While it may be annoying when a favorite type of article is listed for deletion, it's best viewed as a chance to argue your case to not delete it.
Remember that the case for deletion needs a consensus, which is actually pretty hard to raise if an article has any merit.
In particular, the notability argument is extremely weak, and in most cases directly contradicts deletion policy.
Deletion policy states explicitly that if the only problem with an article is that it's on a branch of a subject so trivial that it doesn't merit an article, it is *not* a candidate for deletion, but should be merged to a more comprehensive article.
This isn't only policy, it's also a pretty sensible argument for merging.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Tony Sidaway wrote:
While it may be annoying when a favorite type of article is listed for deletion, it's best viewed as a chance to argue your case to not delete it.
Remember that the case for deletion needs a consensus, which is actually pretty hard to raise if an article has any merit.
In particular, the notability argument is extremely weak, and in most cases directly contradicts deletion policy.
Deletion policy states explicitly that if the only problem with an article is that it's on a branch of a subject so trivial that it doesn't merit an article, it is *not* a candidate for deletion, but should be merged to a more comprehensive article.
This isn't only policy, it's also a pretty sensible argument for merging.
Agree on all points.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Tony Sidaway wrote:
While it may be annoying when a favorite type of article is listed for deletion, it's best viewed as a chance to argue your case to not delete it.
Remember that the case for deletion needs a consensus, which is actually pretty hard to raise if an article has any merit.
So in other words, the traffic circle articles have no merit? Bull.
In particular, the notability argument is extremely weak, and in most cases directly contradicts deletion policy.
Deletion policy states explicitly that if the only problem with an article is that it's on a branch of a subject so trivial that it doesn't merit an article, it is *not* a candidate for deletion, but should be merged to a more comprehensive article.
This isn't only policy, it's also a pretty sensible argument for merging.
I'd honestly have no problem with merging into the town, as it is a local landmark. It shouldn't break the GFDL even if the article is deleted, as the revision history is now available to all for deleted articles.
On 9/30/05, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
While it may be annoying when a favorite type of article is listed for deletion, it's best viewed as a chance to argue your case to not delete
it.
Remember that the case for deletion needs a consensus, which is actually pretty hard to raise if an article has any merit.
So in other words, the traffic circle articles have no merit? Bull.
Actually I don't believe that the traffic circle articles have no merit. It can be a pretty hard sell, though. I recommend a merge strategy. As I understand it, traffic circles are relatively rare and tend to be much larger than our European roundabouts. There are some of that style here, and I'd have no hesitation in writing about, for instance, the Horsley Hill traffic circle in Marsden, England because its status as a local landmark is unquestionable. It's the large grassy circle in this aerial photograph.
http://www.multimap.com/map/photo.cgi?client=public&X=438500&Y=56525...
This used to be a tram interchange, and then in the fifties it was an interchange for trolley buses--buses that could run on expensive diesel fuel or on cheap electricity generated by burning the abundant local coal, provided through overhead wires.
For lesser traffic circles, one might provide regional articles such as "traffic circles on North East England", and so on. By following a merge strategy you could easily save useful information.
I'd honestly have no problem with merging into the town, as it is a local landmark. It shouldn't break the GFDL even if the article is deleted, as the revision history is now available to all for deleted articles.
Is this a new thing? I didn't know. Is content also viewable? But beware, the revision history of deleted articles is held in the archive table, which has not historically been permanent (though that also may have changed).
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, SPUI wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
While it may be annoying when a favorite type of article is listed for deletion, it's best viewed as a chance to argue your case to not delete it.
Remember that the case for deletion needs a consensus, which is actually pretty hard to raise if an article has any merit.
So in other words, the traffic circle articles have no merit? Bull.
Just a thought, SPUI: can you think of a traffic circle that you could write an article worthy of Featured Article status? I ask this in a constructive way, because a very irrefutable argument to anyone who writes on AfD to the effect "This is only an X, & all X is non-notable. Delete" is "Well, Y is an X, & it is a *FEATURED ARTICLE*!!!"[*]
I mention this because a few weeks ago, when you raised the same problem concerning roads, I was about to say the same thing -- only to find that there is an article about a road in California with FA status. One would have to be stubborn to the point of being disruptive not to see that a more thoughtful argument was needed to carry a motion to delete roads between settlements at that point: unless a consensus was created off on some obscure talk page stating otherwise, no article should be deleted that does not have a reasonable chance of gaining FA status. (Roads & streets inside a city may not be protected by this precedent, though: which means we need another example in FA status.)
Geoff
{*] Although you will make your point more graciously without the caps, asterisks, & fewer exclamation marks.
Geoff Burling wrote:
Just a thought, SPUI: can you think of a traffic circle that you could write an article worthy of Featured Article status? I ask this in a constructive way, because a very irrefutable argument to anyone who writes on AfD to the effect "This is only an X, & all X is non-notable. Delete" is "Well, Y is an X, & it is a *FEATURED ARTICLE*!!!"[*]
If I had better access to historical records, I might be able to do that for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonnelle_Circle . It's a very busy intersection, located on the Route 1 Extension, considered by many to be the first "super highway" in the United States.
