I just noticed, at the top of a Trivia section, a template intoning that "Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines". But the template had been altered by the notation "The template below is being considered for deletion". Made for quite a good laugh, if nothing else...
On 9/5/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
I just noticed, at the top of a Trivia section, a template intoning that "Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines". But the template had been altered by the notation "The template below is being considered for deletion". Made for quite a good laugh, if nothing else...
The problem isn't with the template itself, but the way it's used. Somebody (possibly a script or bot) will add the template wherever they see ==Trivia==, and then somebody else (possibly another script or bot) will patrol the relevant category and blank the section, without any attention as to whether the content is related to that of other sections, or properly referenced, or outright remarkable.
—C.W.
The problem isn't with the template itself, but the way it's used. Somebody (possibly a script or bot) will add the template wherever they see ==Trivia==, and then somebody else (possibly another script or bot) will patrol the relevant category and blank the section, without any attention as to whether the content is related to that of other sections, or properly referenced, or outright remarkable.
If people/bots are doing that, they should be stopped. Last time I read the appropriate policy it said to integrate trivia into the rest of the article, not remove it.
The exact wording of that template is under discussion there also--one of the original supporters of it changed his mind upon finding it had been modified to better reflect the actual policy, not the hyper-deletionist policy he thought should be the case.
On 9/6/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The problem isn't with the template itself, but the way it's used. Somebody (possibly a script or bot) will add the template wherever they see ==Trivia==, and then somebody else (possibly another script or bot) will patrol the relevant category and blank the section, without any attention as to whether the content is related to that of other sections, or properly referenced, or outright remarkable.
If people/bots are doing that, they should be stopped. Last time I read the appropriate policy it said to integrate trivia into the rest of the article, not remove it.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The problem isn't with the template itself, but the way it's used. Somebody (possibly a script or bot) will add the template wherever they see ==Trivia==, and then somebody else (possibly another script or bot) will patrol the relevant category and blank the section, without any attention as to whether the content is related to that of other sections, or properly referenced, or outright remarkable.
If people/bots are doing that, they should be stopped. Last time I read the appropriate policy it said to integrate trivia into the rest of the article, not remove it.
"First they came for the spoiler warnings, but I didn't care because I thought plot sections shouldn't be labelled. Next they came for the trivia sections...."
On 9/6/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
"First they came for the spoiler warnings, but I didn't care because I thought plot sections shouldn't be labelled. Next they came for the trivia sections...."
Anyone seen a dead horse around here?
-Matt
Matthew Brown wrote:
On 9/6/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
"First they came for the spoiler warnings, but I didn't care because I thought plot sections shouldn't be labelled. Next they came for the trivia sections...."
Anyone seen a dead horse around here?
<thin reedy voice>It's not quite dead yet...</>
On 06/09/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
"First they came for the spoiler warnings, but I didn't care because I thought plot sections shouldn't be labelled. Next they came for the trivia sections...."
"... and now everything's much better and we're doing fine now. Thanks for asking!"
- d.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
"First they came for the spoiler warnings, but I didn't care because I thought plot sections shouldn't be labelled. Next they came for the trivia sections...."
Since the spoiler warning templates were removed but the material they were labeling was left in, the analogy breaks down a bit. Deleting the trivia section template doesn't mean deleting trivia sections themselves.
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Bryan Derksen wrote:
"First they came for the spoiler warnings, but I didn't care because I thought plot sections shouldn't be labelled. Next they came for the trivia sections...."
Since the spoiler warning templates were removed but the material they were labeling was left in, the analogy breaks down a bit. Deleting the trivia section template doesn't mean deleting trivia sections themselves.
Since obviously my point wasn't clear enough, let me explain: deleting templates shows how easy it is to use automated peocedures to make a big, Wikipedia-wide change that cannot be reversed by people restoring each one manually, regardless of the actual merit of the change.
On 9/6/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Since obviously my point wasn't clear enough, let me explain: deleting templates shows how easy it is to use automated peocedures to make a big, Wikipedia-wide change that cannot be reversed by people restoring each one manually, regardless of the actual merit of the change.
I think you over-estimate how much of the removal of the spoiler templates was done in an automated manner. I know that a fairly good proportion were done with a simple tabbed browser.
-Matt
On 9/6/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Since the spoiler warning templates were removed but the material they were labeling was left in, the analogy breaks down a bit. Deleting the trivia section template doesn't mean deleting trivia sections themselves.
Exactly. I have no problem with sections which may contain spoiler or trivia content, but the corresponding "warning" templates are ridiculous, and I'd be happier if both templates were permanently retired.
On 9/7/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I think you over-estimate how much of the removal of the spoiler templates was done in an automated manner. I know that a fairly good proportion were done with a simple tabbed browser.
Obviously not all indiscriminate edits are automated and not all automated edits are indiscriminate. If somebody removes entire sections from several articles without evaluating their content, they might as well be running a bot.
The same goes for something as simple as removing the spoiler warning templates. At the end of the day, nobody cares whether somebody is running a bot or just wearing out their mouse, if the guiding principle is "this template should not be used" rather than "this template identifies sections which should be scrapped in their entirety".
—C.W.
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
Since obviously my point wasn't clear enough, let me explain: deleting templates shows how easy it is to use automated peocedures to make a big, Wikipedia-wide change that cannot be reversed by people restoring each one manually, regardless of the actual merit of the change.
I think you over-estimate how much of the removal of the spoiler templates was done in an automated manner. I know that a fairly good proportion were done with a simple tabbed browser.
Regardless of technicalities about exactly how spoiler warnings are removed, it's possible to remove them en masse, but it's not possible to restore them en masse with similar ease. The same goes for any other sort of template; you can remove a trivia section template in a tabbed browser too.
On 9/7/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If people/bots are doing that, they should be stopped. Last time I read the appropriate policy it said to integrate trivia into the rest of the article, not remove it.
Yeah, trivia sections are "good" in the sense that we can quickly identify material that needs a better home. Of course, sometimes the material just seems too tangential to rescue.
I was inclined to delete the whole trivia section from [[Heron]] for example. Talk about bringing down a serious article with spurious pop culture references - I can understand linking from [[Ubuntu]] to [[Heron]], but to link the other way? Ugh...
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 9/7/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If people/bots are doing that, they should be stopped. Last time I read the appropriate policy it said to integrate trivia into the rest of the article, not remove it.
Yeah, trivia sections are "good" in the sense that we can quickly identify material that needs a better home. Of course, sometimes the material just seems too tangential to rescue.
I'm not opposed to trivia sections, and perhaps it is that tangentiality that justifies having such material in a separate section rather than having it integrated into the body of the article where its appearance may sometimes seem strained.
