particularly notable should have the option of requesting removal of their Wikipedia biographies. This suggestion has come up in the context of Daniel Brandt, who has long complained, but please address the general question.
I doubt very many people will bother to make such a request, and even if a few tens of thousands did, the loss to the utility and interest to the encyclopedia would be minimal. This would not apply to prominent persons, but would apply to subjects such as John Seigenthaler, whose article was so seldom accessed or edited that a major error remained there for months without being notice. If the person is not notable enough that we pay attention to its content, there is some risk just from having it.
Fred
Define "Not so notable". If you can do that well, then this idea might have merit, but currently it is far too vague and will just result in arguments over notability, rather than over content. I'd much prefer to argue about the content and get a good article at the end than argue about the notability and end up with either a bad article or no article.
* Thomas Dalton wrote:
Define "Not so notable".
I'd think we'd have a good place to start with;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure
&
On 09/04/07, Conrad Dunkerson conrad.dunkerson@att.net wrote:
- Thomas Dalton wrote:
Define "Not so notable".
I'd think we'd have a good place to start with;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure
&
Neither of these elucidate the problem much at all.
According to your first link a public figure could be defined as someone who is "pervasively involved in public affairs". Couldn't this definition include headmasters or even teachers in state-funded schools?
* Oldak Quill wrote:
According to your first link a public figure could be defined as someone who is "pervasively involved in public affairs". Couldn't this definition include headmasters or even teachers in state-funded schools?
That doesn't seem particularly 'pervasive'... and certainly is not how the law regarding 'public figures' is actually applied. That 'pervasive' is meant to apply to celebrities, national level politicians, and the like... people who are constantly in the public eye. You don't see newspapers looking into the history of random school teachers because it would be an obvious invasion of privacy. Unless the person is part of newsworthy events the press has no business writing about them - and even then only in regards to those newsworthy events. Our barriers should be AT LEAST that high.
If the 'non public' information about a person isn't sufficient to fill out an article then they ought to be able to request not to have an article as a matter of privacy. Being briefly involved in a major news story does not mean that all details of your life should from then on be open to the public.
Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
- Thomas Dalton wrote:
Define "Not so notable".
I'd think we'd have a good place to start with;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure
&
If the matter has already been in the newspaper, and we are using that as the source one could hardly call it an invasion of privacy.
Ec
On 09/04/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
I'd think we'd have a good place to start with; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_privacy
If the matter has already been in the newspaper, and we are using that as the source one could hardly call it an invasion of privacy.
One of the problems comes when an article in such a Reliable Source is not in fact so reliable.
- d.
on 4/8/07 3:04 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
It has been suggested that people who are not particularly notable should have the option of requesting removal of their Wikipedia biographies. This suggestion has come up in the context of Daniel Brandt, who has long complained, but please address the general question.
I doubt very many people will bother to make such a request, and even if a few tens of thousands did, the loss to the utility and interest to the encyclopedia would be minimal. This would not apply to prominent persons, but would apply to subjects such as John Seigenthaler, whose article was so seldom accessed or edited that a major error remained there for months without being notice. If the person is not notable enough that we pay attention to its content, there is some risk just from having it.
How is notability determined in the encyclopedia?
Marc Riddell
On 4/8/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I doubt very many people will bother to make such a request, and even if a few tens of thousands did, the loss to the utility and interest to the encyclopedia would be minimal. This would not apply to prominent persons, but would apply to subjects such as John Seigenthaler, whose article was so seldom accessed or edited that a major error remained there for months without being notice. If the person is not notable enough that we pay attention to its content, there is some risk just from having it.
Fred
OK. So an 18 year old girl makes a few X-rated movies. At 25 she decides to settle down, get married and have a normal life. Somebody however, feels her legendary notabilty is wortth preserving for posterity, and incicendtally, if you wish to purchase one of her classic pieces, click here.
So the question becomes balancing the public's appetite for a human sacrifice against a persons desire for privacy.
Rob Smith wrote:
So the question becomes balancing the public's appetite for a human sacrifice against a persons desire for privacy.
A human sacrifice? At what point do we start discussion people being accountable for their actions. If someone was a porn star in a previous life, that's what they were - we're not "sacrificing" them by pointing it out, especially when we're not the first.
-Jeff
Fred Bauder wrote:
It has been suggested that people who are not particularly notable should have the option of requesting removal of their Wikipedia biographies.
Horrid suggestion, and I disagree that the impact would be minimal. On the contrary, it opens an entire can of worms and allows us to be governed by trolls and trollish elements rather thatdoing what we're supposed to be doing, building an encyclopedia.
-Jeff
On 4/8/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
It has been suggested that people who are not particularly notable should have the option of requesting removal of their Wikipedia biographies.
Horrid suggestion, and I disagree that the impact would be minimal. On the contrary, it opens an entire can of worms and allows us to be governed by trolls and trollish elements rather thatdoing what we're supposed to be doing, building an encyclopedia.
Jeff, can you expand on how it would do that? As I see it, it might do the opposite. Biographies of borderline notable people often either languish unattended or are used as a platform by people with an axe to grind.
Slim Virgin wrote:
Jeff, can you expand on how it would do that? As I see it, it might do the opposite. Biographies of borderline notable people often either languish unattended or are used as a platform by people with an axe to grind.
Well, the first problem is the construct of "borderline notability." There's no such thing. You're either notable or you're not, and our twisted concepts of the idea doesn't help.
With that said, okay, so now Brandt wants to opt out of his article. Or some otherwise noteworthy-in-his-field crank who doesn't want an article. Or someone who's perfectly reasonably notable in certain areas, but most people wopuldn't know from a hole in the ground. Then we start getting these battles and ill will and what have you.
And then the trolling elemtns come in - we have plenty of troll types who have their own articles at this point - why are we even considering allowing the subjects any say in the matter?
Completely insane.
-Jeff
On 4/8/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
Jeff, can you expand on how it would do that? As I see it, it might do the opposite. Biographies of borderline notable people often either languish unattended or are used as a platform by people with an axe to grind.
Well, the first problem is the construct of "borderline notability." There's no such thing. You're either notable or you're not, and our twisted concepts of the idea doesn't help.
There are people for whom there's what Fred called "spot coverage," because they did something interesting, but they're not overall notable. Along the lines of "John Smith is a British schoolteacher who came to public attention after being discovered on the floor naked during a geography class, having asked his pupils to draw a map of Europe on his genitals."
I think we could fairly easily come up with a working definition of "notable borderline," where George Bush is at one end of the scale and our geography teacher at the other.
The point is that no news organization or encyclopedia would publish a biography of the geography teacher just because of that one incident. We're currently asking the question "Why shouldn't Wikipedia publish biographies on everyone for whom reliable sources can be found?" but I think we should turn that on its head and ask "Why *should* we, given that no else does?"
If we were to adopt an opt-out clause for borderline notables, I think it would generate significant goodwill among the public, because this is seen as one of our major problems.
Sarah
Slim Virgin wrote:
There are people for whom there's what Fred called "spot coverage," because they did something interesting, but they're not overall notable.
This is some fallacious concept being cooked up. Either you're notable or not.
Along the lines of "John Smith is a British schoolteacher who came to public attention after being discovered on the floor naked during a geography class, having asked his pupils to draw a map of Europe on his genitals."
Which is notability, whether we like it or not.
I think we could fairly easily come up with a working definition of "notable borderline," where George Bush is at one end of the scale and our geography teacher at the other.
Not at all.
The point is that no news organization or encyclopedia would publish a biography of the geography teacher just because of that one incident.
Well, if a news organization isn't reporting it, we're not including it. That seems to be a valid standard to work with in terms of biographies of living people, even if we go way too far with it already. We're more than your standard encyclopedia, and we cover what's possible to cover. If John Smith is in the news, he's notable and we should consider inclusion.
We're currently asking the question "Why shouldn't Wikipedia publish biographies on everyone for whom reliable sources can be found?" but I think we should turn that on its head and ask "Why *should* we, given that no else does?"
Because we're better than everyone else, and we're better than to cow to the demands of our subjects.
If we were to adopt an opt-out clause for borderline notables, I think it would generate significant goodwill among the public, because this is seen as one of our major problems.
Among who? Our problems deal with reliability, with vandalism, and with trust. "Borderline notability" is hardly on the radar when you consider factual issues, Sinbad/Sieganthaler-style vandalism, and issues like the Essjay incident.
Building an encyclopedia is about building a wealth of knowledge, not creating some goodwill. If we're in the market for goodwill, then start a goodwill project, not an encyclopedia.
-Jeff
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
There are people for whom there's what Fred called "spot coverage," because they did something interesting, but they're not overall notable.
This is some fallacious concept being cooked up. Either you're notable or not.
Nonsense. Notability ain't pregnancy.
Steve Summit wrote:
Nonsense. Notability ain't pregnancy.
It's closer to pregnancy than some fleeting thing. Keep in mind - Wikipedia notability has nothing to do with real world notability, so we need to keep it, uh, in-universe. If we say "notability is x," we can't then turn around and say that there's "borderline" - it doesn't, shouldn't, and won't fly.
Want to remove "borderline" cases? Try to get consensus at WP:BIO.
-Jeff
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 21:28:37 -0400, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
It's closer to pregnancy than some fleeting thing. Keep in mind - Wikipedia notability has nothing to do with real world notability, so we need to keep it, uh, in-universe. If we say "notability is x," we can't then turn around and say that there's "borderline" - it doesn't, shouldn't, and won't fly.