On 9/30/05, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Geoff Burling wrote:
Just a thought, SPUI: can you think of a traffic circle that you could write an article worthy of Featured Article status? I ask this in a constructive way, because a very irrefutable argument to anyone who writes on AfD to the effect "This is only an X, & all X is non-notable. Delete" is "Well, Y is an X, & it is a *FEATURED ARTICLE*!!!"[*]
If I had better access to historical records, I might be able to do that for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonnelle_Circle . It's a very busy intersection, located on the Route 1 Extension, considered by many to be the first "super highway" in the United States.
Honestly, my memory sucks right now. I'm not trying to be flippant: Isn't there a famous traffic circle or two worthy of featured article status in London, England? Perhaps one in Paris, France or Rome, Italy as well?
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
On 9/30/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
Honestly, my memory sucks right now. I'm not trying to be flippant: Isn't there a famous traffic circle or two worthy of featured article status in London, England? Perhaps one in Paris, France or Rome, Italy as well?
[[Piccadilly Circus]] seems to fit the bill.
I for one wouldn't delete roundabouts, but I would merge them together where there isn't enough to write.
Sam
On 9/30/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
Honestly, my memory sucks right now. I'm not trying to be flippant: Isn't there a famous traffic circle or two worthy of featured article status in London, England? Perhaps one in Paris, France or Rome, Italy as well?
[[Piccadilly Circus]] seems to fit the bill.
Yes, although hasn't been any kind of traffic circle for yonks. They pedestrianized one side of it so that people who want to be near Eros don't have to brave the traffic. Probably around the same time they pedestrianized Leicester Square. Seventies?
On 9/30/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
Honestly, my memory sucks right now. I'm not trying to be flippant: Isn't there a famous traffic circle or two worthy of featured article status in London, England? Perhaps one in Paris, France or Rome, Italy as well?
Not that I know of. Swindon england is anouther matter.
-- geni
On 9/30/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't there a famous traffic circle or two worthy of featured article status in London, England? Perhaps one in Paris, France or Rome, Italy as well?
If I remember correctly, la Place de l'Etoile is a gigantic traffic circle with the Arc de Triomphe in the middle.
There are lots of famous roundabouts all over England. Scotch Corner, Blue House Roundabout, the place is crawling with them.
On 30/09/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
If I had better access to historical records, I might be able to do that for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonnelle_Circle . It's a very busy intersection, located on the Route 1 Extension, considered by many to be the first "super highway" in the United States.
Honestly, my memory sucks right now. I'm not trying to be flippant: Isn't there a famous traffic circle or two worthy of featured article status in London, England? Perhaps one in Paris, France or Rome, Italy as well?
[[Magic Roundabout (Swindon)]], which I drove through a week or so back (and got very confused seeing the signs for), perhaps? Or [[Magic Roundabout (Hemel Hempstead)]] looks pretty interesting. Either of these two could have quite a detailed article written about it, though it would potentially go into too much weirdly technical stuff to be FA-able.
[[Spaghetti Junction]] is a bit beyond "traffic circle", but has an undeniable place in UKian pop culture. Or perhaps the (infamous) [[Hanger Lane Gyratory System]], currently a stub...
I wouldn't want to write these - though it'd serve as an opportunity to actually read those traffic engineering books I found in a library sale, they look interesting - but I don't see that it can't be done.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 30/09/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't want to write these - though it'd serve as an opportunity to actually read those traffic engineering books I found in a library sale, they look interesting - but I don't see that it can't be done.
I knew which one I forgot - [[Broxden Junction]]. Central point (and most dangerous point) of the national road network in Scotland, which is about as significant as you get for a single roundabout unless it has major pop-culture baggage. Room for an article there to cover a few decades of infrastructure history, basically.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Michael Turley wrote:
On 9/30/05, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Geoff Burling wrote:
Just a thought, SPUI: can you think of a traffic circle that you could write an article worthy of Featured Article status? I ask this in a constructive way, because a very irrefutable argument to anyone who writes on AfD to the effect "This is only an X, & all X is non-notable. Delete" is "Well, Y is an X, & it is a *FEATURED ARTICLE*!!!"[*]
If I had better access to historical records, I might be able to do that for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonnelle_Circle . It's a very busy intersection, located on the Route 1 Extension, considered by many to be the first "super highway" in the United States.
Honestly, my memory sucks right now. I'm not trying to be flippant: Isn't there a famous traffic circle or two worthy of featured article status in London, England? Perhaps one in Paris, France or Rome, Italy as well?
There's a famous (or rather, infamous) one in Adelaide: Britannia Roundabout.
Worst traffic nightmare in the city. Many plans have been made (but never carried through) about what to do with it, from turning it into traffic lights to building over & underpasses.
Does it exist? Yes. Is it verifiable? Yes. Have books been written about it? Probably not. Has it appeared in the media? Yes. Should I write an article about it? Maybe. Would said article be speedy deletable? No. Would said article be deleted via AfD? Probably. Is there enough information to make it to Featured status? Maybe.
What should I do?
Put it in [[Major roads in Adelaide, South Australia]] or similar.