Ec
Trivia sections are not encyclopedic. We require non-trivial sources, and we shouldnt be one ourselves. If they dont fit elsewhere then they are rightly dropped. As for it being harder to re add them, good. Itll keep them out longer. The harder the crap is to keep in the pedia, the better off we all are. You can thank us for the usable encyclopedia later when you figure it out.
On 9/7/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 9/7/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If people/bots are doing that, they should be stopped. Last time I read the appropriate policy it said to integrate trivia into the rest of the article, not remove it.
Yeah, trivia sections are "good" in the sense that we can quickly identify material that needs a better home. Of course, sometimes the material just seems too tangential to rescue.
I'm not opposed to trivia sections, and perhaps it is that tangentiality that justifies having such material in a separate section rather than having it integrated into the body of the article where its appearance may sometimes seem strained.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Brock Weller wrote:
Trivia sections are not encyclopedic.
Bullshit!
We require non-trivial sources, and we shouldnt be one ourselves. If they dont fit elsewhere then they are rightly dropped.
The only ones who believe that are so pompous and self-absorbed that they have lost all capacity to determine what is important or interesting to readers?
As for it being harder to re add them, good. Itll keep them out longer. The harder the crap is to keep in the pedia, the better off we all are.
So what you're telling me is that YOU are singularly equipped to recognize crap. Do you have any other jokes?
You can thank us for the usable encyclopedia later when you figure it out.
Why should I thank anyone whose stated aim is to be destructive? Ec
On 9/7/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 9/7/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If people/bots are doing that, they should be stopped. Last time I read the appropriate policy it said to integrate trivia into the rest of the article, not remove it.
Yeah, trivia sections are "good" in the sense that we can quickly identify material that needs a better home. Of course, sometimes the material just seems too tangential to rescue.
I'm not opposed to trivia sections, and perhaps it is that tangentiality that justifies having such material in a separate section rather than having it integrated into the body of the article where its appearance may sometimes seem strained.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
Trivia sections are not encyclopedic.
Bullshit!
Aside from the fact they're not. Collections of random factoids are the very definition of "indiscriminate information".
We require non-trivial sources, and we shouldnt be one ourselves. If they dont fit elsewhere then they are rightly dropped.
The only ones who believe that are so pompous and self-absorbed that they have lost all capacity to determine what is important or interesting to readers?
Or perhaps they're right. But it's far easier to attack people and speculate on their motives than actually argue against their position. Also, there is a lot of information which is interesting and perhaps even important, and still not appropriate for Wikipedia. I find the morning traffic report important and the lyrics to Stairway to Heaven interesting, neither are appropriate material for an encyclopedia though.
As for it being harder to re add them, good. Itll keep them out longer. The harder the crap is to keep in the pedia, the better off we all are.
So what you're telling me is that YOU are singularly equipped to recognize crap. Do you have any other jokes?
I don't believe the person you're responding to is the only person who's recognized that these are crap. (In point of fact, I can confirm that he is at minimum one of two such people.)
You can thank us for the usable encyclopedia later when you figure it out.
Why should I thank anyone whose stated aim is to be destructive? Ec
Editing is not destructive. Good editors cut frequently and ruthlessly. You are not "destroying" a diamond by cutting and polishing it, you are improving it.
On 9/7/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 9/7/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If people/bots are doing that, they should be stopped. Last time I read the appropriate policy it said to integrate trivia into the rest of the article, not remove it.
Yeah, trivia sections are "good" in the sense that we can quickly identify material that needs a better home. Of course, sometimes the material just seems too tangential to rescue.
I'm not opposed to trivia sections, and perhaps it is that tangentiality that justifies having such material in a separate section rather than having it integrated into the body of the article where its appearance may sometimes seem strained.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Aside from the fact they're not. Collections of random factoids are the very definition of "indiscriminate information".
There's not random factoids. They are interesting factoids to do with the subject of the article. Sometimes there aren't notable or relevant enough to be mentioned, but often they are perfectly valid additions to the article, they're just mentioned in the wrong place.
Todd Allen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
Trivia sections are not encyclopedic.
Bullshit!
Aside from the fact they're not. Collections of random factoids are the very definition of "indiscriminate information".
That jumps to conclusions. As long as the trivia have some connection with the topic of the article they are more than random.
We require non-trivial sources, and we shouldnt be one ourselves. If they dont fit elsewhere then they are rightly dropped.
The only ones who believe that are so pompous and self-absorbed that they have lost all capacity to determine what is important or interesting to readers?
Or perhaps they're right. But it's far easier to attack people and speculate on their motives than actually argue against their position. Also, there is a lot of information which is interesting and perhaps even important, and still not appropriate for Wikipedia. I find the morning traffic report important and the lyrics to Stairway to Heaven interesting, neither are appropriate material for an encyclopedia though.
Please show me a link where someone has included the morning traffic report as part of an article, or admit that this is only introduced as a straw man. If the lyrics to Stairway to Heaven are deleted this has more to do with copyvios than trivia.
Rather than speculate on motives you can always ask them about their motives. Fairly arguing against their position includes allowing them full opportunity to argue in favour of that position, and taking the time to develop a common position. Robotically adding templates that threaten deletion and proceeding with that deletion after the specified time does nothing for the peace of the community. Where "interesting and important" conflict with "not appropriate" the reason for deletion needs to very clear (as with copyvios and libel), or just maybe the robocrats should take the time to properly discuss each and every one of their proposed deletions.
As for it being harder to re add them, good. Itll keep them out longer. The harder the crap is to keep in the pedia, the better off we all are.
So what you're telling me is that YOU are singularly equipped to recognize crap. Do you have any other jokes?
I don't believe the person you're responding to is the only person who's recognized that these are crap. (In point of fact, I can confirm that he is at minimum one of two such people.)
I can concede that point. But two people do not represent a consensus of editors, and a hardline position does not help in building a consensus that will satisfy a broad representation of Wikipedians.
You can thank us for the usable encyclopedia later when you figure it out.
Why should I thank anyone whose stated aim is to be destructive?
Editing is not destructive. Good editors cut frequently and ruthlessly. You are not "destroying" a diamond by cutting and polishing it, you are improving it.
Editing is not destructive, but it is not what you are advocating. Editing the trivia sections is not equivalent to destroying them.
Ec
Singularly? Hardly. Theres a concensus to pull them, based on strength of argument just like there was for those rediculous spoiler warnings. I would encourage you to help remove them, and hopefully we wont have any disruptive reversions while making sure this stays a real encyclopedia instead of a trivia storehouse.
On 9/8/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
Trivia sections are not encyclopedic.
Bullshit!
We require non-trivial sources, and we shouldnt be one ourselves. If they dont fit elsewhere then they are rightly dropped.
