David Gerard wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
In the light of the recent escalation of the Ashida Kim case on Wikipedia, I have registered on Ashida Kim's board and made the following post in the General forum as a good faith attempt to open a dialog as the first step in resolving this issue. My username is Tony Sidaway. http://p206.ezboard.com/bashidakimmessageboards.showUserPublicProfile?gid=to...
Nice one :-) If they're amenable to reasonable discussion, this should be just the thing.
Looks like he's, er, not:
=== Tony, I could care less about your policies. By your own admission my friends are not allowed to vote. In fact, they are blocked every time they even try to say something nice about me, so they game is rigged. Hiding behind pleasantries doesn't make it right. This is the same circular logic as Clinton trying to defend himself by defining "what is, is." I don't want to "open a discussion on the subject." We have already had more than enough of that waste of time on the Wiki board. I ask one thing: to be taken off your website altogether and not to be put back up when you think we aren't looking. That is the only way SOME of the slander of Bullshido will stop. I am not the Church of Scientology or any other big outfit. Just a humble guy who loves martial arts and has a lot of fun in my life studying, practicing and teaching them. Been really lucky to have written a few books and made a lot of friends along the way. Bullshido is just jealous, you are just helping them. Stop it. End of story. Ashida Kim ===
Ah well.
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
David Gerard wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
In the light of the recent escalation of the Ashida Kim case on Wikipedia, I have registered on Ashida Kim's board and made the following post in the General forum as a good faith attempt to open a dialog as the first step in resolving this issue. My username is Tony Sidaway. http://p206.ezboard.com/bashidakimmessageboards.showUserPublicProfile?gid=to...
Nice one :-) If they're amenable to reasonable discussion, this should be just the thing.
Looks like he's, er, not:
<snip abusive forum post>
Ah well.
Hmm, looks like Wikipedia is going to become the New Usenet, where people will scream blue murder if you don't write about them exactly how they want you to (if at all)...
Ha. The CoS comparison was a nice touch :)
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Alphax wrote:
Hmm, looks like Wikipedia is going to become the New Usenet, where people will scream blue murder if you don't write about them exactly how they want you to (if at all)...
Well, let's try to avoid being the New Usenet, whatever we do. :-)
I have (clumsily, I'm not a very experienced editor) renominated the page for deletion. My essential argument is that Ashida Kim is not prominent, there is no verifiable information about him (no newspaper articles, no nothing other than a bunch of message board flamewars and his own website).
I have noticed a trend in my personal correspondence recently. It seems that what Wikipedia is attracting these days is spillover flamewars from other parts of the net. Non-notable people who have rolling pissing matches all over the web end up trolling (perhaps by accident) us, in our goodnatured goodwill intention of getting it right in all cases, etc.
In many such cases, it is not clear to me why we even have an article about the person in the first place. Non-notable in the extreme, troublemaking in the extreme, these kinds of cases absorb rather a great deal of time for a lot of good people for no good purpose.
--Jimbo
I have to ask, you used the word notable a couple times in your reply but in the actual AFD entry description here you used verifiable information as a standard to judge inclusion.
Do you see notablility as a inclusion standard? Or is notability just a another way to express that something can be verified. And as such doesn't have a separate meaning (in AFD debates) to judge Wilipedia inclusion standards?
Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote: Alphax wrote:
Hmm, looks like Wikipedia is going to become the New Usenet, where people will scream blue murder if you don't write about them exactly how they want you to (if at all)...
Well, let's try to avoid being the New Usenet, whatever we do. :-)
I have (clumsily, I'm not a very experienced editor) renominated the page for deletion. My essential argument is that Ashida Kim is not prominent, there is no verifiable information about him (no newspaper articles, no nothing other than a bunch of message board flamewars and his own website).
I have noticed a trend in my personal correspondence recently. It seems that what Wikipedia is attracting these days is spillover flamewars from other parts of the net. Non-notable people who have rolling pissing matches all over the web end up trolling (perhaps by accident) us, in our goodnatured goodwill intention of getting it right in all cases, etc.
In many such cases, it is not clear to me why we even have an article about the person in the first place. Non-notable in the extreme, troublemaking in the extreme, these kinds of cases absorb rather a great deal of time for a lot of good people for no good purpose.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, Brian Haws wrote:
Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote: Alphax wrote:
Hmm, looks like Wikipedia is going to become the New Usenet, where people will scream blue murder if you don't write about them exactly how they want you to (if at all)...
Well, let's try to avoid being the New Usenet, whatever we do. :-)
I have (clumsily, I'm not a very experienced editor) renominated the page for deletion. My essential argument is that Ashida Kim is not prominent, there is no verifiable information about him (no newspaper articles, no nothing other than a bunch of message board flamewars and his own website).