Here's my take on the whole inclusion/deletion thing:
Including things for the sake of inclusion is BAD. You end up with junk. Wikipedia is not a place to braindump.
Deleting things for the sake of deleting is BAD. If it's true, verifiable, NPOV, etc. it's the sort of information Wikipedia is able to accept. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. It is SUPPOSED to have INFORMATION.
Inclusionists and Deletionists are playing what they think is a zero-sum game. It's WORSE than that: the mere presence of their mindless ranting is actually HURTING Wikipedia. By arguing over what should be kept/deleted, we lose information. We lose readers. We lose editors.
The solution:
Become more encylopedia-like.
For just about every value of X, where the number of total X is sufficiently large, we can make more logical and more comprehensive articles by MERGING the bits of information we have (which on their own, are perma-stubs) into more comprehensive articles on the topic.
In doing so, we play a BETTER than zero-sum game. We build articles that a "traditional" encyclopedia would be jealous of. We HELP Wikipedia by having articles that both retain information and look proffessional.
Just remember:
Every time you arbitrarily delete an article, you lose a potential editor, who says to themselves, "What a stupid bunch of morons! They deleted the article on X!"
Every time you arbitrarily keep an article, you lose a potential editor, who says to themselves, "What a stupid bunch of morons! They have an article on X!"
If you are careful to only delete things which are copyvios, original research, neologisms, dicdefs, and speedy deletable (and they are the ONLY criteria under which things should be deleted), you will only keep INFORMATION.
If you are careful only to keep things which are verifiable, informational, and non-trivial (which is what an ENCYCLOPEDIA should have), you will only delete JUNK.
If you use common sense, remember what NPOV is, and merge into DECENT ARTICLES, you will save a lot of bother.
Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Dont' stuff beans up your nose.
For great encyclopedia!
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Hear hear!
On 10/1/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Michael Turley wrote:
On 9/30/05, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Geoff Burling wrote:
Just a thought, SPUI: can you think of a traffic circle that you could write an article worthy of Featured Article status? I ask this in a constructive way, because a very irrefutable argument to anyone who writes on AfD to the effect "This is only an X, & all X is non-notable. Delete" is "Well, Y is an X, & it is a *FEATURED ARTICLE*!!!"[*]
If I had better access to historical records, I might be able to do that for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonnelle_Circle . It's a very busy intersection, located on the Route 1 Extension, considered by many to be the first "super highway" in the United States.
Honestly, my memory sucks right now. I'm not trying to be flippant: Isn't there a famous traffic circle or two worthy of featured article status in London, England? Perhaps one in Paris, France or Rome, Italy as well?
There's a famous (or rather, infamous) one in Adelaide: Britannia Roundabout.
Worst traffic nightmare in the city. Many plans have been made (but never carried through) about what to do with it, from turning it into traffic lights to building over & underpasses.
Does it exist? Yes. Is it verifiable? Yes. Have books been written about it? Probably not. Has it appeared in the media? Yes. Should I write an article about it? Maybe. Would said article be speedy deletable? No. Would said article be deleted via AfD? Probably. Is there enough information to make it to Featured status? Maybe.
What should I do?
Put it in [[Major roads in Adelaide, South Australia]] or similar.
Here's my take on the whole inclusion/deletion thing:
Including things for the sake of inclusion is BAD. You end up with junk. Wikipedia is not a place to braindump.
Deleting things for the sake of deleting is BAD. If it's true, verifiable, NPOV, etc. it's the sort of information Wikipedia is able to accept. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. It is SUPPOSED to have INFORMATION.
Inclusionists and Deletionists are playing what they think is a zero-sum game. It's WORSE than that: the mere presence of their mindless ranting is actually HURTING Wikipedia. By arguing over what should be kept/deleted, we lose information. We lose readers. We lose editors.
The solution:
Become more encylopedia-like.
For just about every value of X, where the number of total X is sufficiently large, we can make more logical and more comprehensive articles by MERGING the bits of information we have (which on their own, are perma-stubs) into more comprehensive articles on the topic.
In doing so, we play a BETTER than zero-sum game. We build articles that a "traditional" encyclopedia would be jealous of. We HELP Wikipedia by having articles that both retain information and look proffessional.
Just remember:
Every time you arbitrarily delete an article, you lose a potential editor, who says to themselves, "What a stupid bunch of morons! They deleted the article on X!"
Every time you arbitrarily keep an article, you lose a potential editor, who says to themselves, "What a stupid bunch of morons! They have an article on X!"
If you are careful to only delete things which are copyvios, original research, neologisms, dicdefs, and speedy deletable (and they are the ONLY criteria under which things should be deleted), you will only keep INFORMATION.
If you are careful only to keep things which are verifiable, informational, and non-trivial (which is what an ENCYCLOPEDIA should have), you will only delete JUNK.
If you use common sense, remember what NPOV is, and merge into DECENT ARTICLES, you will save a lot of bother.
Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Dont' stuff beans up your nose.
For great encyclopedia!
Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQEVAwUBQz32GrMAAH8MeUlWAQgw4Qf8D1NAOXdJxmw9PthLyIaztke4V0RABcfv /vohjo8NehZcdjh6qAqTIgF94b4OxLHTuMHem0dUbiROJIZKU8Cc59FTBogXV5Gr vAzOoKw38bsaQFlz5/XT4BwNZoPgN0THIWE7JQ0FG774WlY7TL/T0+ZwcmVkqGID AHP/K+2HmJvENM3osyGKLC+j1jWhSHdJof5eS6jL3P83MMk6gtSR40NItxmvGa7L D00+17y30sRwwY0UXbCGE0Z9zDzE3DJ5J6EDQ2iaDTgK1JQs6MklMdC0Ypc8U2Dr 57V0eMIMXbk4k2f5yh18tVxzIOq1Mw50/h9ewV0XVDR43v4TvOYUew== =I9bZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Michael Turley wrote:
On 9/30/05, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Geoff Burling wrote:
Just a thought, SPUI: can you think of a traffic circle that you could write an article worthy of Featured Article status? I ask this in a constructive way, because a very irrefutable argument to anyone who writes on AfD to the effect "This is only an X, & all X is non-notable. Delete" is "Well, Y is an X, & it is a *FEATURED ARTICLE*!!!"[*]
If I had better access to historical records, I might be able to do that for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonnelle_Circle . It's a very busy intersection, located on the Route 1 Extension, considered by many to be the first "super highway" in the United States.
Honestly, my memory sucks right now. I'm not trying to be flippant: Isn't there a famous traffic circle or two worthy of featured article status in London, England? Perhaps one in Paris, France or Rome, Italy as well?
One would assume that traffic circles did not just appear one morning, but were conscious changes to intersections, created with intent & hopefully some theory. If this assumption is true, then a search through the records of traffic engineering (or whatever this discipline is called) ought to uncover countless examples of their evolution as new concepts were thought out, implemented, & improved upon.
That being said, I'm curious to know just how strong *is* Wikipedia in the area of traffic engineering. Or is this one of countless many areas that we lack comprehensive coverage on -- yet this doesn't quite fit as part of the Wikiproject to remedy systemic bias?
Geoff
Our article on traffic circles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_circle) is painfully short for something that's being argued over on almost a daily basis.,, --Mgm
On 10/1/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Our article on traffic circles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_circle) is painfully short for something that's being argued over on almost a daily basis.,,
See the internal link to Roundabout.
From: Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com
Deletion policy states explicitly that if the only problem with an article is that it's on a branch of a subject so trivial that it doesn't merit an article, it is *not* a candidate for deletion, but should be merged to a more comprehensive article.
This isn't only policy, it's also a pretty sensible argument for merging.
Sometimes information is so trivial that there is no merit in having it in any article. Remember, these are encyclopedia articles, not accumulations of random facts.
Jay.
On 9/30/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com
Deletion policy states explicitly that if the only problem with an article is that it's on a branch of a subject so trivial that it doesn't merit an article, it is *not* a candidate for deletion, but should be merged to a more comprehensive article.
This isn't only policy, it's also a pretty sensible argument for merging.
Sometimes information is so trivial that there is no merit in having it in any article. Remember, these are encyclopedia articles, not accumulations of random facts.
Wouldn't you agree that whether something is too trivial or not is best determined by the editors who review the merge target?
Surely those who best know Clarendon Hills, IL, are the ones best suited to know whether a specific intersection in Clarendon Hills is notable or not.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com
On 9/30/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com
Deletion policy states explicitly that if the only problem with an
article
is that it's on a branch of a subject so trivial that it doesn't merit
an
article, it is *not* a candidate for deletion, but should be merged to
a
more comprehensive article.
This isn't only policy, it's also a pretty sensible argument for
merging.
Sometimes information is so trivial that there is no merit in having it
in
any article. Remember, these are encyclopedia articles, not
accumulations
of random facts.
Wouldn't you agree that whether something is too trivial or not is best determined by the editors who review the merge target?
Surely those who best know Clarendon Hills, IL, are the ones best suited to know whether a specific intersection in Clarendon Hills is notable or not.
The counter-argument would be that people from Clarendon Hills are the least likely to be able to objectively view whether something is important information or trivia. It's easier to throw out the junk in someone else's house than it is to throw out the junk in your own.
Jay.
On 9/30/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com
On 9/30/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com
Deletion policy states explicitly that if the only problem with an
article
is that it's on a branch of a subject so trivial that it doesn't merit
an
article, it is *not* a candidate for deletion, but should be merged to
a
more comprehensive article.
This isn't only policy, it's also a pretty sensible argument for
merging.
Sometimes information is so trivial that there is no merit in having it
in
any article. Remember, these are encyclopedia articles, not
accumulations
of random facts.
Wouldn't you agree that whether something is too trivial or not is best determined by the editors who review the merge target?
Surely those who best know Clarendon Hills, IL, are the ones best suited to know whether a specific intersection in Clarendon Hills is notable or not.
The counter-argument would be that people from Clarendon Hills are the least likely to be able to objectively view whether something is important information or trivia. It's easier to throw out the junk in someone else's house than it is to throw out the junk in your own.
