I like listcruft -- it's one of my favorite parts of wikipedia. Is there any way I can spearhead a project to transwiki these lists somwhere, instead of deleting them forever?
wikia? I tend to move some of the better stuff (with approval) to wikia projects.
On 14/07/07, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
I like listcruft -- it's one of my favorite parts of wikipedia. Is there any way I can spearhead a project to transwiki these lists somwhere, instead of deleting them forever?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Good idea; I'll check that out. I was thinking of wikia to begin with, but wanted to make sure it was kosher.
On 7/13/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
wikia? I tend to move some of the better stuff (with approval) to wikia projects.
On 14/07/07, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
I like listcruft -- it's one of my favorite parts of wikipedia. Is there any way I can spearhead a project to transwiki these lists somwhere, instead of deleting them forever?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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 14/07/07, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
Good idea; I'll check that out. I was thinking of wikia to begin with, but wanted to make sure it was kosher.
On 7/13/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
wikia? I tend to move some of the better stuff (with approval) to wikia projects.
On 14/07/07, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
I like listcruft -- it's one of my favorite parts of wikipedia. Is there any way I can spearhead a project to transwiki these lists somwhere, instead of deleting them forever?
If its a labor of love list - just cut and paste into the new wikia page and give creit to author in history and talk page. If its a coat of many colors and its in the death throughs of afd? A simple retreived from Wikipedia on (date) will also work. Every article is retreivable even if it looks dead.
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 06:31 +0100, michael west wrote:
If its a labor of love list - just cut and paste into the new wikia page and give creit to author in history and talk page. If its a coat of many colors and its in the death throughs of afd? A simple retreived from Wikipedia on (date) will also work. Every article is retreivable even if it looks dead.
The latter would violate the GFDL, which states that modified versions of GFDL works must "preserve the section Entitled 'History', preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page."
On 14/07/07, Slowking Man slowkingman@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 06:31 +0100, michael west wrote:
If its a labor of love list - just cut and paste into the new wikia page
and
give creit to author in history and talk page. If its a coat of many
colors
and its in the death throughs of afd? A simple retreived from Wikipedia
on
(date) will also work. Every article is retreivable even if it looks
dead.
The latter would violate the GFDL, which states that modified versions of GFDL works must "preserve the section Entitled 'History', preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page." -- Slowking Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Slowking_Man)
History is preserved by wikipedia - it is there on request as we keep on telling editors after Afd deletions. lots of mirror sites don't allow people to look at history. The coat of many colors list may be a problem but with a labor of love editor, there isn't any GFDL problem? agreed? me bad? mike
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
I like listcruft -- it's one of my favorite parts of wikipedia. Is there any way I can spearhead a project to transwiki these lists somwhere, instead of deleting them forever?
Why do you want to delete them? They are clearly an important part of Wikipedia?
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
Some are important (or at least lesser-evil) and should stay, some are...not, and should go.
I don't want to delete them, but a lot of them get deleted. Like -- a lot. If I go back through my blog archives and click on the "list of" entries, a fair portion have already been deleted. And that sample contains only those lists that I thought were awesome. It would be nice if it was a convention to transwiki them rather than delete them -- at least then there's the potential to still view them (and maybe move them back someday if the political winds change).
Somewhat offtopic -- it would be cool if, in a few years, wikipedia was the tip of a churning iceberg of content: which is to say, it would nice if there was a multitiered system whereby very little gets deleted outright, and most stuff gets moved elsewhere. This type of system would fuel much greater public participation (decrease friction, if you want to get overly abstract).
On 7/14/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
I like listcruft -- it's one of my favorite parts of wikipedia. Is there any way I can spearhead a project to transwiki these lists somwhere, instead of deleting them forever?
Why do you want to delete them? They are clearly an important part of Wikipedia?
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
Some are important (or at least lesser-evil) and should stay, some are...not, and should go.
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 7/14/07, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
I don't want to delete them, but a lot of them get deleted. Like -- a lot. If I go back through my blog archives and click on the "list of" entries, a fair portion have already been deleted. And that sample contains only those lists that I thought were awesome.
You can see a sample of recent list deletions using the deletion sorting list called "Lists"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Lists
Which type of lists have you seen disappear? Recently there has been a lot of "Lists of songs about ...." deletions. Personally I have no love for lists about songs, but it seems like a lot of effort is being flushed down the tube.
It would be nice if it was a convention to transwiki them rather than delete them -- at least then there's the potential to still view them (and maybe move them back someday if the political winds change).
Somewhat offtopic -- it would be cool if, in a few years, wikipedia was the tip of a churning iceberg of content: which is to say, it would nice if there was a multitiered system whereby very little gets deleted outright, and most stuff gets moved elsewhere. This type of system would fuel much greater public participation (decrease friction, if you want to get overly abstract).