Yes it should. It's about the depth and breadth of coverage. If all the coverage is in respect of the genitals incident, that's a merge to an article on school sex scandals or some such. We absolutely must not confuse transient notoriety for notability.
Any politician who stands for a major office will generate a lot of coverage, their campaign team will make sure of it. After the election, losing candidates are often never heard of again. We commonly merge these losing candidates to a single article. (in my view only reason we have articles on them in the first place is because some people think we are Wikinews, but that's an aside).
Those politicians, last seen selling insurance in Mudhole Flats, Idaho, may be offended that the sum total of human knowledge about them, as judged by Wikipedia, is that they polled six votes in the 2006 run-offs for Mayor. Or they may not care. People whose supposed notability rests on a single highly negative story (whether or not they dunnit) which was a nine days' wonder in the press, they are going to have a much bigger problem. What do we do with people against whom a single source has a vendetta, but has failed to get more than passing coverage of that vendetta? Like Zeleny's campaign against Min Zhu?
Any case that does not make the books of notable cases is probably not a notable case. Having an article on that case, masquerading as a biography, based on the fact that i enjoyed passing notoriety, is a bad idea.
Guy (JzG)
On 4/9/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
There are people for whom there's what Fred called "spot coverage," because they did something interesting, but they're not overall notable.
This is some fallacious concept being cooked up. Either you're notable or not.
Nonsense. Notability ain't pregnancy.
And herein lies the problem. If we can't agree on what is notable, a suggestion like the one we're discussing will never work. I agree with the ÿou're notable or you're not." statement, but different people call different things notable. That's the whole basis of our inclusionist/deletionist divide. That teacher John Smith could be notable, but it would depend entirely on the content of the article.
Mgm
Mgm wrote:
On 4/9/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Either you're notable or not.
Nonsense. Notability ain't pregnancy.
And herein lies the problem. If we can't agree on what is notable, a suggestion like the one we're discussing will never work.
In the real world, at least, notability is relative. I am notable in my family and in my circle of friends, but I'm not notable enough in the real world to have a Wikipedia article. A scientist can be extremely notable in his field but unheard of in the rest of the world. Etc.
(Now, I know, someone mentioned we weren't talking about real-world notability here, but rather Wikipedia notability. I suppose that makes a difference to the argument, though I'm still not sure exactly what.)
On 4/9/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Mgm wrote:
On 4/9/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Either you're notable or not.
Nonsense. Notability ain't pregnancy.
And herein lies the problem. If we can't agree on what is notable, a suggestion like the one we're discussing will never work.
In the real world, at least, notability is relative. I am notable in my family and in my circle of friends, but I'm not notable enough in the real world to have a Wikipedia article. A scientist can be extremely notable in his field but unheard of in the rest of the world. Etc.
(Now, I know, someone mentioned we weren't talking about real-world notability here, but rather Wikipedia notability. I suppose that makes a difference to the argument, though I'm still not sure exactly what.)
If someone is real-world notable and we can back it up, I don't see how Wikipedia notability would be any different.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
If someone is real-world notable and we can back it up, I don't see how Wikipedia notability would be any different.
Because Wikipedia notability, in many people's minds, needs more than simply "backing it up." Society's idea of notable is fluid and depends on what you're talking about - Wikipedia's got a small but vocal number of people who feel notability is constant and defined only by who says as such.
It's why there needs to be a distinction - "not so notable" or "borderline notability" is a false concept that only exists in that small but vocal group. It has little in the way of a basis in reality, and is not defined by anything that is logical.
-Jeff
On 09/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
If someone is real-world notable and we can back it up, I don't see how Wikipedia notability would be any different.
Because Wikipedia notability, in many people's minds, needs more than simply "backing it up." Society's idea of notable is fluid and depends on what you're talking about - Wikipedia's got a small but vocal number of people who feel notability is constant and defined only by who says as such.
It's why there needs to be a distinction - "not so notable" or "borderline notability" is a false concept that only exists in that small but vocal group. It has little in the way of a basis in reality, and is not defined by anything that is logical.
"Notability" has no divinely-ordained, objective definition that can be logically deduced. The definition of "notability" changes according to how much the person using the word wants an article to be deleted.
On 4/9/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
If someone is real-world notable and we can back it up, I don't see
how
Wikipedia notability would be any different.
Because Wikipedia notability, in many people's minds, needs more than simply "backing it up." Society's idea of notable is fluid and depends
on
what you're talking about - Wikipedia's got a small but vocal number of people who feel notability is constant and defined only by who says as such.
It's why there needs to be a distinction - "not so notable" or
"borderline
notability" is a false concept that only exists in that small but vocal group. It has little in the way of a basis in reality, and is not
defined
by anything that is logical.
"Notability" has no divinely-ordained, objective definition that can be logically deduced. The definition of "notability" changes according to how much the person using the word wants an article to be deleted.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
It may be, but it shouldn't. It should be based on facts, not someone's deletion opinions. The result based on those facts may differ, though.
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
It may be, but it shouldn't. It should be based on facts, not someone's deletion opinions. The result based on those facts may differ, though.
It should be, but it's not. Thus the problem.
-Jeff
On 09/04/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/9/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
If someone is real-world notable and we can back it up, I don't see
how
Wikipedia notability would be any different.
Because Wikipedia notability, in many people's minds, needs more than simply "backing it up." Society's idea of notable is fluid and depends
on
what you're talking about - Wikipedia's got a small but vocal number of people who feel notability is constant and defined only by who says as such.
It's why there needs to be a distinction - "not so notable" or
"borderline
notability" is a false concept that only exists in that small but vocal group. It has little in the way of a basis in reality, and is not
defined
by anything that is logical.
"Notability" has no divinely-ordained, objective definition that can be logically deduced. The definition of "notability" changes according to how much the person using the word wants an article to be deleted.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
It may be, but it shouldn't. It should be based on facts, not someone's deletion opinions. The result based on those facts may differ, though.
"Notability" isn't something that could ever be directly measurable. There are several indirect measures that are used (some of which are more likely to determine an article to be not notable). It really isn't hard to delete an article based on notability: you just have to choose the right yardstick.
Even the concept itself is very vague: different things are notable to different members of different demographic groups at different times. Things are often deleted on Wikipedia because they are not notable to a particular demographics (eg. the affluent demographics to which many Wikipedians belong).
For these reasons, "notability" is a terrible way to determine whether an article should be kept or deleted on Wikipedia. The sooner we abandon it (and start relying on harder measures such as verifiability), the better.
Oldak Quill wrote:
For these reasons, "notability" is a terrible way to determine whether an article should be kept or deleted on Wikipedia. The sooner we abandon it (and start relying on harder measures such as verifiability), the better.
Shameless plug for [[Wikipedia:Article inclusion]].
-Jeff
-- If you can read this, I'm not at home.
On 09/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
For these reasons, "notability" is a terrible way to determine whether an article should be kept or deleted on Wikipedia. The sooner we abandon it (and start relying on harder measures such as verifiability), the better.
Shameless plug for [[Wikipedia:Article inclusion]].
-Jeff
I've never come across the page before (let alone had anything to do with its creation/development) so I'm not sure how shameless I could have been. I'm glad to see others have reached the same conclusions as I have though.
If I had read the page before or had anything to do with its development I would have provided a link in my original post.
A request for all those advocating a new policy of opt-out for some biographies:
I'm seeing no-one addressing the issue of Neutral Point Of View, previously a core policy of Wikipedia. Could those of you advocating a new policy please detail your understanding of how we can be sure this won't damage neutrality?
- d.
On 09/04/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
A request for all those advocating a new policy of opt-out for some biographies:
I'm seeing no-one addressing the issue of Neutral Point Of View, previously a core policy of Wikipedia. Could those of you advocating a new policy please detail your understanding of how we can be sure this won't damage neutrality?
NPOV is a matter of article content, surely? By not having an article we simply don't cover that topic, not implicitly cover that topic non-neutrally...
If reference to the person is necessary for a neutral coverage in another article, we make that reference; it doesn't mean we need to link out to a seperate biographical article.
On 09/04/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/04/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
A request for all those advocating a new policy of opt-out for some biographies:
I'm seeing no-one addressing the issue of Neutral Point Of View, previously a core policy of Wikipedia. Could those of you advocating a new policy please detail your understanding of how we can be sure this won't damage neutrality?
NPOV is a matter of article content, surely? By not having an article we simply don't cover that topic, not implicitly cover that topic non-neutrally...
Indeed, to expand on this, there are some people who we pretty much *cannot* cover neutrally - those whose "notability", such as it is, revolves around one small scandal. They are a private figure and only rose to media attention the time they were caught in flagrante with a hamster, so there is nothing else we can write about them, and we end up with
"Joe Blow (b. 1963?) is an American civil servant, living in Kansas and employed as a tax analyst in 1992. In that year, he became prominent for screwing a rodent.<ref>...</ref> {{stub}}"
I mean, how do we make that neutral? How do we avoid "undue weight" on their one and only moment of fame? It's a serious question.
On 09/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
For these reasons, "notability" is a terrible way to determine whether an article should be kept or deleted on Wikipedia. The sooner we abandon it (and start relying on harder measures such as verifiability), the better.
Shameless plug for [[Wikipedia:Article inclusion]].
