I haven't really edited on Wikipedia for a while, and I checked in because I wanted to add some content. But a quick perusal of my watchlist showed that the votes for deletion situation is ridiculous.
The removal of any guidelines for inclusion on vfd (including the most important one: when in doubt, don't delete) is criminal.
So is the separation of guidelines for "regular" people and for administrators.
So is the "merge and delete" attitude. Merging entries into big messes under general titles is much, much worse for the long term health of Wikipedia than having many entries with specific titles.
So is the "kill all ephemera" rampage, since presuming that we know now what will be considered ephemera 10, 20, and 1000 years from now is pathetically presumptive, especially considering there are NO SPACE LIMITATIONS on Wikipedia.
So is the obvious takeover of the VfD page by a horde of deletionists. Once upon a time one vote against deletion was enough to stop deletion. And that is all it should take.
So is, imho, the renewed assault on the sep. 11 pages, but I guess that's to be expected, since the argument "some people put so much work into carefully researching the reports on the lives of the people killed that day and creating entries for them, and we can't be bothered to do the same for other people who have been killed, so we should delete all the entries" will never die.
Again, now that we have better stub-indication technology, there should be *less* need for deletion, rather than more.
Also, if a page has been around for a year or two and been seen by a bunch of eyeballs, there's probably a reason it's there, and it probably shouldn't be deleted.
yours, tc
"The Cunctator" cunctator@kband.com writes:
So is, imho, the renewed assault on the sep. 11 pages,
Lets cut to the chase.
There is a place, somewhere out in the wilds of the internet, where glowing tributes to other-unexceptional people killed in the Sep. 11 atrocities should be. They should stand as a monument to the tragic and senseless killing of that day.
But en.wikipedia.org is not that place. Really its not. Encyclopedia's are for notable people, not just those caught up in notable events.
Perhaps we someone should set up sep11.wikipedia.org where these articles should be placed as a tribute to these people. Oh, wait, they already have.
I will have to say that without endorsing every last detail of what he said necessarily, I am firmly in agreement with Cunc on this one.
Rampant deletionism is not a good thing. There's very seldom a good reason to delete things.
Let me give an example: "Oviparous". There is absolutely nothing wrong with this article, and no excuse for it being listed on VfD. (Of course, the vote is firmly against deleting.)
"Talossan language" -- a perfectly legitimate topic
"Cory Hall" -- this one did get redirected to U. Cal Berkeley, which is absurd in my opinion. This is a well-known building, it may certainly have an article, even if the topic would not make it into 1.0. When was it built? What function does it serve? Who was the architect? What famous things happened there? All legitimate stuff.
--Jimbo
The Cunctator wrote:
I haven't really edited on Wikipedia for a while, and I checked in because I wanted to add some content. But a quick perusal of my watchlist showed that the votes for deletion situation is ridiculous.
The removal of any guidelines for inclusion on vfd (including the most important one: when in doubt, don't delete) is criminal.
So is the separation of guidelines for "regular" people and for administrators.
So is the "merge and delete" attitude. Merging entries into big messes under general titles is much, much worse for the long term health of Wikipedia than having many entries with specific titles.
So is the "kill all ephemera" rampage, since presuming that we know now what will be considered ephemera 10, 20, and 1000 years from now is pathetically presumptive, especially considering there are NO SPACE LIMITATIONS on Wikipedia.
So is the obvious takeover of the VfD page by a horde of deletionists. Once upon a time one vote against deletion was enough to stop deletion. And that is all it should take.
So is, imho, the renewed assault on the sep. 11 pages, but I guess that's to be expected, since the argument "some people put so much work into carefully researching the reports on the lives of the people killed that day and creating entries for them, and we can't be bothered to do the same for other people who have been killed, so we should delete all the entries" will never die.
Again, now that we have better stub-indication technology, there should be *less* need for deletion, rather than more.
Also, if a page has been around for a year or two and been seen by a bunch of eyeballs, there's probably a reason it's there, and it probably shouldn't be deleted.
yours, tc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com writes:
I will have to say that without endorsing every last detail of what he said necessarily, I am firmly in agreement with Cunc on this one.