What business do you have in someone else's house? ;-)
But seriously, this boils down to the old "I never heard of it" argument. In my opinion, it isn't a good one, even in diluted form, because it depends on POV to make decisions. To me, the requirement of verifiability and NPOV is enough travel along this path.
Wikipedia is revolutionary and important because the level of detail captured is beyond that of any prior work. This is why many here enjoy Wikipedia more than any other reference. This is also why Wikipedia is gaining editors every day. The dominant cultural message is "Your knowledge is useful, please add it. We'll help you sort, organize, and present it." Filtering the input stream is helpful, as is merging data to appropriate locations, but to actively work against adding verifiable NPOV information is a fool's errand that can only lead to frustration in the long term.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com
On 9/30/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com
On 9/30/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com
Deletion policy states explicitly that if the only problem with an
article
is that it's on a branch of a subject so trivial that it doesn't
merit
an
article, it is *not* a candidate for deletion, but should be merged
to
a
more comprehensive article.
This isn't only policy, it's also a pretty sensible argument for
merging.
Sometimes information is so trivial that there is no merit in having
it
in
any article. Remember, these are encyclopedia articles, not
accumulations
of random facts.
Wouldn't you agree that whether something is too trivial or not is best determined by the editors who review the merge target?
Surely those who best know Clarendon Hills, IL, are the ones best suited to know whether a specific intersection in Clarendon Hills is notable or not.
The counter-argument would be that people from Clarendon Hills are the
least
likely to be able to objectively view whether something is important information or trivia. It's easier to throw out the junk in someone
else's
house than it is to throw out the junk in your own.
What business do you have in someone else's house? ;-)
They invited me to help them, because they knew they were too sentimental to clear out the junk. ;-)
But seriously, this boils down to the old "I never heard of it" argument.
No, it's really not. If an article, or a fact in an article establishes why it is significant (though properly sourced material etc.) then it's going to be kept. If the information can't be cited from a reliable source, or it happens to be pure trivia (e.g. the location of Harry Truman's favorite booth at the Savory Grill in Kansas City), even if cited from a reputable source, then it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.
In my opinion, it isn't a good one, even in diluted form, because it depends on POV to make decisions. To me, the requirement of verifiability and NPOV is enough travel along this path.
It depends on judgement, which we are supposed to exercise. There is a difference between the Wikipedia article on Harry Truman, and David McCullough's 1120 biography of Truman. Why not include every single fact found in McCullough's book? And from Brian Burnes's and Margaret Truman's and Ralph Keyes works, and Harry Truman's own autobiography as well? Because it is an encyclopedia article, and 3,000 page encyclopedia articles, even if broken up into hundreds of smaller sub-articles, aren't useful to the audience we are trying to serve.
Wikipedia is revolutionary and important because the level of detail captured is beyond that of any prior work. This is why many here enjoy Wikipedia more than any other reference. This is also why Wikipedia is gaining editors every day. The dominant cultural message is "Your knowledge is useful, please add it. We'll help you sort, organize, and present it." Filtering the input stream is helpful, as is merging data to appropriate locations, but to actively work against adding verifiable NPOV information is a fool's errand that can only lead to frustration in the long term.
The level of detail we *can* capture, and the level of detail we *should* capture, are two entirely different things. This is still intended to be a general purpose encyclopedia for a general audience. We are writing articles, not PhD dissertations, or multi-volume histories. Again, there is a reason why the History of England article does not contain the same amount of information as Churchill's four volume "A History of the English Speaking Peoples" that has nothing to do with "Wikipedia is not paper" and everything to do with "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia".
Jay.
On 9/30/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com What business do you have in someone else's house? ;-)
They invited me to help them, because they knew they were too sentimental to clear out the junk. ;-)
Jay, I respect your attitude and ability probably more than you realize, but unfortunately it isn't very prevalent in AfD. And in AfD, there are no invitations to come into the house. It's more like writing your own warrant and then smashing down the door. :-(
No, it's really not. If an article, or a fact in an article establishes why it is significant (though properly sourced material etc.) then it's going to be kept. If the information can't be cited from a reliable source, or it happens to be pure trivia (e.g. the location of Harry Truman's favorite booth at the Savory Grill in Kansas City), even if cited from a reputable source, then it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.
Frankly, when we have an article about the Savory Grill in Kansas City, I expect the location of Harry Truman's favorite booth, if cited from a reputable source, to be an encyclopedic detail included in the article.
It depends on judgement, which we are supposed to exercise. There is a difference between the Wikipedia article on Harry Truman, and David McCullough's 1120 biography of Truman. Why not include every single fact found in McCullough's book? And from Brian Burnes's and Margaret Truman's and Ralph Keyes works, and Harry Truman's own autobiography as well? Because it is an encyclopedia article, and 3,000 page encyclopedia articles, even if broken up into hundreds of smaller sub-articles, aren't useful to the audience we are trying to serve.
If all of these works are broken up into smaller sub-articles, good editors will combine them into any number of different, useful and comprehensive articles that include all the knowledge that all of these works contain. In other words, every verifiable fact from David McCullough's book does not have to end up in the Harry Truman article, but there's no reason every verifiable fact should not be included in Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is revolutionary and important because the level of detail captured is beyond that of any prior work. This is why many here enjoy Wikipedia more than any other reference. This is also why Wikipedia is gaining editors every day. The dominant cultural message is "Your knowledge is useful, please add it. We'll help you sort, organize, and present it." Filtering the input stream is helpful, as is merging data to appropriate locations, but to actively work against adding verifiable NPOV information is a fool's errand that can only lead to frustration in the long term.