I've read the page more thoroughly and I fail to see how you could have interpreted what I said as a plug for it. I said we should entirely abandon notability for verification while that page states that an article should be included if it is verifiable and notable.
I recognise the page seeks to change emphasis from notability to verifiability and some of the reasoning is related to mine. Still, I don't think the page goes far enough.
Why am I flogging this horse? I don't like being accused of doing (or assumed to have done) things I did not do.
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 09/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
For these reasons, "notability" is a terrible way to determine whether an article should be kept or deleted on Wikipedia. The sooner we abandon it (and start relying on harder measures such as verifiability), the better.
Shameless plug for [[Wikipedia:Article inclusion]].
I've read the page more thoroughly and I fail to see how you could have interpreted what I said as a plug for it. I said we should entirely abandon notability for verification while that page states that an article should be included if it is verifiable and notable.
I apologise, I was shamelessly plugging it, not inferring that you were. Sorry if it wasn't clear.
-Jeff
On 09/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 09/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
For these reasons, "notability" is a terrible way to determine whether an article should be kept or deleted on Wikipedia. The sooner we abandon it (and start relying on harder measures such as verifiability), the better.
Shameless plug for [[Wikipedia:Article inclusion]].
I've read the page more thoroughly and I fail to see how you could have interpreted what I said as a plug for it. I said we should entirely abandon notability for verification while that page states that an article should be included if it is verifiable and notable.
I apologise, I was shamelessly plugging it, not inferring that you were. Sorry if it wasn't clear.
Ah, it's so clear now :). I misinterpreted and you got the thick end of my pride. Apologies (sincerely).
On 4/9/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
For these reasons, "notability" is a terrible way to determine whether an article should be kept or deleted on Wikipedia. The sooner we abandon it (and start relying on harder measures such as verifiability), the better.
Shameless plug for [[Wikipedia:Article inclusion]].
I've read the page more thoroughly and I fail to see how you could have interpreted what I said as a plug for it. I said we should entirely abandon notability for verification while that page states that an article should be included if it is verifiable and notable.
I recognise the page seeks to change emphasis from notability to verifiability and some of the reasoning is related to mine. Still, I don't think the page goes far enough.
Why am I flogging this horse? I don't like being accused of doing (or assumed to have done) things I did not do.
I don't particularly dislike the idea. But I believe it would open a whole new can of worms. Instead of discussing notability, we'd be arguing if a source is notable or if the newspaper article by an otherwise reliable newspaper is a fluff/promotional piece. I don't see how that could improve the situation.
Unfortunately, I still see a lot of people on AFD arguing something is not notable without any sort of explanation what yard stick they're using. That should stop and I would certainly agree if someone decided to discount votes that don't cite a reason. You could take a delete vote to mean "per nom", but if in the mean time someone opposed deletion, someone should address their point. If no one's doing that, the AFD is being treated as a blanket vote instead of a discussion. Arguments are still ignored too much.
Mgm
Mgm
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:04:46 -0400 (EDT), "Jeff Raymond" jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Shameless plug for [[Wikipedia:Article inclusion]].
... which is a POV fork of WP:N by another "small but vocal" group, this time the inclusionists. Mainly Jeff. And even Jeff's best friend would not pretend that his inclusion criteria are anywhere near the community centre of gravity.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:04:46 -0400 (EDT), "Jeff Raymond" jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Shameless plug for [[Wikipedia:Article inclusion]].
... which is a POV fork of WP:N by another "small but vocal" group, this time the inclusionists. Mainly Jeff. And even Jeff's best friend would not pretend that his inclusion criteria are anywhere near the community centre of gravity.
It's not a POV fork at all, although I can't possibly quantify the size of my group at this point.
My inclusion criteria begin and end with our policies and guidelines outside of the shitty PNC. I don't think they're outside of the center of gravity at all anymore, I'm just the only person these days willing to draw a line in the sand.
Or, in shorter form, my reputation looms larger than my reality these days.
-Jeff
Well, it was pretty overwhelmingly rejected. (Yes, yes, voting bad, etc., etc., but it still -can- be a useful metric.) Hell, I love changing the -name- (I think notability is a pretty poor and confusing thing to call our inclusion criteria), and I still couldn't bring myself to support it. Basically, the question we must ask ourselves is this:
"From the independent sources available, could a comprehensive, high-quality (GA/FA) article be written on this subject someday?"
If yes, we keep. If no, we merge or delete, depending whether there's any verifiable information at all and whether an appropriate place to merge exists. Far easier than 4000 convoluted "notability" guidelines (there's a separate one for porn stars for godsakes!), and much more in line with writing an encyclopedia. (As an aside, this also -would- eliminate those borderline bios-"15 minutes of fame (or shame)" sourcing wouldn't allow a comprehensive article, so it'd fail that anyway.
Seraphimblade
On 4/9/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:04:46 -0400 (EDT), "Jeff Raymond" jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Shameless plug for [[Wikipedia:Article inclusion]].
... which is a POV fork of WP:N by another "small but vocal" group, this time the inclusionists. Mainly Jeff. And even Jeff's best friend would not pretend that his inclusion criteria are anywhere near the community centre of gravity.
It's not a POV fork at all, although I can't possibly quantify the size of my group at this point.
My inclusion criteria begin and end with our policies and guidelines outside of the shitty PNC. I don't think they're outside of the center of gravity at all anymore, I'm just the only person these days willing to draw a line in the sand.
Or, in shorter form, my reputation looms larger than my reality these days.
-Jeff
-- If you can read this, I'm not at home.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/9/07, Seraphim Blade seraphimbladewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
"From the independent sources available, could a comprehensive, high-quality (GA/FA) article be written on this subject someday?"
I think this would be a terrible criterion to use for this purpose. Not every worthwhile subject has sufficient to say about it to make a FA or even a GA as currently defined.
-Matt
On 4/9/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/9/07, Seraphim Blade seraphimbladewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
"From the independent sources available, could a comprehensive, high-quality (GA/FA) article be written on this subject someday?"
I think this would be a terrible criterion to use for this purpose. Not every worthwhile subject has sufficient to say about it to make a FA or even a GA as currently defined.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ah, there's the rub, as Shakespeare would say. Perhaps B-class would work as a compromise, but there's got to be some kind of uniform standard. Otherwise, it's pretty much "Whatever anyone wants to write about gets written about," and then we're introducing editorial bias. We should handle inclusion/exclusion the same way as we handle anything else-look at what the sources say (or don't say, for that matter).
Seraphimblade
Seraphim Blade wrote:
Ah, there's the rub, as Shakespeare would say. Perhaps B-class would work as a compromise, but there's got to be some kind of uniform standard. Otherwise, it's pretty much "Whatever anyone wants to write about gets written about," and then we're introducing editorial bias. We should handle inclusion/exclusion the same way as we handle anything else-look at what the sources say (or don't say, for that matter).
Please do - this is an inclusionist dream.
-Jeff
On 4/9/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Seraphim Blade wrote:
Ah, there's the rub, as Shakespeare would say. Perhaps B-class would work as a compromise, but there's got to be some kind of uniform standard. Otherwise, it's pretty much "Whatever anyone wants to write about gets written about," and then we're introducing editorial bias. We should handle inclusion/exclusion the same way as we handle anything else-look at what the sources say (or don't say, for that matter).
Please do - this is an inclusionist dream.
-Jeff
-- Name: Jeff Raymond E-mail: jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com IM: badlydrawnjeff Quote: "I was always a fan of Lisa Loeb, particularly because you kind of get the impression she sang every song either about or to her cats. They seem to be the driving force in most of her creative process." - Chuck Klosterman
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm not sure you'd necessarily find it so. B class isn't -too- far from GA, and requires a pretty decent article. Really, if we can write a B article on something sourced mainly from independent sources, I don't see much of a problem having the article. (Most of the time, all a B needs to get to GA is some copyediting and flow, and maybe a picture or two, there's not a significant difference in amount of content, just in presentation.)
Seraphimblade
On 10/04/07, Seraphim Blade seraphimbladewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/9/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/9/07, Seraphim Blade seraphimbladewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
"From the independent sources available, could a comprehensive, high-quality (GA/FA) article be written on this subject someday?"
I think this would be a terrible criterion to use for this purpose. Not every worthwhile subject has sufficient to say about it to make a FA or even a GA as currently defined.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ah, there's the rub, as Shakespeare would say. Perhaps B-class would work as a compromise, but there's got to be some kind of uniform standard. Otherwise, it's pretty much "Whatever anyone wants to write about gets written about," and then we're introducing editorial bias. We should handle inclusion/exclusion the same way as we handle anything else-look at what the sources say (or don't say, for that matter).
But our inclusion criteria introduces bias too. Subjects which are perceived to be related to high culture are more likely to be included than subjects perceived to be related to "low culture". IMO, this is not a good thing.
On 4/10/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/9/07, Seraphim Blade seraphimbladewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
"From the independent sources available, could a comprehensive, high-quality (GA/FA) article be written on this subject someday?"
I think this would be a terrible criterion to use for this purpose. Not every worthwhile subject has sufficient to say about it to make a FA or even a GA as currently defined.
-Matt
Haha, it's a little known fact that GA was originally created as a form of recognition for articles which would never be able to attain FA status or close to it, because of various deficiencies (e.g. insufficient sources due to systemic bias in secondary source material). (Or, at least, this is what Worldtraveller, the fellow who came up with GA, told me a year or two ago.) I still recall how just a month or two after GA's inception, several short articles which I could never bring up to what is currently B-class status because of insufficient source material (just to name two, take the two [[Karamjit Singh]]s) were rejected by GA. Standards creep works that fast, apparently.