I agree in principle, too. But Cunc is being disingenuous, trying defend bad and non-encyclopedic articles with warm words and fuzzy principles.
The pages he is defending on VfD with these arguments are: http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closings_and_cancellations_following_the_Septe... which is (IMHO) an OK article, but also many articles about people whose only claim to fame is that the died on 9/11.
Of these, cunc wrote (deeply speciously, I might add) "These are not tribute pages. They are encyclopedia entries. Tribute pages are "This guy is great, we love him so much." We *do* encourage people to write entries on people who died in the Holocaust, WW2, Vietnam, Iraq, Israeli terrorist attacks, Oklahoma City bombing, etc"
Firstly, I don't believe the second sentence to be true. Secondly, let me pick the first one from that list, and repeat it here in full: http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Alvarado ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- A victim of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack.
Tributes
MY FRIEND ~ANTHONY ALVARADO~ WAS 31 YEARS OF AGE. HE LIVED IN THE BRONX WITH HIS FAMILY. ANTHONY WAS WHAT YOU COULD CALL A TRUE FRIEND, A GOOD SON, FATHER AND BROTHER. HIS LIFE WAS CUT SHORT ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 BY SOME ONE WHO HAD NO RIGHT TO TAKE HIS LIFE. ANTHONY LIKE ANYONE ELSE HAD IS UPS AND DOWNS, BUT HE WAS A HARD WORKING MAN. ANTHONY HAD A CHILD TO TAKE CARE OF. BUT I KNOW THAT ANTHONY IS NOW IN A MUCH BETTER PLACE AND THAT GOD HAS HIM IN HIS SWEET EMBRACE.
ANTHONY, I NO LONGER HAVE YOU FACE TO FACE, BUT ONE THING I HAVE AND NO ONE CAN TAKE FROM ME IS THE BEAUTIFUL MEMORIES YOU LEFT BEHIND.
I'LL ALWAYS LOVE AND REMEMBER YOU
NAOMI AGUIRRE -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heres another (in full): http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_John_Keller ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph John Keller was a manager at the World Trade Center Marriott.
He was killed while working in the World Trade Center in the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And another : http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Michael_Williams ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Michael Williams was a bond salesman for Sandler O'Neill. He was engaged to Jillian Volk, to whom he proposed on the lap Macy's Santa in December 2000.
He was killed at age 24 in the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack while working on the 104th floor of the World Trade Center. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
They are not *and never will be* good encyclopedia articles, because the people they were about are no more notable than I am.
On 11/6/03 8:37 AM, "Gareth Owen" wiki@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com writes:
I will have to say that without endorsing every last detail of what he said necessarily, I am firmly in agreement with Cunc on this one.
I agree in principle, too. But Cunc is being disingenuous, trying defend bad and non-encyclopedic articles with warm words and fuzzy principles.
My words are not particularly warm and my principles are not at all fuzzy.
The pages he is defending on VfD with these arguments are: http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closings_and_cancellations_following_the_Septe... er_11%2C_2001_Terrorist_Attacks which is (IMHO) an OK article, but also many articles about people whose only claim to fame is that the died on 9/11.
Of these, cunc wrote (deeply speciously, I might add) "These are not tribute pages. They are encyclopedia entries. Tribute pages are "This guy is great, we love him so much." We *do* encourage people to write entries on people who died in the Holocaust, WW2, Vietnam, Iraq, Israeli terrorist attacks, Oklahoma City bombing, etc"
Firstly, I don't believe the second sentence to be true.
Well, I do. Not a very illuminating discussion.
Secondly, let me pick the first one from that list, and repeat it here in full: http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Alvarado
That content should be moved to sep11. But if we are to bandy about claims of disingenuousness, I would say it's disingenuous to imply that I was defending the Alvarado article out of a list of 26 entries.
Let me pick the second one from that list, and repeat it here in full: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Edward_Bowman,_Jr.