I recently saw a discussion that was suggesting setting up an incubator.wikia.com where any wikimedia content could be transwiki'ed to; that wikia site would then work out what to do with the incoming articles. Sadly, I cant recall where I saw this; maybe I was only dreaming.
-- John
On 7/14/07, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
I recently saw a discussion that was suggesting setting up an incubator.wikia.com where any wikimedia content could be transwiki'ed to; that wikia site would then work out what to do with the incoming articles. Sadly, I cant recall where I saw this; maybe I was only dreaming.
I think you mean was annex.wikia.com which was started by Renmiri and Deckiller last month. For lists, there's also list.wikia.com.
Angela
On 7/14/07, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/07, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
I recently saw a discussion that was suggesting setting up an incubator.wikia.com where any wikimedia content could be transwiki'ed to; that wikia site would then work out what to do with the incoming articles. Sadly, I cant recall where I saw this; maybe I was only dreaming.
I think you mean was annex.wikia.com which was started by Renmiri and Deckiller last month. For lists, there's also list.wikia.com.
Thanks Angela, annex is what I recall reading about, however it appears to be primarily for fiction, so it isn't quite what I was dreaming about.
-- John
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:44:40 +1000, "John Vandenberg" jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Recently there has been a lot of "Lists of songs about ...." deletions. Personally I have no love for lists about songs, but it seems like a lot of effort is being flushed down the tube.
Yes, we definitely need to educate people to stop wasting their time on this crap so we don't upset them when it is (inevitably) deleted. Most of them fail because the songs being "about" X tends to be unsupported by independent sources; and because the subject of "songs about X" is itself not encyclopaedic since the selection of X is entirely arbitrary.
But they are as nothing compared with the lengths that fans of Minnie Riperton and Mariah Carey will go to in order to promote their original ideas on extremely high singing.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/14/07, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/07, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
I don't want to delete them, but a lot of them get deleted. Like -- a lot. If I go back through my blog archives and click on the "list of" entries, a fair portion have already been deleted. And that sample contains only those lists that I thought were awesome.
You can see a sample of recent list deletions using the deletion sorting list called "Lists"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Lists
Which type of lists have you seen disappear? Recently there has been a lot of "Lists of songs about ...." deletions. Personally I have no love for lists about songs, but it seems like a lot of effort is being flushed down the tube.
It makes me mad, it does.
On 14/07/07, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
I don't want to delete them, but a lot of them get deleted. Like -- a lot. If I go back through my blog archives and click on the "list of" entries, a fair portion have already been deleted. And that sample contains only those lists that I thought were awesome. It would be nice if it was a convention to transwiki them rather than delete them -- at least then there's the potential to still view them (and maybe move them back someday if the political winds change).
Somewhat offtopic -- it would be cool if, in a few years, wikipedia was the tip of a churning iceberg of content: which is to say, it would nice if there was a multitiered system whereby very little gets deleted outright, and most stuff gets moved elsewhere. This type of system would fuel much greater public participation (decrease friction, if you want to get overly abstract).
On 7/14/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
I like listcruft -- it's one of my favorite parts of wikipedia. Is there any way I can spearhead a project to transwiki these lists somwhere, instead of deleting them forever?
Why do you want to delete them? They are clearly an important part of Wikipedia?
Ec
What Wikipedia sees as cruft is a great way for new wikias to expand. All those red links are cool for dedicated one-goal editors to expand a wiki. I honestly think that we shouldn't NN and cruft every article without finding a place on wikia. If wikia expands perhaps the foundation will too.
On 7/13/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
I like listcruft -- it's one of my favorite parts of wikipedia. Is there any way I can spearhead a project to transwiki these lists somwhere, instead of deleting them forever?
Why do you want to delete them? They are clearly an important part of Wikipedia?
He doesn't, but some do.
-Matt
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 23:39:37 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Why do you want to delete them? They are clearly an important part of Wikipedia?
FSVO important. Important, then, in the way that the Trivia section of articles is an important part of Wikipedia. That is, important to the people who edit them. And maybe nobody else at all...
Guy (JzG)
On 7/14/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 23:39:37 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Why do you want to delete them? They are clearly an important part of Wikipedia?
FSVO important. Important, then, in the way that the Trivia section of articles is an important part of Wikipedia. That is, important to the people who edit them. And maybe nobody else at all...
I think these lists have value. I can see why they would be important to a number of people. But they are not congruent with our principles as an encyclopaedia and tertiary source which does not conduct its own original research or interpretation of sources.
Johnleemk
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:23:09 +0800, "John Lee" johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I think these lists have value. I can see why they would be important to a number of people. But they are not congruent with our principles as an encyclopaedia and tertiary source which does not conduct its own original research or interpretation of sources.