The only ones who believe that are so pompous and self-absorbed that they have lost all capacity to determine what is important or interesting to readers?
As for it being harder to re add them, good. Itll keep them out longer. The harder the crap is to keep in the pedia, the better off we all are.
So what you're telling me is that YOU are singularly equipped to recognize crap. Do you have any other jokes?
You can thank us for the usable encyclopedia later when you figure it out.
Why should I thank anyone whose stated aim is to be destructive? Ec
On 9/7/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 9/7/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If people/bots are doing that, they should be stopped. Last time I read the appropriate policy it said to integrate trivia into the rest of the article, not remove it.
Yeah, trivia sections are "good" in the sense that we can quickly identify material that needs a better home. Of course, sometimes the material just seems too tangential to rescue.
I'm not opposed to trivia sections, and perhaps it is that tangentiality that justifies having such material in a separate section rather than having it integrated into the body of the article where its appearance may sometimes seem strained.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Brock Weller wrote:
Singularly? Hardly. Theres a concensus to pull them, based on strength of argument just like there was for those rediculous spoiler warnings. I would encourage you to help remove them, and hopefully we wont have any disruptive reversions while making sure this stays a real encyclopedia instead of a trivia storehouse.
The general agreement for spoiler warnings was to remove the warnings, not the spoiling information. If that's what you mean I don't mind removing the trivia warning templates, and leaving the information.
You have an inflated ivory-tower view of what an encyclopedia is.
Ec
Brock Weller wrote:
Trivia sections are not encyclopedic. We require non-trivial sources, and we shouldnt be one ourselves. If they dont fit elsewhere then they are rightly dropped.
Wikipedia is a work in progress. Often the random bits of information that appear in a "trivia" section are things that will _eventually_ fit into a better-structured article, but if the article isn't developed enough yet they may not fit _right now._
Declaring trivia sections to be "Bad" and deleting them out of hand is likely to throw away raw material that would be useful in a more finished article.
You can thank us for the usable encyclopedia later when you figure it out.
Deleting something that's currently incomplete doesn't increase the encyclopedia's overall completeness.
I said usable, not complete. But regardless. Its not hard to recover if someone can fit it in, and if they cant, them it stays hidden like it should. There's no downside to wiping these sections.
On 9/8/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
Trivia sections are not encyclopedic. We require non-trivial sources, and we shouldnt be one ourselves. If they dont fit elsewhere then they are rightly dropped.
Wikipedia is a work in progress. Often the random bits of information that appear in a "trivia" section are things that will _eventually_ fit into a better-structured article, but if the article isn't developed enough yet they may not fit _right now._
Declaring trivia sections to be "Bad" and deleting them out of hand is likely to throw away raw material that would be useful in a more finished article.
You can thank us for the usable encyclopedia later when you figure it out.
Deleting something that's currently incomplete doesn't increase the encyclopedia's overall completeness.
Brock Weller wrote:
I said usable, not complete. But regardless. Its not hard to recover if someone can fit it in, and if they cant, them it stays hidden like it should. There's no downside to wiping these sections.
If it's hidden in the article history, future editors are a lot less likely to find it and insert it more smoothly into the text. And the information becomes unavailable to casual readers in the meantime. That is a _major_ downside.
Dovetailing in with another thread, this dispute is something that "stable versions" could work well to resolve. The trivialess-but-nice-looking version can be marked as the "good" one and the trivia-containing version can be marked as the "work in progress" one. Everyone becomes happy.
That sounds like a fine solution. Im not a major fan of stable versions but this possibility has me intrigued enough to want to try it.
On 9/8/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
I said usable, not complete. But regardless. Its not hard to recover if someone can fit it in, and if they cant, them it stays hidden like it should. There's no downside to wiping these sections.
If it's hidden in the article history, future editors are a lot less likely to find it and insert it more smoothly into the text. And the information becomes unavailable to casual readers in the meantime. That is a _major_ downside.
Dovetailing in with another thread, this dispute is something that "stable versions" could work well to resolve. The trivialess-but-nice-looking version can be marked as the "good" one and the trivia-containing version can be marked as the "work in progress" one. Everyone becomes happy.
That's not the best solution at all. The best solution is to remove the real trivia entirely, and rewrite the cultural references in an encyclopedic way. That takes work, of course, but then writing an encyclopedia takes work; deleting large amounts from many articles based on superficial inspection without attempting to improve content is much easier.
As a way to resolve such differences in basic outlook, a two-level solution would work, though l think it would produce enough other problems to be unworkable. Those doubting can take a look a the difficulties Citizendium is having with that approach, and the very slow progress they are consequently making.
On 9/8/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
That sounds like a fine solution. Im not a major fan of stable versions but this possibility has me intrigued enough to want to try it.
On 9/8/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
I said usable, not complete. But regardless. Its not hard to recover if someone can fit it in, and if they cant, them it stays hidden like it should. There's no downside to wiping these sections.
If it's hidden in the article history, future editors are a lot less likely to find it and insert it more smoothly into the text. And the information becomes unavailable to casual readers in the meantime. That is a _major_ downside.
Dovetailing in with another thread, this dispute is something that "stable versions" could work well to resolve. The trivialess-but-nice-looking version can be marked as the "good" one and the trivia-containing version can be marked as the "work in progress" one. Everyone becomes happy.
-- -Brock
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Goodman wrote:
That's not the best solution at all. The best solution is to remove the real trivia entirely, and rewrite the cultural references in an encyclopedic way. That takes work, of course, but then writing an encyclopedia takes work; deleting large amounts from many articles based on superficial inspection without attempting to improve content is much easier.
"Rewrite all trivia-section-containing articles so that they are both inclusive of information and well-written prose" is of course the _ideal_ approach, but IMO not a practical solution to the immediate problem. There are too many people out there who want Wikipedia to look nice _right now_, and so will jump to the quick-fix deletion approach. Since simply telling them "no, you can't delete that, it's raw material that will be useful later" would result in major strife and the risk that it might get deleted anyway, I prefer a more harmonious solution.
As a way to resolve such differences in basic outlook, a two-level solution would work, though l think it would produce enough other problems to be unworkable. Those doubting can take a look a the difficulties Citizendium is having with that approach, and the very slow progress they are consequently making.
Citizendium's approach is different, and IMO significantly flawed. It hinges on OWNership and on an elitist approach that makes certain editors "gatekeepers" of article content. Contrast with Wikipedia's "featured article" process, which is a delightfully democratic mess of opinions. Citizendium also has some other unrelated issues that are IMO causing it major trouble. The licencing chaos they went through, for example.