Shawn Edward Bowman, Jr. (19XX-September 11, 2001) was a computer specialist and active Eagle Scout. Born and raised in Staten Island, he worked as an information specialist in the human resources department of Cantor Fitzgerald in the World Trade Center.
He died at age 28 in the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack in the destruction of the World Trade Center.
He was survived by his then-pregnant wife Jennifer and his son, Liam (age 2). His son Jack Shawn was born January 2002.
He was an Eagle Scout in Troop 43, Staten Island. He was a member of the staff of Camp Aquehonga for 5 years. He worked in various positions, working as the Camp Services Director in 1992. In the summer of 2002, Camp Aquehonga, after raising over $15,000, rebuilt the campfire area as the Shawn E. Bowman, Jr. Ampitheatre.
Tributes and Comments
See September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Casualties.
External Links Shawn E. Bowman, Jr. Ampitheatre
---- and the third: ---- Pamela Boyce (19XX-September 11, 2001) was the assistant vice president of accounting for Carr Futures, Inc.
She died at age 43 in the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack in the destruction of the World Trade Center.
She was at work in her office on the 92nd floor of Tower One when it was struck by American Airlines Flight 11.
She was survived by her life partner of 6 1/2 years, Catherine Anello, and a sister. After Pamela's death, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Catherine remembered conversations they had about death. Pamela said, "Don't mourn my death; celebrate my life. I'm not afraid to die, because where I'm going is beautiful."
Pamela lived in Brooklyn, and was a competitive disco dancer.
Tributes and Comments ---- and the 19th: --- John Joseph Murray was the founder of Putt for Progress? and a broker in New York City. He was an honor student at Salesianum? and had outstanding character. He was an excellent athlete, playing baseball, basketball, lacrosse, hockey and golf. He was also a strong swimmer, serving as a Long Island lifeguard, often leading dangerous ocean rescues.
Following graduation from Boston College in 1990, John began a career as a broker for Cantor Fitzgerald. In 1997, he launched "Putt for Progress," a foundation devoted to raising money for scleroderma research. Following his marriage to Rory Owens, to whom he proposed while jogging across the Brooklyn Bridge, they relocated to the London offices of Cantor Fitzgerald for some time before returning to New York.
He was killed in the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack while working in the World Trade Center. He was survived by his wife, their daughter Alyson Rose, born April 2001, and his parents.
Tributes and Comments ---- and the 25th: ---- Daniel Thomas Suhr ( -September 11, 2001) was a New York City firefighter. He lived in Nesconset, NY?, and was a member of Engine Company 216 in Williamsburg?.
He was killed at age 37 in the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack. He was struck and killed by a falling body outside the south tower of the World Trade Center. Seven firefighters who otherwise would have gone into the tower, including four from his company, came to his aid. Father Mychal F. Judge delivered last rites at the scene; a popular story is that Judge was killed while delivering the last rites, but he was killed later.
Suhr was survived by his wife Nancy Suhr.
Tributes and comments
The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com writes:
Let me pick the second one from that list, and repeat it here in full: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Edward_Bowman,_Jr.
Shawn Edward Bowman, Jr. (19XX-September 11, 2001) was a computer specialist and active Eagle Scout. Born and raised in Staten Island, he worked as an information specialist in the human resources department of Cantor Fitzgerald in the World Trade Center.
He died at age 28 in the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack in the destruction of the World Trade Center.
He was survived by his then-pregnant wife Jennifer and his son, Liam (age 2). His son Jack Shawn was born January 2002.
He was an Eagle Scout in Troop 43, Staten Island. He was a member of the staff of Camp Aquehonga for 5 years. He worked in various positions, working as the Camp Services Director in 1992. In the summer of 2002, Camp Aquehonga, after raising over $15,000, rebuilt the campfire area as the Shawn E. Bowman, Jr. Ampitheatre.
Are you seriously suggesting that the late Mr. Bowman, Eagle Scout and computer specialist is a reasonable target for an article in an encyclopedia. If so, then there is such little common ground between what we think belongs in an encyclopedia, that further discussion is worthless.
I'd be intrigued to see the opinions of others.