I agree with the second part of the statement, and kind of agree with the first part provided that the value of "a value" can be zero in at least some cases (like "list of Muslims involved in a crime" for example).
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 23:39:37 -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Why do you want to delete them? They are clearly an important part of Wikipedia?
FSVO important. Important, then, in the way that the Trivia section of articles is an important part of Wikipedia. That is, important to the people who edit them. And maybe nobody else at all...
Except the readers.
Ec
P.S. I'm not acquainted with the abbreviation "FSVO"
Ec
On 14/07/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
P.S. I'm not acquainted with the abbreviation "FSVO"
acronymfinder.com is your friend.
It means "for some value of", and is normally used with the intention that "some value" is fairly small.
On 7/14/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/07/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
P.S. I'm not acquainted with the abbreviation "FSVO"
acronymfinder.com is your friend.
It means "for some value of", and is normally used with the intention that "some value" is fairly small.
It used to be in Wikipedia but was removed as unsourced in a rather dramatic edit last June - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Internet_slang_phrases&diff=prev&oldid=57905965
Angela
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 13:28:44 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
FSVO important. Important, then, in the way that the Trivia section of articles is an important part of Wikipedia. That is, important to the people who edit them. And maybe nobody else at all...
Except the readers.
"the lurkers support me by email". Where's the evidence that any meaningful number of people is actually looking for a list of songs about some randomly selected subject?
P.S. I'm not acquainted with the abbreviation "FSVO"
"For Some Values Of".
Guy (JzG)
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:26:10 +0100, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Where's the evidence that any meaningful number of people is actually looking for a list of songs about some randomly selected subject?
Case in point: "List of songs about masturbation". I put it to you that however much paper Britannica had at its disposal, such a list would never make the cut.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:26:10 +0100, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Where's the evidence that any meaningful number of people is actually looking for a list of songs about some randomly selected subject?
Case in point: "List of songs about masturbation". I put it to you that however much paper Britannica had at its disposal, such a list would never make the cut.
Not so much a case in point, but a touchstone. Do *you* think we are better or worse than Britannica for having "List of songs about masturbation". Stand up and be counted...
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 7/15/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:26:10 +0100, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Where's the evidence that any meaningful number of people is actually looking for a list of songs about some randomly selected subject?
Case in point: "List of songs about masturbation". I put it to you that however much paper Britannica had at its disposal, such a list would never make the cut.
Not so much a case in point, but a touchstone. Do *you* think we are better or worse than Britannica for having "List of songs about masturbation". Stand up and be counted...
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
There are plenty of areas on Wikipedia that I never venture to, so I'll pass on discussing them, also.
We're not Britannica.
KP
Here's an hypocrisy detector: did you ever vote for deleting a list where you nonetless were intrigued by some of the items you saw listed, or for deleting an article which you nonetheless enjoyed or learned from?
On 7/15/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/15/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:26:10 +0100, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Where's the evidence that any meaningful number of people is actually looking for a list of songs about some randomly selected subject?
Case in point: "List of songs about masturbation". I put it to you that however much paper Britannica had at its disposal, such a list would never make the cut.
Not so much a case in point, but a touchstone. Do *you* think we are better or worse than Britannica for having "List of songs about masturbation". Stand up and be counted...
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
There are plenty of areas on Wikipedia that I never venture to, so I'll pass on discussing them, also.
We're not Britannica.
KP
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 7/15/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Here's an hypocrisy detector: did you ever vote for deleting a list where you nonetless were intrigued by some of the items you saw listed, or for deleting an article which you nonetheless enjoyed or learned from?
I've voted to delete articles that were intriguing. I think most of the minor also-rans in lower level pageants articles need to go, yet I've worked in pageantry, and do read the details of the articles before sending them to the crap bin. In fact, they're one group of articles on AfD that I do read almost the entire article every time.
KP
On 7/15/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/15/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Here's an hypocrisy detector: did you ever vote for deleting a list where you nonetless were intrigued by some of the items you saw listed, or for deleting an article which you nonetheless enjoyed or learned from?
I've voted to delete articles that were intriguing. I think most of the minor also-rans in lower level pageants articles need to go, yet I've worked in pageantry, and do read the details of the articles before sending them to the crap bin. In fact, they're one group of articles on AfD that I do read almost the entire article every time.
KP
As opposed to all the other articles that you vote to delete (or not) *without* reading the entire article? That's a bit disturbing. Or do I misread?
Re: lists -- lists are awesome. We should treat them with the same standards as regular articles -- that is, not singling them out for deletion because they are unreferenced, which is a problem that plagues 90% of our content.