Sorry to digress - I'll try to redeem myself by suggesting that even tying inclusion criteria to some relatively low standard at the present, e.g. C-class, may not work too well thanks to how our standards for articles continue to rise. In a number of cases, these standards become arbitrary and mindlessly enforced, such as an obsession for demanding footnoting where it isn't necessary (e.g. articles which rely on a few core high-quality web sources) - so I would think it's a bad idea to get *this* objective about inclusion criteria.
I think we will always have to have some element of subjectivity about our inclusion criteria. We used to require very subjective criteria because our rules were poorly-developed (which is why I used to support a not-too-well-defined idea of notability), but nowadays thanks to rules creep, we don't need as much subjectivity as we used to. But we shouldn't go overboard in the objective criteria either - I think we already have a surfeit of clue being substituted by mindless rules. If anything, perhaps the reason AfD is working less well these days is that it has adopted the worst of both worlds - it uses subjective criteria to delete the wrong articles, and mindlessly wields objective criteria with the same result in other areas.
Anyhow, I'm rambling now. Just my two cents.
Johnleemk
Seraphim Blade wrote:
Well, it was pretty overwhelmingly rejected. (Yes, yes, voting bad, etc., etc., but it still -can- be a useful metric.) Hell, I love changing the -name- (I think notability is a pretty poor and confusing thing to call our inclusion criteria), and I still couldn't bring myself to support it. Basically, the question we must ask ourselves is this:
This is why I opposed a straw poll 3 weeks after it was even formulated while discussion was ongoing. It hasn't been rejected at all, especially considering the quality of some of the opposes.
-Jeff
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 04:23:36PM -0700, Seraphim Blade wrote:
Well, it was pretty overwhelmingly rejected. (Yes, yes, voting bad, etc., etc., but it still -can- be a useful metric.) Hell, I love changing the -name- (I think notability is a pretty poor and confusing thing to call our inclusion criteria), and I still couldn't bring myself to support it. Basically, the question we must ask ourselves is this:
"From the independent sources available, could a comprehensive, high-quality (GA/FA) article be written on this subject someday?"
If yes, we keep. If no, we merge or delete, depending whether there's any verifiable information at all and whether an appropriate place to merge exists. Far easier than 4000 convoluted "notability" guidelines (there's a separate one for porn stars for godsakes!), and much more in line with writing an encyclopedia. (As an aside, this also -would- eliminate those borderline bios-"15 minutes of fame (or shame)" sourcing wouldn't allow a comprehensive article, so it'd fail that anyway.
This view is just one view among Wikipedians. There are other views. My own view is that we need to ask first - Do we want an article on topic X? If we answer "Yes", then we then use your criteria to determine whether we can write it. If your criteria fails, we do not write it. But we still do not write it if your criteria would pass after we answered "No" to my question. My question is what notability is all about. I would also argue that not all articles that would fail GA/FA (particularly under the present guidelines and practices) should be deleted or merged. For example, there are lots of things that should remain a stub, but then we have debated this on WP and we do not agree.
You appear to me to keep asserting things as self-evidently true, when they are just your opinion.
Bduke
Seraphimblade
On 4/9/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:04:46 -0400 (EDT), "Jeff Raymond" jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Shameless plug for [[Wikipedia:Article inclusion]].
... which is a POV fork of WP:N by another "small but vocal" group, this time the inclusionists. Mainly Jeff. And even Jeff's best friend would not pretend that his inclusion criteria are anywhere near the community centre of gravity.
It's not a POV fork at all, although I can't possibly quantify the size of my group at this point.
My inclusion criteria begin and end with our policies and guidelines outside of the shitty PNC. I don't think they're outside of the center of gravity at all anymore, I'm just the only person these days willing to draw a line in the sand.
Or, in shorter form, my reputation looms larger than my reality these days.
-Jeff
-- If you can read this, I'm not at home.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/9/07, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 04:23:36PM -0700, Seraphim Blade wrote:
Well, it was pretty overwhelmingly rejected. (Yes, yes, voting bad, etc., etc., but it still -can- be a useful metric.) Hell, I love changing the -name- (I think notability is a pretty poor and confusing thing to call our inclusion criteria), and I still couldn't bring myself to support it. Basically, the question we must ask ourselves is this:
"From the independent sources available, could a comprehensive, high-quality (GA/FA) article be written on this subject someday?"
If yes, we keep. If no, we merge or delete, depending whether there's any verifiable information at all and whether an appropriate place to merge exists. Far easier than 4000 convoluted "notability" guidelines (there's a separate one for porn stars for godsakes!), and much more in line with writing an encyclopedia. (As an aside, this also -would- eliminate those borderline bios-"15 minutes of fame (or shame)" sourcing wouldn't allow a comprehensive article, so it'd fail that anyway.
This view is just one view among Wikipedians. There are other views. My own view is that we need to ask first - Do we want an article on topic X? If we answer "Yes", then we then use your criteria to determine whether we can write it. If your criteria fails, we do not write it. But we still do not write it if your criteria would pass after we answered "No" to my question. My question is what notability is all about. I would also argue that not all articles that would fail GA/FA (particularly under the present guidelines and practices) should be deleted or merged. For example, there are lots of things that should remain a stub, but then we have debated this on WP and we do not agree.
You appear to me to keep asserting things as self-evidently true, when they are just your opinion.
Bduke
Seraphimblade
On 4/9/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:04:46 -0400 (EDT), "Jeff Raymond" jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Shameless plug for [[Wikipedia:Article inclusion]].
... which is a POV fork of WP:N by another "small but vocal" group, this time the inclusionists. Mainly Jeff. And even Jeff's best friend would not pretend that his inclusion criteria are anywhere near the community centre of gravity.
It's not a POV fork at all, although I can't possibly quantify the size of my group at this point.
My inclusion criteria begin and end with our policies and guidelines outside of the shitty PNC. I don't think they're outside of the center of gravity at all anymore, I'm just the only person these days willing to draw a line in the sand.
Or, in shorter form, my reputation looms larger than my reality these days.
-Jeff
-- If you can read this, I'm not at home.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au [[User:Bduke]] mainly on en:Wikipedia. Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
True, one among many. But it's the only one that keeps with core policies. NOR clearly states that we work from sources, not our own thoughts or knowledge. It's a logical extension of this that we write or don't write about something based upon the amount of sourcing available. NPOV clearly states that our own viewpoints don't matter a bit, and that we don't give undue weight to things. Just by including an article on something, we're giving some degree of weight to it. If the amount of sourcing available does not support that amount of weight, we violate NPOV. NOT states that we are not a directory or indiscriminate collection of information. Directories, such as phone books, maps, road atlases, census reports, and business directories strive for completeness. They should, that's what allows them to fulfill their purpose. But since we're specifically looking not to create a directory, we should specifically not strive for completeness. Since we're looking not to indiscriminately collect information, and not to base what we do collect on any editor's point of view regarding what we should, looking at how much sourcing exists is the only remaining option.
Seraphimblade
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 06:45:14PM -0700, Seraphim Blade wrote:
On 4/9/07, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 04:23:36PM -0700, Seraphim Blade wrote:
Well, it was pretty overwhelmingly rejected. (Yes, yes, voting bad, etc., etc., but it still -can- be a useful metric.) Hell, I love changing the -name- (I think notability is a pretty poor and confusing thing to call our inclusion criteria), and I still couldn't bring myself to support it. Basically, the question we must ask ourselves is this:
"From the independent sources available, could a comprehensive, high-quality (GA/FA) article be written on this subject someday?"
If yes, we keep. If no, we merge or delete, depending whether there's any verifiable information at all and whether an appropriate place to merge exists. Far easier than 4000 convoluted "notability" guidelines (there's a separate one for porn stars for godsakes!), and much more in line with writing an encyclopedia. (As an aside, this also -would- eliminate those borderline bios-"15 minutes of fame (or shame)" sourcing wouldn't allow a comprehensive article, so it'd fail that anyway.
This view is just one view among Wikipedians. There are other views. My own view is that we need to ask first - Do we want an article on topic X? If we answer "Yes", then we then use your criteria to determine whether we can write it. If your criteria fails, we do not write it. But we still do not write it if your criteria would pass after we answered "No" to my question. My question is what notability is all about. I would also argue that not all articles that would fail GA/FA (particularly under the present guidelines and practices) should be deleted or merged. For example, there are lots of things that should remain a stub, but then we have debated this on WP and we do not agree.
You appear to me to keep asserting things as self-evidently true, when they are just your opinion.
Bduke
Seraphimblade
On 4/9/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com
wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:04:46 -0400 (EDT), "Jeff Raymond" jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Shameless plug for [[Wikipedia:Article inclusion]].
... which is a POV fork of WP:N by another "small but vocal" group, this time the inclusionists. Mainly Jeff. And even Jeff's best friend would not pretend that his inclusion criteria are anywhere near the community centre of gravity.
It's not a POV fork at all, although I can't possibly quantify the size
of
my group at this point.
My inclusion criteria begin and end with our policies and guidelines outside of the shitty PNC. I don't think they're outside of the center
of
gravity at all anymore, I'm just the only person these days willing to draw a line in the sand.