The level of detail we *can* capture, and the level of detail we *should* capture, are two entirely different things. This is still intended to be a general purpose encyclopedia for a general audience. We are writing articles, not PhD dissertations, or multi-volume histories. Again, there is a reason why the History of England article does not contain the same amount of information as Churchill's four volume "A History of the English Speaking Peoples" that has nothing to do with "Wikipedia is not paper" and everything to do with "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia".
See my reply above for why I believe this is a specious argument. Our software-based encyclopedia is capable of presenting the general audience whatever level of detail that they choose to suit their interest. Just as there is a "History of Malta" link in the "Malta" article, we're capable of splitting articles as they become too large for the general "first view". I see no reason why this cannot continue to scale much further than it has.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com
On 9/30/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
It depends on judgement, which we are supposed to exercise. There is a difference between the Wikipedia article on Harry Truman, and David McCullough's 1120 biography of Truman. Why not include every single
fact
found in McCullough's book? And from Brian Burnes's and Margaret
Truman's
and Ralph Keyes works, and Harry Truman's own autobiography as well? Because it is an encyclopedia article, and 3,000 page encyclopedia
articles,
even if broken up into hundreds of smaller sub-articles, aren't useful
to
the audience we are trying to serve.
If all of these works are broken up into smaller sub-articles, good editors will combine them into any number of different, useful and comprehensive articles that include all the knowledge that all of these works contain. In other words, every verifiable fact from David McCullough's book does not have to end up in the Harry Truman article, but there's no reason every verifiable fact should not be included in Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is revolutionary and important because the level of detail captured is beyond that of any prior work. This is why many here enjoy Wikipedia more than any other reference. This is also why Wikipedia is gaining editors every day. The dominant cultural message is "Your knowledge is useful, please add it. We'll help you sort, organize, and present it." Filtering the input stream is helpful, as is merging data to appropriate locations, but to actively work against adding verifiable NPOV information is a fool's errand that can only lead to frustration in the long term.
The level of detail we *can* capture, and the level of detail we
*should*
capture, are two entirely different things. This is still intended to
be a
general purpose encyclopedia for a general audience. We are writing articles, not PhD dissertations, or multi-volume histories. Again,
there is
a reason why the History of England article does not contain the same
amount
of information as Churchill's four volume "A History of the English
Speaking
Peoples" that has nothing to do with "Wikipedia is not paper" and
everything
to do with "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia".
See my reply above for why I believe this is a specious argument. Our software-based encyclopedia is capable of presenting the general audience whatever level of detail that they choose to suit their interest. Just as there is a "History of Malta" link in the "Malta" article, we're capable of splitting articles as they become too large for the general "first view". I see no reason why this cannot continue to scale much further than it has.
Michael, Google.com states its mission as follows: "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."
How do you see that as differing from Wikipedia's mission? How do you think the end products should differ?
Jay.
On 10/2/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com
On 9/30/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
It depends on judgement, which we are supposed to exercise. There is a difference between the Wikipedia article on Harry Truman, and David McCullough's 1120 biography of Truman. Why not include every single
fact
found in McCullough's book? And from Brian Burnes's and Margaret
Truman's
and Ralph Keyes works, and Harry Truman's own autobiography as well? Because it is an encyclopedia article, and 3,000 page encyclopedia
articles,
even if broken up into hundreds of smaller sub-articles, aren't useful
to
the audience we are trying to serve.
If all of these works are broken up into smaller sub-articles, good editors will combine them into any number of different, useful and comprehensive articles that include all the knowledge that all of these works contain. In other words, every verifiable fact from David McCullough's book does not have to end up in the Harry Truman article, but there's no reason every verifiable fact should not be included in Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is revolutionary and important because the level of detail captured is beyond that of any prior work. This is why many here enjoy Wikipedia more than any other reference. This is also why Wikipedia is gaining editors every day. The dominant cultural message is "Your knowledge is useful, please add it. We'll help you sort, organize, and present it." Filtering the input stream is helpful, as is merging data to appropriate locations, but to actively work against adding verifiable NPOV information is a fool's errand that can only lead to frustration in the long term.
The level of detail we *can* capture, and the level of detail we
*should*
capture, are two entirely different things. This is still intended to
be a
general purpose encyclopedia for a general audience. We are writing articles, not PhD dissertations, or multi-volume histories. Again,
there is
a reason why the History of England article does not contain the same
amount
of information as Churchill's four volume "A History of the English
Speaking
Peoples" that has nothing to do with "Wikipedia is not paper" and
everything
to do with "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia".
See my reply above for why I believe this is a specious argument. Our software-based encyclopedia is capable of presenting the general audience whatever level of detail that they choose to suit their interest. Just as there is a "History of Malta" link in the "Malta" article, we're capable of splitting articles as they become too large for the general "first view". I see no reason why this cannot continue to scale much further than it has.