I have noticed a trend in my personal correspondence recently. It seems that what Wikipedia is attracting these days is spillover flamewars from other parts of the net. Non-notable people who have rolling pissing matches all over the web end up trolling (perhaps by accident) us, in our goodnatured goodwill intention of getting it right in all cases, etc.
In many such cases, it is not clear to me why we even have an article about the person in the first place. Non-notable in the extreme, troublemaking in the extreme, these kinds of cases absorb rather a great deal of time for a lot of good people for no good purpose.
I have to ask, you used the word notable a couple times in your reply but in the actual AFD entry description here you used verifiable information as a standard to judge inclusion.
Do you see notablility as a inclusion standard? Or is notability just a another way to express that something can be verified. And as such doesn't have a separate meaning (in AFD debates) to judge Wilipedia inclusion standards?
The problem is not with using the word "non-notable": I'd dare say that most of us would agree that non-notable topics exist, & that they should be kept out of Wikipedia. The problem with the word is that too many AfD nominations consist of "non-notable; Delete" -- & little if anything else.
Jimbo has done something that I believe we can all work with: he explained *why* this person is non-notable in suitable detail that not only can another person debate the reasoning, but if the nomination carries this case could be used as a precedent & perhaps become a new guideline. (His argument is quite similar to what SlimVirgin had written about using Usenet as a source a few months back.)
Maybe the solution for nominations that consist of "non-notable; Delete" is to respond "Keep; Why?"
Geoff
This is where I speak up and put the mergist solution, which will probably surprise those who incorrectly believe me to be an inclusionist.
I've put in a proposal to merge the indisputable bibliographic information to a suitable martial arts article and redirect there. If there is more fuckwittery the redirect can be protected. The problem can be contained without compromising the verifiable information. This also addresses Jimmy's perfectly sensible remark that the flame war stuff is unverifiable, the same kind of tripe we said goodbye and good riddance to in the Edmond Wollmann case.
Usenet and web forums breed endless nonsense like this. Even a comparatively stable forum like Urban75 breeds trolls of such ferocity and such invincible stupidity that some days you feel like you'd rather stab your eyes out with a broken bottle than go to look at the history of the last 24 hours edits.
Ashida Kim may be a popular author, and we should note his books, but we don't need to host his interminable catfights.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Ashida Kim may be a popular author, and we should note his books, but we don't need to host his interminable catfights.
And if he _is_ a popular author, we ought to be able to find some evidence of it. (Finding isbn numbers in amazon for admittedly self-published books is not sufficient for me personally. There's nothing wrong with self-publishing, but if I'm interested in notability, I'd want some sort of external verification.)
--Jimbo
On Tuesday, October 4, 2005, at 02:31 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Ashida Kim may be a popular author, and we should note his books, but we don't need to host his interminable catfights.
And if he _is_ a popular author, we ought to be able to find some evidence of it. (Finding isbn numbers in amazon for admittedly self-published books is not sufficient for me personally. There's nothing wrong with self-publishing, but if I'm interested in notability, I'd want some sort of external verification.)
--Jimbo
Yeah - just remember that AfD isn't a one-time process. Often with all the mirror hits and whatnot wikipedia gets it makes it difficult for people to verify what's real and what's not (this applies to every subject, especially original research).
The Ashida Kim nomination is a good case. If someone looks at the last VfD it was nearly to keep. Now in this one it was initially all to keep, then the regulars like myself began to come in, and now as you see the deletes are starting to pile on. Probably won't result in that though - one of the things is that a lot of people don't change their vote much (I and some regulars do though), so often a subject has to be renominated a few times before there is finally a consensus on the issue, as many times it finally gets deleted mostly because the people who voted keep in the last discussion see the "new" arguments there (it would be either if they kept a close eye on the conversation though).
So, it works more or less... sometimes it just takes a few tries for either deletion or keeping :). Its not perfect though :.
Thanks, Ryan
[[User:RN]] at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RN Ryan Norton at wxforum: http://wxforum.org
So, it works more or less... sometimes it just takes a few tries for either deletion or keeping :). Its not perfect though :.
Oh yeah - and you're supposed to wait a month after the last VfD... that alone might tank this one too...
Thanks, Ryan
[[User:RN]] at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RN Ryan Norton at wxforum: http://wxforum.org
Geoff Burling wrote:
Jimbo has done something that I believe we can all work with: he explained *why* this person is non-notable in suitable detail that not only can another person debate the reasoning, but if the nomination carries this case could be used as a precedent & perhaps become a new guideline. (His argument is quite similar to what SlimVirgin had written about using Usenet as a source a few months back.)