A very important aspect that needs to be in stable versions, IMO, is the ability to ignore the system completely if one wants to. The first thing I plan to do when the feature is enabled is to set my preferences so that I always see the most recent version, not just the most recent stable version; I want to work at the raw coal face of Wikipedia, for me stable versions is just a fence around the worksite to get people to stop "helpfully" filling in the hole I'm trying to dig.
I'd actually like to see that as the default but I suspect that's not as likely. I'll take whatever stable versions I can get at this point. :)
The point is not to have a permanent two level solution, it's to give us a more orderly switch, we can get rid of the crap in the public article and have a sandbox for a couple days while anyone who can spot some trivia thats information and not real trivia can make an attempt to save it before we completely dump it.
On 9/8/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
That's not the best solution at all. The best solution is to remove the real trivia entirely, and rewrite the cultural references in an encyclopedic way. That takes work, of course, but then writing an encyclopedia takes work; deleting large amounts from many articles based on superficial inspection without attempting to improve content is much easier.
As a way to resolve such differences in basic outlook, a two-level solution would work, though l think it would produce enough other problems to be unworkable. Those doubting can take a look a the difficulties Citizendium is having with that approach, and the very slow progress they are consequently making.
On 9/8/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
That sounds like a fine solution. Im not a major fan of stable versions but this possibility has me intrigued enough to want to try it.
On 9/8/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
I said usable, not complete. But regardless. Its not hard to recover if someone can fit it in, and if they cant, them it stays hidden like it should. There's no downside to wiping these sections.
If it's hidden in the article history, future editors are a lot less likely to find it and insert it more smoothly into the text. And the information becomes unavailable to casual readers in the meantime. That is a _major_ downside.
Dovetailing in with another thread, this dispute is something that "stable versions" could work well to resolve. The trivialess-but-nice-looking version can be marked as the "good" one and the trivia-containing version can be marked as the "work in progress" one. Everyone becomes happy.
-- -Brock
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Why not just move large dumps of trivia to the talk page? It's what I've always done and no one's ever complained.
On 9/9/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
Why not just move large dumps of trivia to the talk page? It's what I've always done and no one's ever complained.
The talk page isn't a great place either as they will eventually scroll off. You almost want an intermediate "notes" page. I hadn't heard of stable versions being used this way, but it might work.
However, what you need is:
Current version with trivia | Cut ----> Version with trivia | Version without trivia (published as "stable version") | Version with trivia merged in (published as stable version)
Is this possible?
Steve
It takes more than day or two to write a good article. What takes a minute to delete can take weeks to build.
On 9/8/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
The point is not to have a permanent two level solution, it's to give us a more orderly switch, we can get rid of the crap in the public article and have a sandbox for a couple days while anyone who can spot some trivia thats information and not real trivia can make an attempt to save it before we completely dump it.
Were not deleting the article, were deleting the unencyclopedic crap sections. Your point is a strawman.
On 9/8/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
It takes more than day or two to write a good article. What takes a minute to delete can take weeks to build.
On 9/8/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
The point is not to have a permanent two level solution, it's to give us a more orderly switch, we can get rid of the crap in the public article and have a sandbox for a couple days while anyone who can spot some trivia thats information and not real trivia can make an attempt to save it before we completely dump it.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Brock Weller wrote:
Were not deleting the article, were deleting the unencyclopedic crap sections. Your point is a strawman.
And since we're talking logical fallacies, you're begging the question. Calling the sections "unencyclopedic crap" presupposes that they're useless, whereas David and I have been arguing that a lot of what's in those sections is not crap but rather is just poorly formatted and integrated.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
Were not deleting the article, were deleting the unencyclopedic crap sections. Your point is a strawman.
And since we're talking logical fallacies, you're begging the question. Calling the sections "unencyclopedic crap" presupposes that they're useless, whereas David and I have been arguing that a lot of what's in those sections is not crap but rather is just poorly formatted and integrated.
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, when I remove a trivia section, I do find the occasional piece that's actually relevant, is sourced, and can be integrated. Quite often, however, the stuff isn't even verified, is someone's personal opinion, or is unimportant or very marginally related. Some of the stuff's alright, but most of it that I've found so far was indeed unencyclopedic crap. We don't have to keep every drip of data someone ever touches an article with. Even if it's true, even if it's verifiable, sometimes it just isn't too significant or doesn't fit. It is OK, and even good, to -cut-, it is not "destructive", it is not "deletionism", and it isn't mean. It's part of editing anything you want someday to be a decent work.
Todd Allen wrote:
Generally, when I remove a trivia section, I do find the occasional piece that's actually relevant, is sourced, and can be integrated.
If you're actually integrating the stuff, then you're deleting _discriminately_ rather than _indiscriminately_. That's fine by me, the position I've been arguing against is simply deleting trivia sections wholesale in a bot-like purge.
Todd Allen wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
Were not deleting the article, were deleting the unencyclopedic crap sections. Your point is a strawman.
And since we're talking logical fallacies, you're begging the question. Calling the sections "unencyclopedic crap" presupposes that they're useless, whereas David and I have been arguing that a lot of what's in those sections is not crap but rather is just poorly formatted and integrated.
Generally, when I remove a trivia section, I do find the occasional piece that's actually relevant, is sourced, and can be integrated. Quite often, however, the stuff isn't even verified, is someone's personal opinion, or is unimportant or very marginally related.
These are nevertheless three separate bases for evaluating material. Some may not be verified, but is verifiable. Importance is completely subjective. Marginally related may be your strongest point, but even there a contrary argument can often be made. Establishing one does not establish the others.
Some of the stuff's alright, but most of it that I've found so far was indeed unencyclopedic crap. We don't have to keep every drip of data someone ever touches an article with. Even if it's true, even if it's verifiable, sometimes it just isn't too significant or doesn't fit. It is OK, and even good, to -cut-, it is not "destructive", it is not "deletionism", and it isn't mean. It's part of editing anything you want someday to be a decent work.
If you want your work to be considered decent, then you need to respect the work of others with a different view as also being decent. Dismissing the good faith work of others as "crap" doesn't measure up to that.
Ec
Unencyclopedic crap is cut all the time. If it doesn't meet our goals its dropped, nothing against the contributer, but it doesn't fit. We make subjective judgements all the time, and establish standards to help us decide in the future. Our standards on notability are largely subjective, as are our standards on what are reliable sources. These trivia sections don't meet our content criteria and we've been stripping them for months. Thats a functional consensus there. And it appears far from being the consensus against it that you'd need at this stage of the purge.
On 9/9/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Todd Allen wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
Were not deleting the article, were deleting the unencyclopedic crap sections. Your point is a strawman.
And since we're talking logical fallacies, you're begging the question. Calling the sections "unencyclopedic crap" presupposes that they're useless, whereas David and I have been arguing that a lot of what's in those sections is not crap but rather is just poorly formatted and integrated.