Michael, Google.com states its mission as follows: "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."
How do you see that as differing from Wikipedia's mission? How do you think the end products should differ?
Google doesn't seek NPOV. Google doesn't look for verifiability. Google doesn't collate similar information into individual articles to provide understanding of the topic at hand. Google doesn't direct the readers to related topics and subtopics.
There are a lot of differences, but mainly, Google doesn't combine and recombine information into articles on the subjects it indexes, it merely presents them together. It sorts and collates sources, but doesn't attempt to combine them to make them less redundant and more useful.
Google provides information, but doesn't really provide any understanding. "Understanding" can be provided on any topic, no matter how sub-trivial, and as long as we do it in a verifiable NPOV way, I don't see any logical reason why we should not.
Before yesterday, I didn't know what a SPUI was. Now I have a good general understanding of a SPUI. Now, some may say, no one but a traffic engineer would be interested in that! NN, DELETE! Why shouldn't we serve the traffic engineer as well as we serve the Dr. Who fan, or the environmental scientist, or the pop culture buff? It's all POV when you start throwing terms like "notability" rather than relying on third party verifiability.
Wikipedia IS an encyclopedia, but because it's the most comprehensive encyclopedia ever, it's actually many encyclopedias. It's an encyclopedia of Dr. Who, an encyclopedia of U.S. history, an encyclopedia of British colonies, an encyclopedia of schools, an encyclopedia of Egyptian regents, an encyclopedia of construction equipment, an encyclopedia of Mariah Carey recordings, etc... and we don't have to limit it arbitrarily for some group of editors's POVs regarding "notability". -- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com
Before yesterday, I didn't know what a SPUI was. Now I have a good general understanding of a SPUI. Now, some may say, no one but a traffic engineer would be interested in that! NN, DELETE! Why shouldn't we serve the traffic engineer as well as we serve the Dr. Who fan, or the environmental scientist, or the pop culture buff? It's all POV when you start throwing terms like "notability" rather than relying on third party verifiability.
Wikipedia IS an encyclopedia, but because it's the most comprehensive encyclopedia ever, it's actually many encyclopedias. It's an encyclopedia of Dr. Who, an encyclopedia of U.S. history, an encyclopedia of British colonies, an encyclopedia of schools, an encyclopedia of Egyptian regents, an encyclopedia of construction equipment, an encyclopedia of Mariah Carey recordings, etc... and we don't have to limit it arbitrarily for some group of editors's POVs regarding "notability".
And yet, there are definitely notability clauses within various policies. "What Wikipedia is not" implies notability, as do the requirements about biographies, reliability of sources, etc. And, of course, Jimbo's statement about "extreme minority opinions" as regards NPOV is also all about notability - if notability (and editorial discretion regarding it) were not present, then all we'd really need would be the NPOV policy, and all it would have to say was "all opinions are represented, and must be attributed to their source".
I view the claims that Wikipedia has no notability requirements as an extreme position, and one incompatible with creating an encyclopedia (as opposed to a giant repository of all known facts). While Wikipedia has no *explicit* notability policies, I think notability requirements are implicit in both its existing policies and its fundamental mandate.
Jay.
On Oct 2, 2005, at 8:59 PM, JAY JG wrote:
I view the claims that Wikipedia has no notability requirements as an extreme position, and one incompatible with creating an encyclopedia (as opposed to a giant repository of all known facts).
Didn't I read something about imagining a world where every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge? And about that being what we're doing?
-Snowspinner
From: Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com
On Oct 2, 2005, at 8:59 PM, JAY JG wrote:
I view the claims that Wikipedia has no notability requirements as an extreme position, and one incompatible with creating an encyclopedia (as opposed to a giant repository of all known facts).
Didn't I read something about imagining a world where every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge? And about that being what we're doing?
To begin with, I do not think we should insist that every policy in Wikipedia be completely internally consistent, nor should we insist on that requirement for every statement by our fearless leader. There are natural conflicts that arise when one simultaneously tries to provide maximal knowledge at the macro level, and yet is faced with trying to put together an informative and useful product at the micro level.
Equally importantly, many people view "knowledge" to be something rather more refined than "compilations of facts".
Jay.
On Oct 2, 2005, at 9:35 PM, JAY JG wrote:
To begin with, I do not think we should insist that every policy in Wikipedia be completely internally consistent, nor should we insist on that requirement for every statement by our fearless leader. There are natural conflicts that arise when one simultaneously tries to provide maximal knowledge at the macro level, and yet is faced with trying to put together an informative and useful product at the micro level.
Equally importantly, many people view "knowledge" to be something rather more refined than "compilations of facts".
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
But I think this is very important - inclusion doesn't mean prominence. I don't think there's any body of information that, given time and volunteers, can't be well organized. Especially if its creation is incremental. I mean, take what I think is one of our worst and most disjointed topics - the 2004 US Presidential Election controversy - and I think it's still basically pretty well organized. I look at other crufty things like Pokemon, and they're incredibly well organized. Much better organized than the philosophy articles, actually, which nobody seems to want to delete.