And additionally, I should note, my presumption of non-notability could be easily defeated by pointing to an article or two in legitimate mainstream martial arts magazines. Or, as in the case of Sollog, a newspaper article or two about him being eccentric would suffice.
Maybe the solution for nominations that consist of "non-notable; Delete" is to respond "Keep; Why?"
*nod*
"Non-notable; delete" is a pretty lame vote. :-) But so is "notable; keep".
--Jimbo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jimmy Wales wrote:
"Non-notable; delete" is a pretty lame vote. :-) But so is "notable; keep".
I recently saw "D, totally NN". heh. Atleast it was lame in a funny way. :)
- -- Phroziac | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/anya2 | / \
Maybe the solution for nominations that consist of "non-notable; Delete" is to respond "Keep; Why?"
*nod*
"Non-notable; delete" is a pretty lame vote. :-) But so is "notable; keep".
--Jimbo
---- *Delete, not notable Fred Bauder 18:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC) ----
That will now be memorialized on my user page!!!!
Thanks,
Ryan
[[User:RN]] at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RN Ryan Norton at wxforum: http://wxforum.org
Brian Haws wrote:
I have to ask, you used the word notable a couple times in your reply but in the actual AFD entry description here you used verifiable information as a standard to judge inclusion.
Do you see notablility as a inclusion standard? Or is notability just a another way to express that something can be verified. And as such doesn't have a separate meaning (in AFD debates) to judge Wilipedia inclusion standards?
Yes, I very strongly think that notability is a valid inclusion standard.
And the best way to judge notability, socially, is verifiability. But even things which are verifiable can and should in many cases be deleted. It would be quite possible to start posting detailed information about private individuals by combing through online tax records. We could even have a bot to do it. And it would all be verifiable from reliable sources. But I think it clear that we would not do that because detailed information about private individuals is not notable.
And we should recognize that some social problems we have been having lately can be traced back to flamewars between non-notable people on the Internet spilling over into Wikipedia. This case is probably the best example.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Brian Haws wrote:
I have to ask, you used the word notable a couple times in your reply but in the actual AFD entry description here you used verifiable information as a standard to judge inclusion.
Do you see notablility as a inclusion standard? Or is notability just a another way to express that something can be verified. And as such doesn't have a separate meaning (in AFD debates) to judge Wilipedia inclusion standards?
Yes, I very strongly think that notability is a valid inclusion standard.
What's frightening about this statement is the tendency of some members of this community to view it as an absolute ''ex cathedra" pronouncement. In the light of your other comments on this matter, it is clear that your views are considerably more textured. Some editors frown upon texture. Idiotic as it may be, it is a fact of life that some editors will say, "Delete, not-notable," or "Keep, notable," as their entire justification for action with respect to some article.
And the best way to judge notability, socially, is verifiability. But even things which are verifiable can and should in many cases be deleted.
I'm sorry, but this sounds a little weaselly. The first sentence makes sense, but then verifiability is a relatively objective criterion that stands alone. If something is not verifiable that's it, and whether it leads to a determination of notability is moot.
Of course there are verifiable materials that should still be deleted. There are any number of perfectly acceptable criteria that allow us to do this
It would be quite possible to start posting detailed information about private individuals by combing through online tax records. We could even have a bot to do it. And it would all be
verifiable from reliable sources. But I think it clear that we would not do that because detailed information about private individuals is not notable.
Respect for privacy will handle this without regard to notability.
My primary objection to the notability criterion remains the high degree of subjectivity that goes into determining whether it applies. While notability can be a factor in some deletion decisions, it is unwise to use it as a stand-alone reason for deletion.
And we should recognize that some social problems we have been having lately can be traced back to flamewars between non-notable people on the Internet spilling over into Wikipedia. This case is probably the best example.
I am not particularly interested in the Ashida Kim matter, have not followed it, and have no intention to find out anything about it. Nevertheless if it is nothing more than flame war spillage it should certainly be treated as non-encyclopedic whether or not the participants are notable.
Ec
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Brian Haws wrote:
I have to ask, you used the word notable a couple times in your reply but in the actual AFD entry description here you used verifiable information as a standard to judge inclusion.
Do you see notablility as a inclusion standard? Or is notability just a another way to express that something can be verified. And as such doesn't have a separate meaning (in AFD debates) to judge Wilipedia inclusion standards?
Yes, I very strongly think that notability is a valid inclusion standard.
What's frightening about this statement is the tendency of some members of this community to view it as an absolute ''ex cathedra" pronouncement. In the light of your other comments on this matter, it is clear that your views are considerably more textured. Some editors frown upon texture. Idiotic as it may be, it is a fact of life that some editors will say, "Delete, not-notable," or "Keep, notable," as their entire justification for action with respect to some article.