FWIW, Britannica *does* include (unreferenced!) lists. On a quick search, for instance, I found "list of populated Dependent States" and "list of major disasters that occurred in 1999". Granted, the first was in a table embedded in the main article about dependent states, which might be a good route to go for many lists that have complimentary main articles. Generally: no, Britannica doesn't have "list of songs about x," but as we all know they also don't have all those troublesome articles about pop culture, movie plots, kinky sex, etc. etc. etc. (though they do have much better bibliographies, even if most articles lack references). **It's a poor comparison.
phoebe
Gotta love lists. Why, I was working on List of English monarchs a while back trying to get it featured! :)
Alex (Majorly)
On 16/07/07, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/15/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/15/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Here's an hypocrisy detector: did you ever vote for deleting a list where you nonetless were intrigued by some of the items you saw listed, or for deleting an article which you nonetheless enjoyed or learned from?
I've voted to delete articles that were intriguing. I think most of the minor also-rans in lower level pageants articles need to go, yet I've worked in pageantry, and do read the details of the articles before sending them to the crap bin. In fact, they're one group of articles on AfD that I do read almost the entire article every time.
KP
As opposed to all the other articles that you vote to delete (or not) *without* reading the entire article? That's a bit disturbing. Or do I misread?
Re: lists -- lists are awesome. We should treat them with the same standards as regular articles -- that is, not singling them out for deletion because they are unreferenced, which is a problem that plagues 90% of our content.
FWIW, Britannica *does* include (unreferenced!) lists. On a quick search, for instance, I found "list of populated Dependent States" and "list of major disasters that occurred in 1999". Granted, the first was in a table embedded in the main article about dependent states, which might be a good route to go for many lists that have complimentary main articles. Generally: no, Britannica doesn't have "list of songs about x," but as we all know they also don't have all those troublesome articles about pop culture, movie plots, kinky sex, etc. etc. etc. (though they do have much better bibliographies, even if most articles lack references). **It's a poor comparison.
phoebe _______________________________________________ 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 7/16/07, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/15/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
As opposed to all the other articles that you vote to delete (or not) *without* reading the entire article? That's a bit disturbing. Or do I misread?
I often don't vote if I don't read the whole thing. On the beauty queen articles I read the whole thing but usually don't vote.
So, no, the emphasis was that I read the entire article whenever I see a beauty queen article up for deletion, whether I vote on its deletion or not. It is not about these being the only articles that I read all the way through that are up for deletion.
Re: lists -- lists are awesome. We should treat them with the same standards as regular articles -- that is, not singling them out for deletion because they are unreferenced, which is a problem that plagues 90% of our content.
FWIW, Britannica *does* include (unreferenced!) lists. On a quick search, for instance, I found "list of populated Dependent States" and "list of major disasters that occurred in 1999". Granted, the first was in a table embedded in the main article about dependent states, which might be a good route to go for many lists that have complimentary main articles. Generally: no, Britannica doesn't have "list of songs about x," but as we all know they also don't have all those troublesome articles about pop culture, movie plots, kinky sex, etc. etc. etc. (though they do have much better bibliographies, even if most articles lack references). **It's a poor comparison.
phoebe
On 7/15/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Here's an hypocrisy detector: did you ever vote for deleting a list where you nonetless were intrigued by some of the items you saw listed, or for deleting an article which you nonetheless enjoyed or learned from?
-- 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
Sure. WP:INTERESTING is not a keep criterion. There's a lot of stuff which is, for example, original research. It may be interesting or informative research, it might be an inventive take on something. That doesn't mean it's alright for a Wikipedia article. There are a lot of opinion pieces I've greatly enjoyed reading throughout the years. They can be insightful and thought-provoking, but I'd certainly vote to delete any such thing that appeared on Wikipedia. That's not hypocrisy, it's keeping articles appropriate and within an encyclopedic scope. Wikipedia is not the Web, it has a limited scope as a tertiary, encyclopedic reference work based upon already-published information. There are thousands, if not millions, of other choices as to where to place interesting and informative content which isn't within Wikipedia's scope, including on a Wikia if one prefers a publicly-accessible and editable Wiki.
What is hypocrisy, on the other hand, is for some people to use IKNOWIT/ILIKEIT/INTERESTING to argue to keep articles in their area of interest, but discount such arguments when used by others in other areas. For consistency's sake, I ask the same questions every time-"Is this article expandable beyond a stub without stuffing in trivia or using unreliable or primary sources? Does this article befit an encyclopedia, rather than another one of our projects, or a personal blog or opinion site? Can this subject be written about in a neutral manner? Can this subject be written about using mainly or solely independent and reliable source material, without significant use or interpretation of primary or unreliable sources?" If the answer is yes to all, I argue to keep, if no to any, I argue to delete, merge, transwiki, or otherwise remove as a standalone article as appropriate, no matter how well I liked the article.