Generally, when I remove a trivia section, I do find the occasional piece that's actually relevant, is sourced, and can be integrated. Quite often, however, the stuff isn't even verified, is someone's personal opinion, or is unimportant or very marginally related.
These are nevertheless three separate bases for evaluating material. Some may not be verified, but is verifiable. Importance is completely subjective. Marginally related may be your strongest point, but even there a contrary argument can often be made. Establishing one does not establish the others.
Some of the stuff's alright, but most of it that I've found so far was indeed unencyclopedic crap. We don't have to keep every drip of data someone ever touches an article with. Even if it's true, even if it's verifiable, sometimes it just isn't too significant or doesn't fit. It is OK, and even good, to -cut-, it is not "destructive", it is not "deletionism", and it isn't mean. It's part of editing anything you want someday to be a decent work.
If you want your work to be considered decent, then you need to respect the work of others with a different view as also being decent. Dismissing the good faith work of others as "crap" doesn't measure up to that.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Brock Weller wrote:
Unencyclopedic crap is cut all the time. If it doesn't meet our goals its dropped, nothing against the contributer, but it doesn't fit. We make subjective judgements all the time, and establish standards to help us decide in the future. Our standards on notability are largely subjective, as are our standards on what are reliable sources. These trivia sections don't meet our content criteria and we've been stripping them for months. Thats a functional consensus there. And it appears far from being the consensus against it that you'd need at this stage of the purge.
*Which* trivia sections don't "meet our content criteria"? All of them? And whose content criteria are you referring to?
-Rich
All of them from what i've seen. I pointed out several that they fail, you are more them welcome to read the rest of the thread if you desire to participate.
On 9/9/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
Unencyclopedic crap is cut all the time. If it doesn't meet our goals its dropped, nothing against the contributer, but it doesn't fit. We make subjective judgements all the time, and establish standards to help us decide in the future. Our standards on notability are largely subjective, as are our standards on what are reliable sources. These trivia sections don't meet our content criteria and we've been stripping them for months. Thats a functional consensus there. And it appears far from being the consensus against it that you'd need at this stage of the purge.
*Which* trivia sections don't "meet our content criteria"? All of them? And whose content criteria are you referring to?
-Rich
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Brock Weller wrote:
All of them from what i've seen. I pointed out several that they fail, you are more them welcome to read the rest of the thread if you desire to participate.
On 9/9/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
Unencyclopedic crap is cut all the time. If it doesn't meet our goals its dropped, nothing against the contributer, but it doesn't fit. We make subjective judgements all the time, and establish standards to help us decide in the future. Our standards on notability are largely subjective, as are our standards on what are reliable sources. These trivia sections don't meet our content criteria and we've been stripping them for months. Thats a functional consensus there. And it appears far from being the consensus against it that you'd need at this stage of the purge.
*Which* trivia sections don't "meet our content criteria"? All of them? And whose content criteria are you referring to?
-Rich
I have been following the thread, and I don't see how you can possibly make a blanket statement that all trivia sections don't meet "our" criteria. And I notice that you didn't answer who "our" refers to.
-Rich
Brock, I've commented from time to time that the intent of at least some of the people who are trying to delete trivia sections and popular culture sections is to remove material on the significance of themes and structure because of their personal view that such information can never possibly be encyclopedic. A good deal of the material in so called trivia sections is of this nature. People have said I'm over-generalizing, that nobody wants to remove it all.
Many trivia section contain some junk as well, but to say that everything in every one of them is worthless--well, I think you have just confirmed what I've been saying. You do want to remove it all.
Personally, I'm there to write an encyclopedia for general use, not just a collection of information for my own private purpose. WP:OWN usually means articles, but you think you own wikipedia. If you want your own wiki, limited to what you wish to have in an encyclopedia, branch WP, and work at a project where you can safely call yourself "we".
On 9/9/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
All of them from what i've seen. I pointed out several that they fail, you are more them welcome to read the rest of the thread if you desire to participate.
On 9/9/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
Unencyclopedic crap is cut all the time. If it doesn't meet our goals its dropped, nothing against the contributer, but it doesn't fit. We make subjective judgements all the time, and establish standards to help us decide in the future. Our standards on notability are largely subjective, as are our standards on what are reliable sources. These trivia sections don't meet our content criteria and we've been stripping them for months. Thats a functional consensus there. And it appears far from being the consensus against it that you'd need at this stage of the purge.
*Which* trivia sections don't "meet our content criteria"? All of them? And whose content criteria are you referring to?
-Rich
I have been following the thread, and I don't see how you can possibly make a blanket statement that all trivia sections don't meet "our" criteria. And I notice that you didn't answer who "our" refers to.
-Rich
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 9/10/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Brock, I've commented from time to time that the intent of at least some of the people who are trying to delete trivia sections and popular culture sections is to remove material on the significance of themes and structure because of their personal view that such information can never possibly be encyclopedic. A good deal of the material in so called trivia sections is of this nature. People have said I'm over-generalizing, that nobody wants to remove it all.
Many trivia section contain some junk as well, but to say that everything in every one of them is worthless--well, I think you have just confirmed what I've been saying. You do want to remove it all.
Personally, I'm there to write an encyclopedia for general use, not just a collection of information for my own private purpose. WP:OWN usually means articles, but you think you own wikipedia. If you want your own wiki, limited to what you wish to have in an encyclopedia, branch WP, and work at a project where you can safely call yourself "we".
I can't pretend to speak for Brock, but as someone who opposes the existence of trivia sections, I think a miscommunication has taken place. Perhaps Brock and a few others think otherwise, but if you ask me, the problem is usually not the content; it is how the content is organised. I do not like trivia sections, but I never remove them wholesale unless all the information in them is clutter (should, say, [[lesbian]] have a trivia bullet-point along the lines of "character Y in sitcom X was a closeted lesbian"? That information may be useful in [[sitcom X]], but not in [[lesbian]]).
The usefulness of information depends almost as much on its context, location and presentation as it does on the information itself. "George W. Bush is the President of the United States" is almost always a useful thing to know, but it is more useful in articles like [[United States]] than articles like [[gecko]]. Trivia sections are a very poor way of presenting information, and almost always lead to bad organisation of our information.
Eradicating trivia sections is not an end in itself; it is a means to better presenting and contextualising our information. Wholesale removal of the content in trivia sections defeats this latter end; removal of clutter and moving around potentially useful information is what serves the end we have in mind.
Johnleemk
Trivia is not encyclopedic. That said the information in trivia sections isn't always destined to remain trivia, it could ascend to actually worthy of being in an article. But having a section like that is a giant magnet for dumping crap thats not ready for prime time.