Hence I started my RFC against such people (and I'm still waiting for some more support on it):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFC/AfD
I invite everyone who feels that people who simply say "nn, d." or "keep, notable" or "keep, we are winning" or "delete, let's get rid of all of these" are Pains in the Arse and Should Be Shot.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Hence I started my RFC against such people (and I'm still waiting for some more support on it):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFC/AfD
I invite everyone who feels that people who simply say "nn, d." or "keep, notable" or "keep, we are winning" or "delete, let's get rid of all of these" are Pains in the Arse and Should Be Shot.
"not notable" and "notable" are both quite valid because they are part of a discussion. Things like "KEEP ALL SCHOOLS" and "DELETE ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS" are much less so.
Thanks,
Ryan
[[User:RN]] at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RN Ryan Norton at wxforum: http://wxforum.org
On 10/7/05, Ryan Norton wxprojects@comcast.net wrote:
"not notable" and "notable" are both quite valid because they are part of a discussion.
Not if they're just offered without justification. You have to explain WHY you think they're notable or not notable, or you're just offering an unsupported conclusion. "Because I say so" only works for Jimbo, and even then not that well.
Kelly
On 10/7/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
Not if they're just offered without justification. You have to explain WHY you think they're notable or not notable, or you're just offering an unsupported conclusion.
I think this is a problem we'll always have with use of shorthand. Elsewhere on this mailing list today we've seen the action of informal community consensus during editing seriously mischaracterized by use of the shorthands "tag team" and "meat puppet".
The specific problem with the shorthand "not notable" is precisely that it doesn't give a single clue to the person reading it, what would constitute notability.
Also as noted earlier by a number of editors: the fact that a subject may not be notable isn't in itself a good reason for deleting the article. Nearly all AfDs for notability are prima facie merge candidates upon which nobody has as yet attempted a merge.
I wonder if we could agree to change policy to permit an administrator to "speedy redirect" a merge candidate and close an AfD where notability is the sole or principal reason given for deletion, or no reason is given. This would be a good way of ensuring that the possibility of merging articles was not unreasonably neglected. An article could always be renominated if good faith attempts to merge had failed.
On 10/7/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/7/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
Not if they're just offered without justification. You have to explain WHY you think they're notable or not notable, or you're just offering an unsupported conclusion.
I think this is a problem we'll always have with use of shorthand. Elsewhere on this mailing list today we've seen the action of informal community consensus during editing seriously mischaracterized by use of the shorthands "tag team" and "meat puppet".
The specific problem with the shorthand "not notable" is precisely that it doesn't give a single clue to the person reading it, what would constitute notability.
The problem is that we need shorthand in the first place. Issues like whether or not articles on high schools are ever deletable, and if so what factors should be taken into consideration, should be decided first. The problem with VFD is that the same questions get raised over and over and over again. That's why we need shorthand. If the issues were discussed on a higher level, then the full arguments could be laid out. Of course, if issues were discussed on a higher level it'd be a lot harder to get consensus for deletion. Most deletions would be speedy ones, although there would be room for voting/discussion over grey areas in the definitions. Erik had a proposal well over a year ago which would look something like this. In essence, a nomination would have to give a clear reason (which was already agreed upon by consensus), and the votes/discussion would be solely limited to whether or not the nominated article fit within that reason.
Also as noted earlier by a number of editors: the fact that a subject may
not be notable isn't in itself a good reason for deleting the article. Nearly all AfDs for notability are prima facie merge candidates upon which nobody has as yet attempted a merge.
Apparently you're using the term "notable" to mean "extraordinary". In that case, yes, a subject need not be extraordinary to be kept in the encyclopedia.
I wonder if we could agree to change policy to permit an administrator to
"speedy redirect" a merge candidate and close an AfD where notability is the sole or principal reason given for deletion, or no reason is given. This would be a good way of ensuring that the possibility of merging articles was not unreasonably neglected. An article could always be renominated if good faith attempts to merge had failed.
Any user is permitted to "speedy redirect" a merge candidate. Whether or not a clearly improper VFD entry can be removed is less clear, but if it can be removed then it shouldn't be only administrators that can do it.
On 10/4/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Nice one :-) If they're amenable to reasonable discussion, this should be just the thing.
Looks like he's, er, not:
Oh well, I gave it my best shot. If anyone else has some ideas?
My opinion is that this guy has legitimate privacy complaints we can and should act on, but we shouldn't expect him to thank us for it, because he wants the article gone from Wikipedia.
On 10/4/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
My opinion is that this guy has legitimate privacy complaints we can and should act on, but we shouldn't expect him to thank us for it, because he wants the article gone from Wikipedia.
Can we configure the servers so that when *he* requests the article it comes up blank, but everyone else gets the article? :)
Kelly