Or, in shorter form, my reputation looms larger than my reality these
days.
-Jeff
-- If you can read this, I'm not at home.
True, one among many. But it's the only one that keeps with core policies. NOR clearly states that we work from sources, not our own thoughts or knowledge. It's a logical extension of this that we write or don't write about something based upon the amount of sourcing available. NPOV clearly states that our own viewpoints don't matter a bit, and that we don't give undue weight to things. Just by including an article on something, we're giving some degree of weight to it. If the amount of sourcing available does not support that amount of weight, we violate NPOV. NOT states that we are not a directory or indiscriminate collection of information. Directories, such as phone books, maps, road atlases, census reports, and business directories strive for completeness. They should, that's what allows them to fulfill their purpose. But since we're specifically looking not to create a directory, we should specifically not strive for completeness. Since we're looking not to indiscriminately collect information, and not to base what we do collect on any editor's point of view regarding what we should, looking at how much sourcing exists is the only remaining option.
Seraphimblade
"NOR clearly states that we work from sources, not our own thoughts or knowledge." Agree - we work from sources. I.e. we write articles from sources.
"It's a logical extension of this that we write or don't write about something based upon the amount of sourcing available." No, it is not a logical extension. We are concerned about whether we write or not. We could use your criteria, or we could use another criteria. I say we write about something that is notable. We need to define that properly.
If something is not notable, such as a very junior soccer team, we do not write an article on it, even if there are lots of sources for some reason. I'm not striving for completeness. I'm striving to be encyclopedic.
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
"It's a logical extension of this that we write or don't write about something based upon the amount of sourcing available." No, it is not a logical extension. We are concerned about whether we write or not. We could use your criteria, or we could use another criteria (sic!). I say we write about something that is notable. We need to define that properly.
Sourcing and notability are distinct criteria, though there is considerable overlap. Sourcing lends itself more easily to definition than notability, even if there remains considerable difference about what sources may be reliable. Notability (both for articles and content in articles) remains a completely subjective basis. Any definition should be inclusionary in the form, "Xxxx is notable if it meets ONE of these criteria." This would be followed by a list. If it is not on the list it MAY be non-notable, and the person proposing to include the article or material would have the burden of establishing notability. He needs to be given the opportunity to do so.
If something is not notable, such as a very junior soccer team, we do not write an article on it, even if there are lots of sources for some reason. I'm not striving for completeness. I'm striving to be encyclopedic.
Completenes and being encyclopedic are not mutually exclusive. Why should we have a rule against junior soccer teams? Why make the prejudicial determination that team is not notable for the simple reason that it is a junior soccer team? Nobody is going to insist that you write about them. Why should you have the right to micromanage what someone else does?
Ec
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 10:59:22AM -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
"It's a logical extension of this that we write or don't write about something based upon the amount of sourcing available." No, it is not a logical extension. We are concerned about whether we write or not. We could use your criteria, or we could use another criteria (sic!). I say we write about something that is notable. We need to define that properly.
Sourcing and notability are distinct criteria, though there is considerable overlap. Sourcing lends itself more easily to definition than notability, even if there remains considerable difference about what sources may be reliable. Notability (both for articles and content in articles) remains a completely subjective basis. Any definition should be inclusionary in the form, "Xxxx is notable if it meets ONE of these criteria." This would be followed by a list. If it is not on the list it MAY be non-notable, and the person proposing to include the article or material would have the burden of establishing notability. He needs to be given the opportunity to do so.
If something is not notable, such as a very junior soccer team, we do not write an article on it, even if there are lots of sources for some reason. I'm not striving for completeness. I'm striving to be encyclopedic.
Completenes and being encyclopedic are not mutually exclusive. Why should we have a rule against junior soccer teams? Why make the prejudicial determination that team is not notable for the simple reason that it is a junior soccer team? Nobody is going to insist that you write about them. Why should you have the right to micromanage what someone else does?
It is not just me. I think it is consensus. I mentioned a soccer team because I had mentioned elsewhere (on WP:NOTE talk if I recall) a debate on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoyland Common Falcons]], a team in the village where my father was born and later returned to in his old age. There was at one time a precise guideline about rejecting teams below 11th(?) level, what ever that means, but this team is well below. In this case there were few or no sources, but if there had been, I think they would have been rejected. An encyclopedia does not need an article on every soccer team, every Scout Troop, etc., etc.
Of course there are exceptions, such [[Hallam F.C.]], also in my old stomping grounds just up the road from where I was brought up. That however is the second oldest F. C. in the world playing on the oldest ground.
Ec
On 4/10/07, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 10:59:22AM -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
"It's a logical extension of this that we write or don't write about something based upon the amount of sourcing available." No, it is not a logical extension. We are concerned about whether we write or not. We could use your criteria, or we could use another criteria (sic!). I say we write about something that is notable. We need to define that properly.
Sourcing and notability are distinct criteria, though there is considerable overlap. Sourcing lends itself more easily to definition than notability, even if there remains considerable difference about what sources may be reliable. Notability (both for articles and content in articles) remains a completely subjective basis. Any definition should be inclusionary in the form, "Xxxx is notable if it meets ONE of these criteria." This would be followed by a list. If it is not on the list it MAY be non-notable, and the person proposing to include the article or material would have the burden of establishing notability. He needs to be given the opportunity to do so.
If something is not notable, such as a very junior soccer team, we do not write an article on it, even if there are lots of sources for some reason. I'm not striving for completeness. I'm striving to be encyclopedic.
Completenes and being encyclopedic are not mutually exclusive. Why should we have a rule against junior soccer teams? Why make the prejudicial determination that team is not notable for the simple reason that it is a junior soccer team? Nobody is going to insist that you write about them. Why should you have the right to micromanage what someone else does?
It is not just me. I think it is consensus. I mentioned a soccer team because I had mentioned elsewhere (on WP:NOTE talk if I recall) a debate on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoyland Common Falcons]], a team in the village where my father was born and later returned to in his old age. There was at one time a precise guideline about rejecting teams below 11th(?) level, what ever that means, but this team is well below. In this case there were few or no sources, but if there had been, I think they would have been rejected. An encyclopedia does not need an article on every soccer team, every Scout Troop, etc., etc.
Of course there are exceptions, such [[Hallam F.C.]], also in my old stomping grounds just up the road from where I was brought up. That however is the second oldest F. C. in the world playing on the oldest ground.
Ec
-- Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au [[User:Bduke]] mainly on en:Wikipedia. Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Really, I think such "rules" should be guidance to subjects where sufficient sourcing is likely to exist, not hard-and-fast either way. If there's enough independent reliable source material to write a genuinely good article about a junior soccer team, why not? On the other hand, if there's not enough to write a good article about a band who had two gold records, we shouldn't have that article. Same with the pro player bit-that's a terrible mistake. Due to that, we have a lot of "Jack Crack is the thirty-first string quarterback for the Somewhere Whoevers," with no hope of expansion whatsoever. We really need to rework the way we look at articles, and blanket categorical inclusion or exclusion based upon arbitrary cutoff points ("two gold records", "national tour", "won an X award", "been prolific in a porno niche" for godsakes). If there's some sources, but not enough for a full GA/FA article on the individual subject, yet the article does seem to merit mention of some type, -find a merge target-. Just about everything has a related or parent topic. If it doesn't, and there really is that little on it, we probably shouldn't have the article. (We also need to add "Wikipedia is not Wikinews" to WP:NOT, we're cannibalizing that poor project and including a lot of stuff we shouldn't have in the meantime).
Seraphimblade
On 4/12/07, Seraphim Blade seraphimbladewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Same with the pro player bit-that's a terrible mistake. Due to that, we have a lot of "Jack Crack is the thirty-first string quarterback for the Somewhere Whoevers," with no hope of expansion whatsoever.
If gridiron football is anything like association football then digging through the back issues of the local paper would fix that one. Most have a sport section for when they have to produces say 2-3 pages of football based content every day. With perhaps 3 local teams at (minor league stuff doesn't normally count to that total) every player will get a lot of coverage over the course of a season.
On 4/12/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/12/07, Seraphim Blade seraphimbladewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Same with the pro player bit-that's a terrible mistake. Due to that, we have a lot of "Jack Crack is the thirty-first string quarterback for the Somewhere Whoevers," with no hope of expansion whatsoever.
If gridiron football is anything like association football then digging through the back issues of the local paper would fix that one. Most have a sport section for when they have to produces say 2-3 pages of football based content every day. With perhaps 3 local teams at (minor league stuff doesn't normally count to that total) every player will get a lot of coverage over the course of a season.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Generally, backup players don't get a ton of coverage unless they really do end up -playing-, and even then the coverage tends to be trivial except in unusual situations. Name-drops and newspaper space filler is pretty poor sourcing. If that's all there is, we shouldn't have that article.
Seraphimblade
Seraphim Blade wrote:
Generally, backup players don't get a ton of coverage unless they really do end up -playing-, and even then the coverage tends to be trivial except in unusual situations. Name-drops and newspaper space filler is pretty poor sourcing. If that's all there is, we shouldn't have that article.
Also generally, however, thirdstring football players were still starters in college, and would have plenty of material there.
-Jeff
On 4/12/07, Seraphim Blade seraphimbladewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Generally, backup players don't get a ton of coverage unless they really do end up -playing-, and even then the coverage tends to be trivial except in unusual situations. Name-drops and newspaper space filler is pretty poor sourcing. If that's all there is, we shouldn't have that article.