On 9/10/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/10/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Brock, I've commented from time to time that the intent of at least some of the people who are trying to delete trivia sections and popular culture sections is to remove material on the significance of themes and structure because of their personal view that such information can never possibly be encyclopedic. A good deal of the material in so called trivia sections is of this nature. People have said I'm over-generalizing, that nobody wants to remove it all.
Many trivia section contain some junk as well, but to say that everything in every one of them is worthless--well, I think you have just confirmed what I've been saying. You do want to remove it all.
Personally, I'm there to write an encyclopedia for general use, not just a collection of information for my own private purpose. WP:OWN usually means articles, but you think you own wikipedia. If you want your own wiki, limited to what you wish to have in an encyclopedia, branch WP, and work at a project where you can safely call yourself "we".
I can't pretend to speak for Brock, but as someone who opposes the existence of trivia sections, I think a miscommunication has taken place. Perhaps Brock and a few others think otherwise, but if you ask me, the problem is usually not the content; it is how the content is organised. I do not like trivia sections, but I never remove them wholesale unless all the information in them is clutter (should, say, [[lesbian]] have a trivia bullet-point along the lines of "character Y in sitcom X was a closeted lesbian"? That information may be useful in [[sitcom X]], but not in [[lesbian]]).
The usefulness of information depends almost as much on its context, location and presentation as it does on the information itself. "George W. Bush is the President of the United States" is almost always a useful thing to know, but it is more useful in articles like [[United States]] than articles like [[gecko]]. Trivia sections are a very poor way of presenting information, and almost always lead to bad organisation of our information.
Eradicating trivia sections is not an end in itself; it is a means to better presenting and contextualising our information. Wholesale removal of the content in trivia sections defeats this latter end; removal of clutter and moving around potentially useful information is what serves the end we have in mind.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Brock Weller wrote:
Trivia is not encyclopedic. That said the information in trivia sections isn't always destined to remain trivia, it could ascend to actually worthy of being in an article. But having a section like that is a giant magnet for dumping crap thats not ready for prime time.
Could you define "trivia" in an NPOV way?
I'll give you a definition, information presented with little or no context that does not contribute to the encyclopedia value of the article. Policies are not and have never been subject to neutral point of view, so your attempt to limit my answer seems disingenuous, apologies if you did not mean it so.
On 9/10/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
Trivia is not encyclopedic. That said the information in trivia sections isn't always destined to remain trivia, it could ascend to actually worthy of being in an article. But having a section like that is a giant magnet for dumping crap thats not ready for prime time.
Could you define "trivia" in an NPOV way?
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 9/10/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/10/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Could you define "trivia" in an NPOV way?
<snip/> ...your attempt to limit my answer seems disingenuous, apologies if you did not mean it so.
By "NPOV" I think he meant "an objective manner not likely to alienate 50+% of editors (and more importantly, readers)."
Of course this has nothing to do with our working definition of NPOV.
—C.W.
Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 9/10/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/10/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Could you define "trivia" in an NPOV way?
<snip/> ...your attempt to limit my answer seems disingenuous, apologies if you did not mean it so.
By "NPOV" I think he meant "an objective manner not likely to alienate 50+% of editors (and more importantly, readers)."
Of course this has nothing to do with our working definition of NPOV.
—C.W.
Yes, my meaning was very much along C.W.'s line. However, I can see how Brock may have come to another conclusion. My apologies for not being more clear.
-Rich
The definition you both give is circular: trivia is what is nonencyclopedic. So then what is non-encyclopedic? Obviously material that is not important or valuable to the encyclopedia--because its trivia. How can you show what is or is not of value to the encyclopedia ? And if the point is out of context, what is sufficient context? The material almost always has some relationship to the subject, albeit sometimes rather faint.
On 9/10/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
I'll give you a definition, information presented with little or no context that does not contribute to the encyclopedia value of the article. Policies are not and have never been subject to neutral point of view, so your attempt to limit my answer seems disingenuous, apologies if you did not mean it so.
On 9/10/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
Trivia is not encyclopedic. That said the information in trivia sections isn't always destined to remain trivia, it could ascend to actually worthy of being in an article. But having a section like that is a giant magnet for dumping crap thats not ready for prime time.
Could you define "trivia" in an NPOV way?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- -Brock
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You're making a circular argument where there is none. Yes trivia is unencyclopedic, no not everything that is unencylopedic is trivia. And the context needed is establishing importence. Some information just simply isn't importent to the article. I think your main problem is that that call is subjective. Guess what, it is. We make subjective calls all the time, thats why were consensus driven and don't just read off a list of what to do in situation x. We never have been objective (the word i think you were hiding behind npov) and never will be in terms of our policies. We are an encyclopedia. We make judgement calls about what we take constantly. Why do editors revert badly written prose? Surly thats a subjective decision. Why do we determine what text is harmful under blp? Thats subjective as well. If you want a purely objective set of rules, im sure there are projects out there that offer them.
On 9/10/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The definition you both give is circular: trivia is what is nonencyclopedic. So then what is non-encyclopedic? Obviously material that is not important or valuable to the encyclopedia--because its trivia. How can you show what is or is not of value to the encyclopedia ? And if the point is out of context, what is sufficient context? The material almost always has some relationship to the subject, albeit sometimes rather faint.
On 9/10/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
I'll give you a definition, information presented with little or no context that does not contribute to the encyclopedia value of the article. Policies are not and have never been subject to neutral point of view, so your attempt to limit my answer seems disingenuous, apologies if you did not mean it so.
On 9/10/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
Trivia is not encyclopedic. That said the information in trivia sections isn't always destined to remain trivia, it could ascend to actually worthy of being in an article. But having a section like that is a giant magnet for dumping crap thats not ready for prime time.
Could you define "trivia" in an NPOV way?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- -Brock
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
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 10/09/2007, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
You're making a circular argument where there is none. Yes trivia is unencyclopedic, no not everything that is unencylopedic is trivia. And the context needed is establishing importence. Some information just simply isn't importent to the article. I think your main problem is that that call is subjective. Guess what, it is. We make subjective calls all the time, thats why were consensus driven and don't just read off a list of what to do in situation x. We never have been objective (the word i think you were hiding behind npov) and never will be in terms of our policies. We are an encyclopedia. We make judgement calls about what we take constantly. Why do editors revert badly written prose? Surly thats a subjective decision. Why do we determine what text is harmful under blp? Thats subjective as well. If you want a purely objective set of rules, im sure there are projects out there that offer them.
Certainly the stuff in trivia sections is often rubbish. I'd question that a bot tagging every "trivia" section it sees with implied threats of mass semiautomated deletion is really a good approach, though.
- d.