It's not fair to say that those interested in a topic support all articles in it however trivial.
In my own fields of interest, I think I know enough to be able to use other arguments, and I am particularly eager to see only articles about things I consider important. Dubious faculty articles, for example, are often supported by those who can't tell that an instructor at a college is not automatically notable, but not by those who know the academic world.
But we are losing sight of the purpose of WP, which is that it is constructed for the purpose of being used as a encyclopedia, and should contain what readers might reasonably expect to find in an contemporary encyclopedia, and in particularly in this one, which includes a thorough treatment of popular culture, including the necessary infrastructure of guides and lists and categories. Given that individual songs are within the scope, a list of them by topic is also. To decide if a list is too trivial (or all inclusive) to include, whether it would be used or found interesting is relevant.
On 7/15/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/15/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Here's an hypocrisy detector: did you ever vote for deleting a list where you nonetless were intrigued by some of the items you saw listed, or for deleting an article which you nonetheless enjoyed or learned from?
-- 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
Sure. WP:INTERESTING is not a keep criterion. There's a lot of stuff which is, for example, original research. It may be interesting or informative research, it might be an inventive take on something. That doesn't mean it's alright for a Wikipedia article. There are a lot of opinion pieces I've greatly enjoyed reading throughout the years. They can be insightful and thought-provoking, but I'd certainly vote to delete any such thing that appeared on Wikipedia. That's not hypocrisy, it's keeping articles appropriate and within an encyclopedic scope. Wikipedia is not the Web, it has a limited scope as a tertiary, encyclopedic reference work based upon already-published information. There are thousands, if not millions, of other choices as to where to place interesting and informative content which isn't within Wikipedia's scope, including on a Wikia if one prefers a publicly-accessible and editable Wiki.
What is hypocrisy, on the other hand, is for some people to use IKNOWIT/ILIKEIT/INTERESTING to argue to keep articles in their area of interest, but discount such arguments when used by others in other areas. For consistency's sake, I ask the same questions every time-"Is this article expandable beyond a stub without stuffing in trivia or using unreliable or primary sources? Does this article befit an encyclopedia, rather than another one of our projects, or a personal blog or opinion site? Can this subject be written about in a neutral manner? Can this subject be written about using mainly or solely independent and reliable source material, without significant use or interpretation of primary or unreliable sources?" If the answer is yes to all, I argue to keep, if no to any, I argue to delete, merge, transwiki, or otherwise remove as a standalone article as appropriate, no matter how well I liked the article.
-- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
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 7/16/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
It's not fair to say that those interested in a topic support all articles in it however trivial.
In my own fields of interest, I think I know enough to be able to use other arguments, and I am particularly eager to see only articles about things I consider important. Dubious faculty articles, for example, are often supported by those who can't tell that an instructor at a college is not automatically notable, but not by those who know the academic world.
But we are losing sight of the purpose of WP, which is that it is constructed for the purpose of being used as a encyclopedia, and should contain what readers might reasonably expect to find in an contemporary encyclopedia, and in particularly in this one, which includes a thorough treatment of popular culture, including the necessary infrastructure of guides and lists and categories. Given that individual songs are within the scope, a list of them by topic is also. To decide if a list is too trivial (or all inclusive) to include, whether it would be used or found interesting is relevant.
I think some people have lost sight of something much more important, or failed to internalize it in the first place.
Namely that Wikipedia is *not* intended to _merely_ be an up to date version of what a "general encyclopaedia" ought to aspire to be. From the very outset, at the heart of Wikipedia has been a greater aspiration; to expand the boundaries of how people see what an encyclopaedia is. It is well written in the early framework setting documents that wikipedia should not limit itself to covering what a general encyclopaedia does, nor should it cover everything that a specialized reference work for people fervently interested in a very tight niche of knowledge might cover, at the veryl least not to the same depth of detail.
But Wikipedia is, has and should continue to be somewhere between those. More broad than a general encyclopaedia, not as detailed as specialized reference works, but encompass everything that subject oriented reference works for a general audience would cover. The metaphor for me is that we should aim to be a compendium of general reference works, not a distillation of them.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:41:22 +0300, "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen" cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Not so much a case in point, but a touchstone. Do *you* think we are better or worse than Britannica for having "List of songs about masturbation". Stand up and be counted...
No, a case in point. There is no encyclopaedic topic "songs about masturbation" because there is nothing about masturbation which has any logical connection with songs, and vice-versa (although I suppose one could stretch a point and say that, for example, Whitney Houston's "I will always love you" gives more pleasure to the performer than anybody watching). The connection is an arbitrary one, and pretty much every entry in the list was also unsupported by references, because in the end what constitutes being *about* something, rather than simply mentioning it in the lyrics somewhere? I am all for setting up a sister project, triviapedia or whatever, for collecting such examples of word association gone mad, but there's no question in my mind that a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia is not the place for them.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:41:22 +0300, "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen" cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Not so much a case in point, but a touchstone. Do *you* think we are better or worse than Britannica for having "List of songs about masturbation". Stand up and be counted...