Why not?
On 4/13/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 4/12/07, Seraphim Blade seraphimbladewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Generally, backup players don't get a ton of coverage unless they really do end up -playing-, and even then the coverage tends to be trivial except in unusual situations. Name-drops and newspaper space filler is pretty poor sourcing. If that's all there is, we shouldn't have that article.
Trivial mentions usually don't give much information to base an article on, but in the right circumstances, it can be an excellent aid in determining notability. Example: Even if John Doe has no article written specifically about him. If some article mentions he was the first to climb Mount Everest, his notability is established, despite the fact he may have had a one line-mention in a 2000 word article.
Mgm
On 4/13/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/13/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 4/12/07, Seraphim Blade seraphimbladewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Generally, backup players don't get a ton of coverage unless they really do end up -playing-, and even then the coverage tends to be trivial except in unusual situations. Name-drops and newspaper space filler is pretty poor sourcing. If that's all there is, we shouldn't have that article.
Trivial mentions usually don't give much information to base an article on, but in the right circumstances, it can be an excellent aid in determining notability. Example: Even if John Doe has no article written specifically about him. If some article mentions he was the first to climb Mount Everest, his notability is established, despite the fact he may have had a one line-mention in a 2000 word article.
Mgm _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
True...but not. If that were genuinely all there is, we could consider him notable all we like, but we shouldn't have the article. Generally, however, that's a moot point. The first guy to climb Everest has tons of material written about him, easily allowing us to have an article. The trouble we run into is "notability by category", where we're looking at the wrong thing. Instead of saying "Do we think that an X is notable?" we should be asking "Has it been noted? (As in, is there a good amount of reliable source material available?)" As with everything, what -we- think means nothing, what the -sources- think means everything. If the sources, by -not noting- the subject significantly, decide it's not notable, it's not our place to "correct" or overrule that, any more than we'd do with any sourcing issue. Of course, issues of minor note may still be appropriate to mention in related or parent articles.
Seraphimblade
G'day Seraphim,
On 4/13/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Trivial mentions usually don't give much information to base an article on, but in the right circumstances, it can be an excellent aid in determining notability. Example: Even if John Doe has no article written specifically about him. If some article mentions he was the first to climb Mount Everest, his notability is established, despite the fact he may have had a one line-mention in a 2000 word article.
True...but not. If that were genuinely all there is, we could consider him notable all we like, but we shouldn't have the article. Generally, however, that's a moot point. The first guy to climb Everest has tons of material written about him, easily allowing us to have an article. The trouble we run into is "notability by category", where we're looking at the wrong thing. Instead of saying "Do we think that an X is notable?" we should be asking "Has it been noted? (As in, is there a good amount of reliable source material available?)" As with everything, what -we- think means nothing, what the -sources- think means everything. If the sources, by -not noting- the subject significantly, decide it's not notable, it's not our place to "correct" or overrule that, any more than we'd do with any sourcing issue. Of course, issues of minor note may still be appropriate to mention in related or parent articles.
That is a good point, and I would agree ... to an extent.
We're amateurs, usually in the sense of "rank amateur". Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and we're relying on the words of experts to help us write a quality reference. We don't do original research, in part because it's not our place to do so, and in part because that's not what an encyclopaedia is for, anyway. And, arguably, Wikipedians making up their own minds about notability in deletion/creation debates is little different from Wikipedians drawing their own conclusions when writing articles. So, you have a good point.
We have to be careful about systemic bias, however. It is much easier to find well-sourced information about a contestant voted off (or whatever it is they do) on the first week of /American Idol/, than it is to research the life of a Sikh religious hero. There are a number of reasons for this:
* We write for the English Wikipedia. Most of us are native English-speakers, and like most native English-speakers, we don't know any other languages. So, sources written in Punjabi or whatever are closed to us.
* I do 98% of my research on the Internet; when I refer to books at all, it's because happy chance has led to me having a book on the subject (this is rare). I assume most of us are the same. Subjects of concern to Westerners, in particular English-speaking Westerners, in particular Americans, are much easier to access online than other subjects. It may not be possible to learn as much as we'd like about Sikh history online.
* We know about /American Idol/. Even I would be able to research and write about any /Idol/-related person we need an article about. If I wanted to discuss, say, the linguistic history of Benin, I wouldn't even know where to start looking ... and neither would most Wikipedians.
We need to remember that not all subjects can be as easily-sourced as the subjects we usually write about (that's why they're not one of the subjects we usually write about, eh?). If for all questions of worthiness we turn to the American press (say), we will find out only what the American press a) know about, and b) think their audience will care about. And that's narrowing the world down a great deal further than I think an international, comprehensive encyclopaedia ought.
Cheers,
On 4/10/07, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 04:23:36PM -0700, Seraphim Blade wrote:
Well, it was pretty overwhelmingly rejected. (Yes, yes, voting bad, etc., etc., but it still -can- be a useful metric.) Hell, I love changing the -name- (I think notability is a pretty poor and confusing thing to call our inclusion criteria), and I still couldn't bring myself to support it. Basically, the question we must ask ourselves is this:
"From the independent sources available, could a comprehensive, high-quality (GA/FA) article be written on this subject someday?"
If yes, we keep. If no, we merge or delete, depending whether there's any verifiable information at all and whether an appropriate place to merge exists. Far easier than 4000 convoluted "notability" guidelines (there's a separate one for porn stars for godsakes!), and much more in line with writing an encyclopedia. (As an aside, this also -would- eliminate those borderline bios-"15 minutes of fame (or shame)" sourcing wouldn't allow a comprehensive article, so it'd fail that anyway.
This view is just one view among Wikipedians. There are other views. My own view is that we need to ask first - Do we want an article on topic X? If we answer "Yes", then we then use your criteria to determine whether we can write it. If your criteria fails, we do not write it. But we still do not write it if your criteria would pass after we answered "No" to my question. My question is what notability is all about. I would also argue that not all articles that would fail GA/FA (particularly under the present guidelines and practices) should be deleted or merged. For example, there are lots of things that should remain a stub, but then we have debated this on WP and we do not agree.
You appear to me to keep asserting things as self-evidently true, when they are just your opinion.
Bduke
I've written an article about the youngest kid to cross the Atlantic. It's by no means comprehensive or near GA/FA status, but the fact he did cross the Atlantic and was able to find enough sources to assert this together with some personal information and some info about awards means I was able to write a reasonable stub. George Merryweather is another good example. He's a notable scientist, but I couldn't find sources about him, thus making me unable to write an article.
I believe an article should be written if someone could write about a paragraph of encyclopedic information and it wouldn't hurt to apply WP:FICT to non-fictional things too. It's okay to write stubs, it's better to merge them into context if we can - unless the subject of the article is falls under the guideline that says it's notable enough for it's own entry. It keeps information just reorganizes it. I still wonder why so many people believe game show contestant articles should be deleted when they don't even address the option to merge them.
Mgm
On 4/10/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
. It's okay to write stubs, it's better to merge them into context if we can - unless the subject of the article is falls under the guideline that says it's notable enough for it's own entry.
Why? Better for whom? I personally can't stand searching for a term and being redirected to a general article on the topic of which two sentences vaguely half addresses what I'm looking for. I'd much rather have a two-sentence stub that precisely addresses what I'm looking for, even if it's only to point me back to the main article afterwards.
Steve
On 10/04/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/10/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
. It's okay to write stubs, it's better to merge them into context if we can - unless the subject of the article is falls under the guideline that says it's notable enough for it's own entry.
Why? Better for whom? I personally can't stand searching for a term and being redirected to a general article on the topic of which two sentences vaguely half addresses what I'm looking for. I'd much rather have a two-sentence stub that precisely addresses what I'm looking for, even if it's only to point me back to the main article afterwards.
Yes. I'm wondering if the people frantically consolidating stubs are thinking of convenience for the reader actually looking for that thing at all.
- d.
On 4/10/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. I'm wondering if the people frantically consolidating stubs are thinking of convenience for the reader actually looking for that thing at all.
Yes, it was quite an epiphany for me when I realised that "real" encyclopaedias actually have lots of very short articles. They don't call them "stubs" either. And they leave out pointless gossip about people's personal lives.
Maybe I should dredge up my proposal for notability to be defined in kilobytes: this child actor gets 1kb of Wikipedia space. This cold war president gets up to 100kb of Wikipedia space.
Steve
David Gerard wrote:
On 10/04/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/10/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
. It's okay to write stubs, it's better to merge them into context if we can - unless the subject of the article is falls under the guideline that says it's notable enough for it's own entry.
Why? Better for whom? I personally can't stand searching for a term and being redirected to a general article on the topic of which two sentences vaguely half addresses what I'm looking for. I'd much rather have a two-sentence stub that precisely addresses what I'm looking for, even if it's only to point me back to the main article afterwards.
Yes. I'm wondering if the people frantically consolidating stubs are thinking of convenience for the reader actually looking for that thing at all.
Perhaps the mentality that goes into these consolidations is the same one that fills FAQs with all the things that one would never ask. I can spend hours going through a software manual and never find an answer to the simple problem that I am having.
Ec
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 4/10/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
. It's okay to write stubs, it's better to merge them into context if we can - unless the subject of the article is falls under the guideline that says it's notable enough for it's own entry.