I'm not saying that [[Creationism]] should have every major creationist "scientist" included in the article with extensive summaries of all their publications. I'm not even saying that it should include links to them all. Or any of them. I'm not even saying it should have a link to [[List of creationists]]. But I see no reason not to have all the articles linking upward. The fate of more oddly esoteric articles doesn't need to be omission to succeed in refining and clarity. It can just be that weird and esoteric topics don't get linked to from many other topics.
-Snowspinner
On 03/10/05, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I view the claims that Wikipedia has no notability requirements as an extreme position, and one incompatible with creating an encyclopedia (as opposed to a giant repository of all known facts).
Didn't I read something about imagining a world where every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge? And about that being what we're doing?
Knowledge =/= information
(random analogy)
A list of seven-digit numbers is data. A nicely-arranged telephone book is information. Observing that ~4% of the city appears to be called Smith is knowledge...
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Philip Sandifer wrote:
Didn't I read something about imagining a world where every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge? And about that being what we're doing?
Somehow, I doubt that Jimbo was thinking about a small lump of green putty I pulled out of my armpit one midsummer morning when he said that. There are limits.
- Ryan
On 10/2/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com
Before yesterday, I didn't know what a SPUI was. Now I have a good general understanding of a SPUI. Now, some may say, no one but a traffic engineer would be interested in that! NN, DELETE! Why shouldn't we serve the traffic engineer as well as we serve the Dr. Who fan, or the environmental scientist, or the pop culture buff? It's all POV when you start throwing terms like "notability" rather than relying on third party verifiability.
Wikipedia IS an encyclopedia, but because it's the most comprehensive encyclopedia ever, it's actually many encyclopedias. It's an encyclopedia of Dr. Who, an encyclopedia of U.S. history, an encyclopedia of British colonies, an encyclopedia of schools, an encyclopedia of Egyptian regents, an encyclopedia of construction equipment, an encyclopedia of Mariah Carey recordings, etc... and we don't have to limit it arbitrarily for some group of editors's POVs regarding "notability".
And yet, there are definitely notability clauses within various policies. "What Wikipedia is not" implies notability, as do the requirements about biographies, reliability of sources, etc. And, of course, Jimbo's statement about "extreme minority opinions" as regards NPOV is also all about notability - if notability (and editorial discretion regarding it) were not present, then all we'd really need would be the NPOV policy, and all it would have to say was "all opinions are represented, and must be attributed to their source".
I view the claims that Wikipedia has no notability requirements as an extreme position, and one incompatible with creating an encyclopedia (as opposed to a giant repository of all known facts). While Wikipedia has no *explicit* notability policies, I think notability requirements are implicit in both its existing policies and its fundamental mandate.
I think notability requirements have served well thus far to get where we are, building a sturdy frame of credibility and a solid base of the expected "typical encyclopedia" set of articles. It's kept people on-mission to date. But I don't think they have anything to do with Wikipedia's "fundamental mandate".
In my opinion, the root of the problem is that people have never seen anything like Wikipedia prior to its creation, even those who started it, so they fully don't know what to expect of it. So they try to impose their view of paper encyclopedias on it, without ever realizing just how broad we can afford to be without the limits of paper. Or in thinking of it, they think that inclusivity precludes the ability to remain an encyclopedia and therefore necessitates a mutation into a "giant repository of all known facts" when in fact, one does not necessarily follow the other. It's a specious argument; an appealing logical fallacy.
Yes, you are correct in that having no notability policies is incompatible with a traditional encyclopedia. This is not a traditional encyclopedia.
Have you ever browsed the encyclopedia section of a major library? How about searching on Amazon for "encyclopedia". Sure, there's Britannica, but there's an "Encyclopedia of Yacht Racing", an "Encyclopedia of New England", the "ESPN College Football Encyclopedia", "The New Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding", "The Encyclopedia of Window Fashions" and thousands of others. We can be all of these, and more.
If this project and its participants were content to simply mimic and expand Britannica, I wouldn't be interested at all. Yet that's what many people at AfD are trying to do: confine a far more powerful concept into their preconceived notions of what they expect from a single encyclopedia.
And finally, regarding extreme minority opinion; we shouldn't fail to cover the modern equivalents of phrenology, whatever they are. We should just leave those out of the mainstream articles and bury them in obscurity at a depth proportional to the public acceptance of their views. If someone specifically searches for them here, they should find them, perhaps in an article titled "non-mainstream views of X". This is where editing skill is really most valuable: sorting the data appropriately, not simply rejecting the uninteresting or unfamiliar. -- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
JAY JG wrote:
I view the claims that Wikipedia has no notability requirements as an extreme position, and one incompatible with creating an encyclopedia (as opposed to a giant repository of all known facts). While Wikipedia has no *explicit* notability policies, I think notability requirements are implicit in both its existing policies and its fundamental mandate.
Implicit policies are only valid as long as everybody reads them the same way. Verbal contracts are recognized by courts, but establishing the details of such contracts is full of difficulty because nobody understands the situation in the same way. That problem is at least partially solved in an explicitly written contract. If a notability rule is so important it should be made explicit, but I suspect that any attempt to do so with meet with significant resistance.
Ec