No, a case in point. There is no encyclopaedic topic "songs about masturbation" because there is nothing about masturbation which has any logical connection with songs, and vice-versa (although I suppose one could stretch a point and say that, for example, Whitney Houston's "I will always love you" gives more pleasure to the performer than anybody watching). The connection is an arbitrary one, and pretty much every entry in the list was also unsupported by references, because in the end what constitutes being *about* something, rather than simply mentioning it in the lyrics somewhere? I am all for setting up a sister project, triviapedia or whatever, for collecting such examples of word association gone mad, but there's no question in my mind that a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia is not the place for them.
Your general point is better than the example you have chosen to illustrate it. Perhaps the list form is not the most encyclopaedic way to approach masturbatory imagery in music lyrics, but the subject itself is well studied, and inherently encyclopaedic in the wide (non-Britannica) sense.
Billy Idol's "Dancing With Myself" is the subject of not one but quite a few academic papers, reflecting on it as the iconic watershed on the evolving attitudes toward sexuality of Pop Music particularly.
It would also be almost as hard to dismiss the masturbation theme in Blues Music as a whole, as it would be to dismiss the metaphor of inebriation and wine in Islamic poetry.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:41:22 +0300, "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen" wrote:
Not so much a case in point, but a touchstone. Do *you* think we are better or worse than Britannica for having "List of songs about masturbation". Stand up and be counted...
No, a case in point. There is no encyclopaedic topic "songs about masturbation" because there is nothing about masturbation which has any logical connection with songs, and vice-versa (although I suppose one could stretch a point and say that, for example, Whitney Houston's "I will always love you" gives more pleasure to the performer than anybody watching).
There's always the version of the Eric Bogle song "Nobody's Moggy Now" where the dearly departed is in pussy heaven dreaming of masturbating mice (instead of masticating them). :-)
I am all for setting up a sister project, triviapedia or whatever, for collecting such examples of word association gone mad, but there's no question in my mind that a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia is not the place for them.
I think you are taking this issue too seriously.
Ec
The whole discussion of "is it encyclopedic" is missing the point entirely. Is an article interesting? Has it been cobbled together painstakingly, bit by bit, by a hundred different people until it's the only resource of its kind in the world? Will someone find the article hilarious, or cool? If any of these things are true, then it is *morally wrong* to just delete the article. It's like taking an oil painting and feeding it into a shredder because it's not the right *type* of oil painting. If a great article doesn't belong on wikipedia, then it should be moved somewhere else, not just deleted.
On 7/16/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:41:22 +0300, "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen" wrote:
Not so much a case in point, but a touchstone. Do *you* think we are better or worse than Britannica for having "List of songs about masturbation". Stand up and be counted...
No, a case in point. There is no encyclopaedic topic "songs about masturbation" because there is nothing about masturbation which has any logical connection with songs, and vice-versa (although I suppose one could stretch a point and say that, for example, Whitney Houston's "I will always love you" gives more pleasure to the performer than anybody watching).
There's always the version of the Eric Bogle song "Nobody's Moggy Now" where the dearly departed is in pussy heaven dreaming of masturbating mice (instead of masticating them). :-)
I am all for setting up a sister project, triviapedia or whatever, for collecting such examples of word association gone mad, but there's no question in my mind that a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia is not the place for them.
I think you are taking this issue too seriously.
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
On 7/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:41:22 +0300, "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen" cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Not so much a case in point, but a touchstone. Do *you* think we are better or worse than Britannica for having "List of songs about masturbation". Stand up and be counted...
No, a case in point. There is no encyclopaedic topic "songs about masturbation" because there is nothing about masturbation which has any logical connection with songs, and vice-versa (although I suppose one could stretch a point and say that, for example, Whitney Houston's "I will always love you" gives more pleasure to the performer than anybody watching). The connection is an arbitrary one, and pretty much every entry in the list was also unsupported by references, because in the end what constitutes being *about* something, rather than simply mentioning it in the lyrics somewhere? I am all for setting up a sister project, triviapedia or whatever, for collecting such examples of word association gone mad, but there's no question in my mind that a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia is not the place for them.
There is an immense amount of illogic in the above paragraph. Are you claiming that songs about masturbation don't exist?
Or that it's impossible to tell what "Turning Japanese" and "Blister in the Sun" are talking about?
C'mon.