Why? Better for whom? I personally can't stand searching for a term and being redirected to a general article on the topic of which two sentences vaguely half addresses what I'm looking for. I'd much rather have a two-sentence stub that precisely addresses what I'm looking for, even if it's only to point me back to the main article afterwards.
That's essentially my position.
-Jeff
On 4/9/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/9/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
"Notability" has no divinely-ordained, objective definition that can be logically deduced. The definition of "notability" changes according to how much the person using the word wants an article to be deleted.
It may be, but it shouldn't. It should be based on facts, not someone's deletion opinions. The result based on those facts may differ, though.
"Notability" can be based on facts, but still change according to a person's opinion, because it's a person's opinion as to how to weigh the facts.
Even the term "notable" can be used in at least two different ways. I generally use it to mean "worthy of note", which is inherently an opinion. Some people think a game show contestant is worthy of note. Others don't. The term "notable" can also be used to mean "well known", which is more of an objective decision, but I also thought it was one which isn't useful in determining if an article should be deleted. Most contestants on Survivor are much more well known than most Nobel prize laureates, but does that make them more notable?
Anthony
On 09/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Building an encyclopedia is about building a wealth of knowledge, not creating some goodwill. If we're in the market for goodwill, then start a goodwill project, not an encyclopedia.
Precisely. We have enough trouble with people taking WP:BLP to mandate sympathetic point of view, rather than neutral point of view.
- d.
On 4/8/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
Along the lines of "John Smith is a British schoolteacher who came to public attention after being discovered on the floor naked during a geography class, having asked his pupils to draw a map of Europe on his genitals."
The point is that no news organization or encyclopedia would publish a biography of the geography teacher just because of that one incident.
Well, if a news organization isn't reporting it, we're not including it.
They might report the incident. They wouldn't rush off to write a biography of the person on that basis alone.
That seems to be a valid standard to work with in terms of biographies of living people, even if we go way too far with it already. We're more than your standard encyclopedia, and we cover what's possible to cover. If John Smith is in the news, he's notable and we should consider inclusion.
You seem to be saying we should have a biography on every single person who has ever been in the news.
We're currently asking the question "Why shouldn't Wikipedia publish biographies on everyone for whom reliable sources can be found?" but I think we should turn that on its head and ask "Why *should* we, given that no else does?"
Because we're better than everyone else, and we're better than to cow to the demands of our subjects.
Well, another way of looking at it is that it's because we're worse than everyone else, and that we don't listen to our subjects' reasonable requests.
If we were to adopt an opt-out clause for borderline notables, I think it would generate significant goodwill among the public, because this is seen as one of our major problems.
Among who? Our problems deal with reliability, with vandalism, and with trust. "Borderline notability" is hardly on the radar when you consider factual issues, Sinbad/Sieganthaler-style vandalism, and issues like the Essjay incident.
There's a perception that we're not reliable, and that we don't take sufficient editorial responsibility for the material produced by our thousands of anonymous editors. If we were to announce that we recognize biographical material on living persons is an area where the open-editing model can be inappropriate, and that therefore we're going to allow certain types of subjects to opt out, we'd be seen as responsible and self-regulating.
Building an encyclopedia is about building a wealth of knowledge, not creating some goodwill. If we're in the market for goodwill, then start a goodwill project, not an encyclopedia.
It's the goodwill of the public that's financing us.
Slim Virgin wrote:
You seem to be saying we should have a biography on every single person who has ever been in the news.
I wouldn't argue against it, no.
Well, another way of looking at it is that it's because we're worse than everyone else, and that we don't listen to our subjects' reasonable requests.
It's unreasonable to expect someone to remove a legitimate biography on a notable figure.
There's a perception that we're not reliable, and that we don't take sufficient editorial responsibility for the material produced by our thousands of anonymous editors. If we were to announce that we recognize biographical material on living persons is an area where the open-editing model can be inappropriate, and that therefore we're going to allow certain types of subjects to opt out, we'd be seen as responsible and self-regulating.
No we wouldn't. Internally, we'd be cowardly and stupid. Externally, no one would give a shit - it does nothing to solve the problems ("Okay, so some people can have their biographies removed. Too bad the articles are still inaccurate.")
It's the goodwill of the public that's financing us.
Yup. And that doesn't seem to be changing, and it doesn't look like we need a misguided policy to increase it further.
-Jeff
On 4/8/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
Well, another way of looking at it is that it's because we're worse than everyone else, and that we don't listen to our subjects' reasonable requests.
It's unreasonable to expect someone to remove a legitimate biography on a notable figure.
What if that biography is only "legitimate" some of the time?
On 09/04/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/8/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Building an encyclopedia is about building a wealth of knowledge, not creating some goodwill. If we're in the market for goodwill, then start a goodwill project, not an encyclopedia.
It's the goodwill of the public that's financing us.
That sounds awfully like "so much for NPOV."
- d.
On 4/9/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/8/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
Along the lines of "John Smith is a British schoolteacher who came to public attention after being discovered on the floor naked during a geography class, having asked his pupils to draw a map of Europe on his genitals."
The point is that no news organization or encyclopedia would publish a biography of the geography teacher just because of that one incident.
Well, if a news organization isn't reporting it, we're not including it.
They might report the incident. They wouldn't rush off to write a biography of the person on that basis alone.
That seems to be a valid standard to work with in terms of biographies of living people, even if we go way too far with it already. We're more than your standard encyclopedia, and we cover what's possible to cover. If John Smith is in the news, he's notable and we should consider inclusion.
You seem to be saying we should have a biography on every single person who has ever been in the news.
We're currently asking the question "Why shouldn't Wikipedia publish biographies on everyone for whom reliable sources can be found?" but I think we should turn that on its head and ask "Why *should* we, given that no else does?"
Because we're better than everyone else, and we're better than to cow to the demands of our subjects.
Well, another way of looking at it is that it's because we're worse than everyone else, and that we don't listen to our subjects' reasonable requests.
Affecting the coverage of an encyclopedia by requesting material to be deleted. is not reasonable. Fixing errors and protecting articles that prove to be continuing problems is reasonable. Deletion is similar to sweeping the problems under the rug or into your neighbours garden. We should address the problems instead of deleting them entirely or ignoring their existence.
Mgm
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 19:20:20 -0500, "Slim Virgin" slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Jeff, can you expand on how it would do that? As I see it, it might do the opposite. Biographies of borderline notable people often either languish unattended or are used as a platform by people with an axe to grind.
Absolutely. In many cases the only non-trivial sources are documenting a single event in their life. Fine if it's rowing across the Atlantic, not so fine if it's an allegation of rape that never made it to court.
Guy (JzG)
On 4/9/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 19:20:20 -0500, "Slim Virgin" slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Jeff, can you expand on how it would do that? As I see it, it might do the opposite. Biographies of borderline notable people often either languish unattended or are used as a platform by people with an axe to grind.
Absolutely. In many cases the only non-trivial sources are documenting a single event in their life. Fine if it's rowing across the Atlantic, not so fine if it's an allegation of rape that never made it to court.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
So what would you do if the person who crossed the Atlantic requested deletion of their biography? If this policy got off the ground we'd get rid of a fine bio (presumably true too) just because they asked. Readers wouldn't be able to find out what he/she did on Wikipedia even though it should've been covered. A policy like this would need to be refined. For example 1) It should be regarding people who's sole claim to notability is a crime that never went to court.
I'm sure there's more reasons that could be added.
Mgm
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 14:08:57 +0200, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
So what would you do if the person who crossed the Atlantic requested deletion of their biography? If this policy got off the ground we'd get rid of a fine bio (presumably true too) just because they asked. Readers wouldn't be able to find out what he/she did on Wikipedia even though it should've been covered. A policy like this would need to be refined. For example 1) It should be regarding people who's sole claim to notability is a crime that never went to court.
I would merge it to solo Atlantic crossings, or find evidence tat there is widespread coverage independent of that one achievement.
Of course, it is not terribly /likely/ that this person will request removal, whereas such requests form those whose "achievements" are rather less laudable is not quite so rare.
Guy (JzG)
On 4/9/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 14:08:57 +0200, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
So what would you do if the person who crossed the Atlantic requested deletion of their biography? If this policy got off the ground we'd get
rid
of a fine bio (presumably true too) just because they asked. Readers wouldn't be able to find out what he/she did on Wikipedia even though it should've been covered. A policy like this would need to be refined. For example 1) It should be regarding people who's sole claim to notability
is a
crime that never went to court.
I would merge it to solo Atlantic crossings, or find evidence tat there is widespread coverage independent of that one achievement.
Of course, it is not terribly /likely/ that this person will request removal, whereas such requests form those whose "achievements" are rather less laudable is not quite so rare.
My point being that the first part of this proposed policy should determine if the bio is actually causing the subject real world harm. Notability isn't the problem, so it's not the solution either. If there is negative information in a biography it can be removed. No reason to remove the entire article.
Then there's also people like Lee Harvey Oswald (or any other killer for that matter) whose notability rely entirely on something negative. Suppose Oswald was still alive and requested deletion because his entry was too negative. Would we do it? What if the murder was extensively covered by the media, but no sentence was passed yet by the court? In my opinion we don't need any new policy to deal with this. Just common sense and some hands-on OFFICE members and stable versions...If we don't approve possibly problematic content straight away, people won't see it which has the same result as the one we want.
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
My point being that the first part of this proposed policy should determine if the bio is actually causing the subject real world harm. Notability isn't the problem, so it's not the solution either. If there is negative information in a biography it can be removed. No reason to remove the entire article.