The point is that calling it "unencyclopedic" by itself provides no information. In what of the possible sense is it non-encyclopedic? What can you possibly mean except non-encyclopedic because too unimportant to be worth including. And that is the very definition of trivial, which is certainly circular.
If you do intend some definable meaning other than that, I'd like to hear it. Subjective decisions are supposed to be based on something other than personal impulse.
On 9/11/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/09/2007, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
You're making a circular argument where there is none. Yes trivia is unencyclopedic, no not everything that is unencylopedic is trivia. And the context needed is establishing importence. Some information just simply isn't importent to the article. I think your main problem is that that call is subjective. Guess what, it is. We make subjective calls all the time, thats why were consensus driven and don't just read off a list of what to do in situation x. We never have been objective (the word i think you were hiding behind npov) and never will be in terms of our policies. We are an encyclopedia. We make judgement calls about what we take constantly. Why do editors revert badly written prose? Surly thats a subjective decision. Why do we determine what text is harmful under blp? Thats subjective as well. If you want a purely objective set of rules, im sure there are projects out there that offer them.
Certainly the stuff in trivia sections is often rubbish. I'd question that a bot tagging every "trivia" section it sees with implied threats of mass semiautomated deletion is really a good approach, though.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Brock Weller wrote:
I'll give you a definition, information presented with little or no context that does not contribute to the encyclopedia value of the article. Policies are not and have never been subject to neutral point of view, so your attempt to limit my answer seems disingenuous, apologies if you did not mean it so.
Your suggestion that policies should not be subject to the neutral point of view is bound to produce paradoxical results. It is difficult to have an intimate understanding of how NPOV applies to articles unless we are willing to apply it to our own behaviour.
Ec
It's not my assertion that they should not be, but simple fact that they aren't, never have been. NOT and RS. NOTE and BLP. This is a philosophy as old as the pedia. If you weren't aware of this, now you know. If you just don't accept it, this is nothing more then you trolling now.
On 9/10/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
I'll give you a definition, information presented with little or no context that does not contribute to the encyclopedia value of the article. Policies are not and have never been subject to neutral point of view, so your attempt to limit my answer seems disingenuous, apologies if you did not mean it so.
Your suggestion that policies should not be subject to the neutral point of view is bound to produce paradoxical results. It is difficult to have an intimate understanding of how NPOV applies to articles unless we are willing to apply it to our own behaviour.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Brock Weller wrote:
I'll give you a definition, information presented with little or no context that does not contribute to the encyclopedia value of the article.
Is it then your assertion that all content listed under the "Trivia" heading of all articles falls under this definition? If not, how can you justify wholesale deletion of all trivia sections?
I am not interested in arguing about your definition of trivia, though I suspect you might find quite a bit of disagreement from others. It is interesting to note that Wikipedia does have an article on [[Trivia]], and an intriguing definition. Though perhaps not all that useful to this conversation.
I agree with your interpretation, and of course the mere question of how articles should be organised does not provide any basis whatever for the removal of any the content from these sections. The reorganization of hundreds of articles is not something to be done overnight, and the burden of those removing such section have the burden of moving the material elsewhere. In fact, I personally have eliminated several such sections, doing just that, as most of the biographical material accumulated there by lazy editors fitted much better in the main portion--and I did delete one or two items which never should have been added.
The removal of unencyclopedic content does not depend where in the article it is, but as you say, upon its function; Even your first example might well have a section about how the example of certain well-known entertainment figures both indicated and led to the further acceptances of lesbians in the United States. Arguably it is more important there than in the biography--the social change is far more generally important than a person's individual career. To suggest otherwise is a continuation of WP's preoccupation with the basically trivial in a more fundamental sense. I assume you, like me, want a WP that deals fully with significant social issues, not just television personalities..
The current bitter disagreements at various places in WP are another example of how well-meaning and sensible people intending to make good and necessary changes in WP are at the mercy of those who over-enthusiastically the same good principles, and also those who misapply them altogether to situations for which they never were intended.
On 9/10/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/10/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Brock, I've commented from time to time that the intent of at least some of the people who are trying to delete trivia sections and popular culture sections is to remove material on the significance of themes and structure because of their personal view that such information can never possibly be encyclopedic. A good deal of the material in so called trivia sections is of this nature. People have said I'm over-generalizing, that nobody wants to remove it all.
Many trivia section contain some junk as well, but to say that everything in every one of them is worthless--well, I think you have just confirmed what I've been saying. You do want to remove it all.
Personally, I'm there to write an encyclopedia for general use, not just a collection of information for my own private purpose. WP:OWN usually means articles, but you think you own wikipedia. If you want your own wiki, limited to what you wish to have in an encyclopedia, branch WP, and work at a project where you can safely call yourself "we".
I can't pretend to speak for Brock, but as someone who opposes the existence of trivia sections, I think a miscommunication has taken place. Perhaps Brock and a few others think otherwise, but if you ask me, the problem is usually not the content; it is how the content is organised. I do not like trivia sections, but I never remove them wholesale unless all the information in them is clutter (should, say, [[lesbian]] have a trivia bullet-point along the lines of "character Y in sitcom X was a closeted lesbian"? That information may be useful in [[sitcom X]], but not in [[lesbian]]).
The usefulness of information depends almost as much on its context, location and presentation as it does on the information itself. "George W. Bush is the President of the United States" is almost always a useful thing to know, but it is more useful in articles like [[United States]] than articles like [[gecko]]. Trivia sections are a very poor way of presenting information, and almost always lead to bad organisation of our information.
Eradicating trivia sections is not an end in itself; it is a means to better presenting and contextualising our information. Wholesale removal of the content in trivia sections defeats this latter end; removal of clutter and moving around potentially useful information is what serves the end we have in mind.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Goodman wrote:
I agree with your interpretation, and of course the mere question of how articles should be organised does not provide any basis whatever for the removal of any the content from these sections. The reorganization of hundreds of articles is not something to be done overnight, and the burden of those removing such section have the burden of moving the material elsewhere. In fact, I personally have eliminated several such sections, doing just that, as most of the biographical material accumulated there by lazy editors fitted much better in the main portion--and I did delete one or two items which never should have been added.
Although I tend to view trivia sections in a more favourable light than you or John, what I see in the way that you present the subject is that there is room for arriving at a consensus. That is very important in a wiki that holds value in NPOV
The removal of unencyclopedic content does not depend where in the article it is, but as you say, upon its function; Even your first example might well have a section about how the example of certain well-known entertainment figures both indicated and led to the further acceptances of lesbians in the United States. Arguably it is more important there than in the biography--the social change is far more generally important than a person's individual career. To suggest otherwise is a continuation of WP's preoccupation with the basically trivial in a more fundamental sense. I assume you, like me, want a WP that deals fully with significant social issues, not just television personalities.