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:58:33 -0400, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
There is an immense amount of illogic in the above paragraph. Are you claiming that songs about masturbation don't exist? Or that it's impossible to tell what "Turning Japanese" and "Blister in the Sun" are talking about?
Of course not. I am claiming that the mere existence of one or more songs-about-randomly-selected-thing does not confer any inherent merit on the subject of songs-about-randomly-selected-thing, and most of the songs-about-randomly-selected-thing in most of the lists are in fact songs which the editor who added them believes mention or allude to thing, at some point.
Although to be fair, I thought the only wankers in "turning Japanese" were the ones singing it...
Guy (JzG)
On 7/17/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:41:22 +0300, "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen" cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Not so much a case in point, but a touchstone. Do *you* think we are better or worse than Britannica for having "List of songs about masturbation". Stand up and be counted...
No, a case in point. There is no encyclopaedic topic "songs about masturbation" because there is nothing about masturbation which has any logical connection with songs, and vice-versa (although I suppose one could stretch a point and say that, for example, Whitney Houston's "I will always love you" gives more pleasure to the performer than anybody watching). The connection is an arbitrary one, and pretty much every entry in the list was also unsupported by references, because in the end what constitutes being *about* something, rather than simply mentioning it in the lyrics somewhere? I am all for setting up a sister project, triviapedia or whatever, for collecting such examples of word association gone mad, but there's no question in my mind that a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia is not the place for them.
There is an immense amount of illogic in the above paragraph. Are you claiming that songs about masturbation don't exist?
Or that it's impossible to tell what "Turning Japanese" and "Blister in the Sun" are talking about?
C'mon.
Actually, I've avoided thinking about the lyrics of Blister in the Sun for many years now, because it's so obvious (it's stated), and I wanted to enjoy the light pop melody without thinking about the lyrics.
This post needed a spoiler warning in the subject line.
KP
On 7/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I've avoided thinking about the lyrics of Blister in the Sun for many years now, because it's so obvious (it's stated), and I wanted to enjoy the light pop melody without thinking about the lyrics.
Actualy acording to our article on the song the author claims a different meaning.
On 7/17/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Actualy acording to our article on the song the author claims a different meaning.
One which, mind you, lacks plausibility. Beware primary sources.
—C.W.
On 7/17/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Actualy acording to our article on the song the author claims a different meaning.
Writers might claim a song is "not really about masturbation", saying that all the lyrical references to masturbation (which might range from subtle to blatant) are actually, in their minds at least, "complex metaphors for something else". That seems fair enough and generally makes sense.
On the other hand, dismissing any resemblance as coincidental is a disingenuous borderline attack on fans' intelligence.
If the writers of "I Touch Myself" made a denial similar to the one you refer to (in "Blister in the Sun"), nobody would pay them any attention, hopefully.
—C.W.
On 7/18/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/17/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Actualy acording to our article on the song the author claims a different meaning.
Writers might claim a song is "not really about masturbation", saying that all the lyrical references to masturbation (which might range from subtle to blatant) are actually, in their minds at least, "complex metaphors for something else". That seems fair enough and generally makes sense.
On the other hand, dismissing any resemblance as coincidental is a disingenuous borderline attack on fans' intelligence.
If the writers of "I Touch Myself" made a denial similar to the one you refer to (in "Blister in the Sun"), nobody would pay them any attention, hopefully.
Well given that Dave Fenton has denied rumors around "Turning Japanese" it would mean we have enough material to start "[[list of songs whos' authors deny they are about masturbation]]"
On 7/18/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
.
Well given that Dave Fenton has denied rumors around "Turning Japanese" it would mean we have enough material to start "[[list of songs whos' authors deny they are about masturbation]]"
-- geni
<tongue firmly in cheek> Well, you could add "Genie in a Bottle" by Christina Aguilera to the list, if you wanted. </tongue nominal>
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
The Afd on the List of songs about masturbation has been raised for its 7th time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_a... and one presumes last time.
I'm just shocked how a list that has been through the mills for years has just suddenly caught everybodies attention. Perhaps listcruft is the new BLP?
On 19/07/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/18/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
.
Well given that Dave Fenton has denied rumors around "Turning Japanese" it would mean we have enough material to start "[[list of songs whos' authors deny they are about masturbation]]"
-- geni
<tongue firmly in cheek> Well, you could add "Genie in a Bottle" by Christina Aguilera to the list, if you wanted. </tongue nominal>
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes, the tide has turned at afd against lists, probably without more than a few percent of WPedians being aware of it. another example of a small group of people making policy for everyone. I freely admit they are too strong for me--I no longer comment on most afds on such articles.
On 7/19/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
The Afd on the List of songs about masturbation has been raised for its 7th time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_a... and one presumes last time.