IF we aren't the first publication of it, THEN we're not causing harm. We're simply sharing information, nothing more and nothing less.
-Jeff
On 4/9/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
My point being that the first part of this proposed policy should determine if the bio is actually causing the subject real world harm. Notability isn't the problem, so it's not the solution either. If there is negative information in a biography it can be removed. No reason to remove the entire article.
IF we aren't the first publication of it, THEN we're not causing harm. We're simply sharing information, nothing more and nothing less.
-Jeff
A newspaper article is usually published once and never heard from again unless someone goes looking for it. Wikipedia is a highly visible place, so we bring things to people's attention that would otherways be forgotten. I'd say that means we could cause harm whether we're the first, second or third.
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
A newspaper article is usually published once and never heard from again unless someone goes looking for it. Wikipedia is a highly visible place, so we bring things to people's attention that would otherways be forgotten. I'd say that means we could cause harm whether we're the first, second or third.
I don't agree with that. It may be a little worse with nofollow turned off (since it increases where we sit in the rankings), but, again, you're unlikely to find a bio like that on-site without looking for it, and if you're going through Google, the newspaper article is unlikely to be forgotten.
Unless you think the newspaper is causing harm, too. Which, in that case, well...
-Jeff
Jeff Raymond wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
A newspaper article is usually published once and never heard from again unless someone goes looking for it. Wikipedia is a highly visible place, so we bring things to people's attention that would otherways be forgotten...
I don't agree with that.
If so, you are willfully overlooking the fact that Wikipedia is now *BIG*. We are no longer just some marginal nerdly Internet toy. We have impact in the real world, and with that comes responsibility. You may not think we should have to have it (and you might even be right), but whether we like it or not, the rest of the world is going to force that responsibility on us (by assuming it of us, and complaining loudly if we decline).
Moreover, we're not just big, we're different. Simple analogies with newspapers and other media do not necessarily hold.
Steve Summit wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
A newspaper article is usually published once and never heard from again unless someone goes looking for it. Wikipedia is a highly visible place, so we bring things to people's attention that would otherways be forgotten...
I don't agree with that.
If so, you are willfully overlooking the fact that Wikipedia is now *BIG*. We are no longer just some marginal nerdly Internet toy. We have impact in the real world, and with that comes responsibility. You may not think we should have to have it (and you might even be right), but whether we like it or not, the rest of the world is going to force that responsibility on us (by assuming it of us, and complaining loudly if we decline).
If people don't understand us, then it's up to us to make sure they *do* understand us, not try to fit into a mould of what they think we should be. We have *some* impact in the real world, but not the type we're afraid of here. It's because we're so big that we may, in fact, have a responsibility to offer good biographies of people with what some may call "borderline notability" - the mainstream press isn't bothered with the other details.
Moreover, we're not just big, we're different. Simple analogies with newspapers and other media do not necessarily hold.
It's because we're different that we shouldn't be patching one alleged hole by creating many little ones.
-Jeff
On 4/9/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
A newspaper article is usually published once and never heard from again unless someone goes looking for it. Wikipedia is a highly visible place, so we bring things to people's attention that would otherways be forgotten. I'd say that means we could cause harm whether we're the first, second or third.
I don't agree with that. It may be a little worse with nofollow turned off (since it increases where we sit in the rankings), but, again, you're unlikely to find a bio like that on-site without looking for it, and if you're going through Google, the newspaper article is unlikely to be forgotten.
Unless you think the newspaper is causing harm, too. Which, in that case, well...
-Jeff
The fact I need to use LexisNexis to find the newspaper articles I need to write certain articles proves not every newspaper article is available online. For most newspapers, the publicly available bit is archived for a limited amount of time. We are a LOT more accessible.
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
The fact I need to use LexisNexis to find the newspaper articles I need to write certain articles proves not every newspaper article is available online. For most newspapers, the publicly available bit is archived for a limited amount of time. We are a LOT more accessible.
Yes, we're more accessable, but the information is not unaccessable. I've been in the same boat as you on the research regard, trust me - it doesn't mean the information isn't readily available and, again, if we're not the first publisher, we're not doing the harm.
-Jeff
On 4/9/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
The fact I need to use LexisNexis to find the newspaper articles I need
to
write certain articles proves not every newspaper article is available online. For most newspapers, the publicly available bit is archived for
a
limited amount of time. We are a LOT more accessible.
Yes, we're more accessable, but the information is not unaccessable. I've been in the same boat as you on the research regard, trust me - it doesn't mean the information isn't readily available and, again, if we're not the first publisher, we're not doing the harm.
We'll have to agree to disagree then. I think we're certainly not the first or only people causing harm, but if we make a piece of information permanently available to a worldwide audience, I don't think we can say we're not doing any harm at all.
"it doesn't mean the information isn't readily available". Assuming we're talking about a newspaper article that is not available on the internet but can be found in LexisNexis: Where would you go to get it? If it is readily available there should be other places to get it for people who don't have LexisNexis access.
Mgm
On 4/9/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
"it doesn't mean the information isn't readily available". Assuming we're talking about a newspaper article that is not available on the internet but can be found in LexisNexis: Where would you go to get it? If it is readily available there should be other places to get it for people who don't have LexisNexis access.
I often use 'The Times Digital Archive' to research articles, this being a searchable database of scans of every page of The Times since 1785. It is a private database which certain libraries subscribe to. Recently I had the unhappy experience of having another editor complain that because I had cited a source which was a Times article from the 1930s, it wasn't accessible on the internet and therefore not verifiable.
The fact is that old newspapers are available, even if you don't have LexisNexis. You can go to a newspaper library; most reference libraries in Britain have major newspapers on microfilm. It is no part of sourcing to find sources that a couch potato can find in 30 seconds on Google.
On 4/9/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/9/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
The fact I need to use LexisNexis to find the newspaper articles I need
to
write certain articles proves not every newspaper article is available online. For most newspapers, the publicly available bit is archived for
a
limited amount of time. We are a LOT more accessible.
Yes, we're more accessable, but the information is not unaccessable. I've been in the same boat as you on the research regard, trust me - it doesn't mean the information isn't readily available and, again, if we're not the first publisher, we're not doing the harm.
We'll have to agree to disagree then. I think we're certainly not the first or only people causing harm, but if we make a piece of information permanently available to a worldwide audience, I don't think we can say we're not doing any harm at all.
I agree with this, but I think once you get into the game of measuring harm you've opened up a can of worms that will ruin the encyclopedia. If a policy of deletion of information about living people is adopted, it must be carefully constructed to be applied neutrally. That means protecting the guilty along with the innocent, in my opinion.
Anthony
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Unless you think the newspaper is causing harm, too.
Some of them surely do.
Which, in that case, well...
Earlier today someone said that having Daniel Brand tell us what to do was a bad idea. Here I would say that having the National Enquirer tell us what to do (or what we can do) is also a bad idea.
On 09/04/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Unless you think the newspaper is causing harm, too.
Some of them surely do.
Which, in that case, well...
Earlier today someone said that having Daniel Brand tell us what to do was a bad idea. Here I would say that having the National Enquirer tell us what to do (or what we can do) is also a bad idea.
Determining whether an idea is "good" or "bad" (need we be so binary?) based upon who came up with it is a *bad* idea. Surely the merit of an idea should depend upon the idea itself?
Steve Summit wrote:
Earlier today someone said that having Daniel Brand tell us what to do was a bad idea. Here I would say that having the National Enquirer tell us what to do (or what we can do) is also a bad idea.
The difference, of course, being that I don't believe anyone considers the Enquirer reliable.
-Jeff
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 14:08:57 +0200, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" wrote:
So what would you do if the person who crossed the Atlantic requested deletion of their biography? If this policy got off the ground we'd get rid of a fine bio (presumably true too) just because they asked. Readers wouldn't be able to find out what he/she did on Wikipedia even though it should've been covered. A policy like this would need to be refined. For example 1) It should be regarding people who's sole claim to notability is a crime that never went to court.
I would merge it to solo Atlantic crossings, or find evidence tat there is widespread coverage independent of that one achievement.
Of course, it is not terribly /likely/ that this person will request removal, whereas such requests form those whose "achievements" are rather less laudable is not quite so rare.
Some people do silly things for the sole purpose of becoming famous as an entry in the Guinness Book of Records. Others have earned Darwin Awards.
Ec
On 4/8/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
It has been suggested that people who are not particularly notable should have the option of requesting removal of their Wikipedia biographies. This suggestion has come up in the context of Daniel Brandt, who has long complained, but please address the general question.
I doubt very many people will bother to make such a request, and even if a few tens of thousands did, the loss to the utility and interest to the encyclopedia would be minimal. This would not apply to prominent persons, but would apply to subjects such as John Seigenthaler, whose article was so seldom accessed or edited that a major error remained there for months without being notice. If the person is not notable enough that we pay attention to its content, there is some risk just from having it.
John Seigenthaler (Senior) doesn't qualify as a public figure?
I dunno, I think it's a good idea, until I hear that. This is going to do pretty much nothing to stop errors from cropping up in the next John Seigenthaler article, because the person has to notice the article in order to request removal of it.
As such, I don't think "not particularly notable" is well enough defined. I'd support the idea if the term was defined, such as "whether that person has already had a biography published by a reliable third-party source, either in a form of a newspaper article or a book".
Anthony