Sure, as long as a point is arguable, alternatives can still be presented. Dealing with significant social issues and with television personalities does not imply that these two topic areas are mutually exclusive. We can deal with the important stuff without needing to be concerned with what the TV enthusiasts are doing. Fundamentally, each of these trivia sections needs to be examined on its own merits, or lack thereof.
The current bitter disagreements at various places in WP are another example of how well-meaning and sensible people intending to make good and necessary changes in WP are at the mercy of those who over-enthusiastically [support] the same good principles, and also those who misapply them altogether to situations for which they never were intended.
The point is that quick fixes rarely work. Superficially they can give the impression that a lot is being accomplished, but at what price?
Ec
I never said they were useless, i argue that they dont meet our mission statement 'wikipedia is an encyclopedia', fail WP:NOT, 'indiscriminate collection of information' and are usually sourced to trivia works or put together by the editors, failing WP:NOTABLE and WP:OR. If you need help understanding my position, feel free to ask for clarification before setting up strawmen, it will help you effectively make your point next time :)
On 9/9/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
Were not deleting the article, were deleting the unencyclopedic crap sections. Your point is a strawman.
And since we're talking logical fallacies, you're begging the question. Calling the sections "unencyclopedic crap" presupposes that they're useless, whereas David and I have been arguing that a lot of what's in those sections is not crap but rather is just poorly formatted and integrated.
Brock Weller wrote:
I never said they were useless, i argue that they dont meet our mission statement 'wikipedia is an encyclopedia', fail WP:NOT, 'indiscriminate collection of information' and are usually sourced to trivia works or put together by the editors, failing WP:NOTABLE and WP:OR. If you need help understanding my position, feel free to ask for clarification before setting up strawmen, it will help you effectively make your point next time :)
If they're not useless, they shouldn't be deleted. I don't see what's difficult to understand here.
Because being useful is not nor has ever been a valid argument for keeping things. WP:USEFUL is the piece that better explains it i believe.
On 9/9/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
I never said they were useless, i argue that they dont meet our mission statement 'wikipedia is an encyclopedia', fail WP:NOT, 'indiscriminate collection of information' and are usually sourced to trivia works or put together by the editors, failing WP:NOTABLE and WP:OR. If you need help understanding my position, feel free to ask for clarification before setting up strawmen, it will help you effectively make your point next time :)
If they're not useless, they shouldn't be deleted. I don't see what's difficult to understand here.
Brock Weller wrote:
Because being useful is not nor has ever been a valid argument for keeping things. WP:USEFUL is the piece that better explains it i believe.
When I say I think something's useful in the context of encyclopedia-writing, I mean it's useful for _writing an encyclopedia article_. Any essay that would attempt to claim this is not a good reason for keeping something is approaching the point of self-parody, IMO.
On 9/11/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
When I say I think something's useful in the context of encyclopedia-writing, I mean it's useful for _writing an encyclopedia article_. Any essay that would attempt to claim this is not a good reason for keeping something is approaching the point of self-parody, IMO.
Amen. Months ago, I noticed that "useful" was part of an ever-growing list of "arguments to avoid (ATA)" and my self-parody detector began rapidly to chirp.
So I decided to compile a set of "arguments to use (ATU)". Needless to say I didn't get very far, but at least Radiant thought it was funny.
—C.W.
On 9/9/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
Because being useful is not nor has ever been a valid argument for keeping things. WP:USEFUL is the piece that better explains it i believe.
1. To quote the tag on the top: "This is an essayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_essays. It is not a policy or guidelinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelinesand editors are not bound by its advice." Also, it's only about deletion of articles; not about the style of writing articles.
2. Please note that particular page has only existed since August 2006; certainly people argued against "usefulness" as a valid 'keep' criteria before then, but I can't say how widespread that was. Personally, I dislike the section you cite; I think usefulness is a fine argument, and should be considered as part of a wholistic conversation on what to keep. If we aren't building an encyclopedia because it's useful to people (who need to look stuff up) then what the heck are we doing?
-- phoebe
Brock Weller wrote:
I never said they were useless, i argue that they dont meet our mission statement 'wikipedia is an encyclopedia', fail WP:NOT, 'indiscriminate collection of information' and are usually sourced to trivia works or put together by the editors, failing WP:NOTABLE and WP:OR. If you need help understanding my position, feel free to ask for clarification before setting up strawmen, it will help you effectively make your point next time :)
I'm sorry, but I've been around too long to be impressed by your mastery of wiki rule-lawyering. Your reference to strawmen seems to fll within the purview of the adage, "the pot calling the kettle black."
Ec
On 9/9/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
Were not deleting the article, were deleting the unencyclopedic crap sections. Your point is a strawman.
And since we're talking logical fallacies, you're begging the question. Calling the sections "unencyclopedic crap" presupposes that they're useless, whereas David and I have been arguing that a lot of what's in those sections is not crap but rather is just poorly formatted and integrated.
I pointed them out because my argument was being misunderstood, not as any sort of appeal to authority. It was a point of common reference, nothing more. Care to try insulting me again, or are you done with that?
On 9/9/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
I never said they were useless, i argue that they dont meet our mission statement 'wikipedia is an encyclopedia', fail WP:NOT, 'indiscriminate collection of information' and are usually sourced to trivia works or put together by the editors, failing WP:NOTABLE and WP:OR. If you need help understanding my position, feel free to ask for clarification before setting up strawmen, it will help you effectively make your point next time :)
I'm sorry, but I've been around too long to be impressed by your mastery of wiki rule-lawyering. Your reference to strawmen seems to fll within the purview of the adage, "the pot calling the kettle black."
Ec
On 9/9/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
Were not deleting the article, were deleting the unencyclopedic crap sections. Your point is a strawman.
And since we're talking logical fallacies, you're begging the question. Calling the sections "unencyclopedic crap" presupposes that they're useless, whereas David and I have been arguing that a lot of what's in those sections is not crap but rather is just poorly formatted and integrated.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
Trivia sections are not encyclopedic. We require non-trivial sources, and we shouldnt be one ourselves. If they dont fit elsewhere then they are rightly dropped.
Wikipedia is a work in progress. Often the random bits of information that appear in a "trivia" section are things that will _eventually_ fit into a better-structured article, but if the article isn't developed enough yet they may not fit _right now._
Declaring trivia sections to be "Bad" and deleting them out of hand is likely to throw away raw material that would be useful in a more finished article.
Another factor is the public's insatiable appetite for trivia. It allows people to play "Did you know ...?" when they are sitting together having drinks. It also made the Guinness Book of Records one of the most popular books in the 20th century. What we can do is build the readers' confidence that these factoids are indeed correct, and not just something built on imagination and illusion.
Ec