I'm just shocked how a list that has been through the mills for years has just suddenly caught everybodies attention. Perhaps listcruft is the new BLP?
On 19/07/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/18/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
.
Well given that Dave Fenton has denied rumors around "Turning Japanese" it would mean we have enough material to start "[[list of songs whos' authors deny they are about masturbation]]"
-- geni
<tongue firmly in cheek> Well, you could add "Genie in a Bottle" by Christina Aguilera to the list, if you wanted. </tongue nominal>
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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 7/21/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/19/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
The Afd on the List of songs about masturbation has been raised for its 7th time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_a... and one presumes last time.
I'm just shocked how a list that has been through the mills for years has just suddenly caught everybodies attention. Perhaps listcruft is the new BLP?
On 19/07/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/18/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
.
Well given that Dave Fenton has denied rumors around "Turning Japanese" it would mean we have enough material to start "[[list of songs whos' authors deny they are about masturbation]]"
-- geni
<tongue firmly in cheek> Well, you could add "Genie in a Bottle" by Christina Aguilera to the list, if you wanted. </tongue nominal>
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Yes, the tide has turned at afd against lists, probably without more than a few percent of WPedians being aware of it. another example of a small group of people making policy for everyone. I freely admit they are too strong for me--I no longer comment on most afds on such articles.
Then they just won. You have to stand up and be counted, or else what's next? Just make sure your voice is heard. ~~~~
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
I can't fight every issue (though it may sometimes appear I try). In working within a large organisation, one has to set priorities. In terms of changing WP practices, I know what mine are: First, requiring full honesty in biographies (rather than accord with the subject's wishes), second, retaining and sourcing content (rather than discarding it); third, fairer treatment and encouragement of new contributors (rather than deleting stubs & sending impersonal notices); fourth, expanded & upgraded coverage of traditional academic subjects. As for the several dozen other things I think important -- perhaps I can encourage some others to concentrate on them.
On 7/22/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/21/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/19/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
The Afd on the List of songs about masturbation has been raised for its 7th time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_a... and one presumes last time.
I'm just shocked how a list that has been through the mills for years has just suddenly caught everybodies attention. Perhaps listcruft is the new BLP?
On 19/07/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/18/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
.
Well given that Dave Fenton has denied rumors around "Turning Japanese" it would mean we have enough material to start "[[list of songs whos' authors deny they are about masturbation]]"
-- geni
<tongue firmly in cheek> Well, you could add "Genie in a Bottle" by Christina Aguilera to the list, if you wanted. </tongue nominal>
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Yes, the tide has turned at afd against lists, probably without more than a few percent of WPedians being aware of it. another example of a small group of people making policy for everyone. I freely admit they are too strong for me--I no longer comment on most afds on such articles.
Then they just won. You have to stand up and be counted, or else what's next? Just make sure your voice is heard. ~~~~
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
-- Absolute Power C^7rr8p£5 ab£$^u7£%y
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Yes, the tide has turned at afd against lists, probably without more than a few percent of WPedians being aware of it. another example of a small group of people making policy for everyone. I freely admit they are too strong for me--I no longer comment on most afds on such articles.
on 7/22/07 12:10 AM, Gabe Johnson at gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
Then they just won. You have to stand up and be counted, or else what's next? Just make sure your voice is heard. ~~~~
Heard by whom?
Marc Riddell
On 7/22/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Yes, the tide has turned at afd against lists, probably without more than a few percent of WPedians being aware of it. another example of a small group of people making policy for everyone. I freely admit they are too strong for me--I no longer comment on most afds on such articles.
on 7/22/07 12:10 AM, Gabe Johnson at gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
Then they just won. You have to stand up and be counted, or else what's next? Just make sure your voice is heard. ~~~~
Heard by whom?
Marc Riddell
Now that's a fine question.
KP
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:26:10 +0100, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Where's the evidence that any meaningful number of people is actually looking for a list of songs about some randomly selected subject?
Case in point: "List of songs about masturbation". I put it to you that however much paper Britannica had at its disposal, such a list would never make the cut.
So the old notion of "No sex please, we're British," lives on in Britannica.
Ec
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 13:28:44 -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
FSVO important. Important, then, in the way that the Trivia section of articles is an important part of Wikipedia. That is, important to the people who edit them. And maybe nobody else at all...
Except the readers.
"the lurkers support me by email". Where's the evidence that any meaningful number of people is actually looking for a list of songs about some randomly selected subject?
How long has the Guinness Book of Records been a best seller? Trivia contests seem to always do well. I think you're underestimating the general appetite for harmless trivia. It may be less attractive for the serious scholar, but even there it can be useful for settling factual disputes that come up over a few beers.
P.S. I'm not acquainted with the abbreviation "FSVO"
"For Some Values Of".
Thanks
Ec