(Maybe a new server on non-entities.wikipedia.org)
Pamela Boyce (19XX-September 11, 2001) was the assistant vice president of accounting for Carr Futures, Inc.
She died at age 43 in the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack in the destruction of the World Trade Center.
She was at work in her office on the 92nd floor of Tower One when it was struck by American Airlines Flight 11.
She was survived by her life partner of 6 1/2 years, Catherine Anello, and a sister. After Pamela's death, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Catherine remembered conversations they had about death. Pamela said, "Don't mourn my death; celebrate my life. I'm not afraid to die, because where I'm going is beautiful."
Pamela lived in Brooklyn, and was a competitive disco dancer.
Tributes and Comments
Are you seriously suggesting that the late Ms. Boyce, disco dancer, and devoted partner to Catherine, is a reasonable target for an article in an encyclopedia. If so, then there is such little common ground between what we think belongs in an encyclopedia, that further discussion is worthless.
John Joseph Murray was the founder of Putt for Progress? and a broker in New York City. He was an honor student at Salesianum? and had outstanding character. He was an excellent athlete, playing baseball, basketball, lacrosse, hockey and golf. He was also a strong swimmer, serving as a Long Island lifeguard, often leading dangerous ocean rescues.
Following graduation from Boston College in 1990, John began a career as a broker for Cantor Fitzgerald. In 1997, he launched "Putt for Progress," a foundation devoted to raising money for scleroderma research. Following his marriage to Rory Owens, to whom he proposed while jogging across the Brooklyn Bridge, they relocated to the London offices of Cantor Fitzgerald for some time before returning to New York.
He was killed in the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack while working in the World Trade Center. He was survived by his wife, their daughter Alyson Rose, born April 2001, and his parents.
Are you seriously suggesting that the late Mr. Murray, amateur athlete and golfing charity worker, is a reasonable target for an article in an encyclopedia. If so, then there is such little common ground between what we think belongs in an encyclopedia, that further discussion is worthless.
If they hadn't died on 9/11, would you still support their inclusion. How about this non-entity:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Sprigg was born October 1972 in Sandbach, Cheshire, to Scot's parents. An attentive student he passed 10 GCSE Exams and 6 A-Levels before obtaining a double-first from St. Johns College, Oxford. After working briefly in market research, he returned to studies, gaining a PhD in wave scattering theory from the University of Manchester, and going on to work in ocean circulation theory at their School of Oceanography. He married Jane Sprigg, who he met at the local folk music club, and proposed to at an Emmylou Harris concert.
In his spare time, he was a keen marathon runner and rugby union referee.
Sprigg was killed by on September 11, 2001, when he was hit by a number 37 bus in Didsbury. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gareth Owen wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that the late Mr. Bowman, Eagle Scout and computer specialist is a reasonable target for an article in an encyclopedia.
In wikipedia, I would say 'yes, unquestionably, absolutely'. Wiki Is Not Paper. In wikipedia 1.0 for print/dvd, etc., then we will face constraints that we don't face on wikipedia proper.
I wouldn't have much interest in working on such an article, but I see absolutely no problem with it.
If so, then there is such little common ground between what we think belongs in an encyclopedia, that further discussion is worthless. I'd be intrigued to see the opinions of others.
O.k., there's mine. :-) But I hope that further discussion is not really worthless.
--Jimbo
On 11/6/03 11:22 AM, "Gareth Owen" wiki@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
If they hadn't died on 9/11, would you still support their inclusion. How about this non-entity:
Jim Sprigg was born October 1972 in Sandbach, Cheshire, to Scot's parents. An attentive student he passed 10 GCSE Exams and 6 A-Levels before obtaining a double-first from St. Johns College, Oxford. After working briefly in market research, he returned to studies, gaining a PhD in wave scattering theory from the University of Manchester, and going on to work in ocean circulation theory at their School of Oceanography. He married Jane Sprigg, who he met at the local folk music club, and proposed to at an Emmylou Harris concert.
In his spare time, he was a keen marathon runner and rugby union referee.
Sprigg was killed by on September 11, 2001, when he was hit by a number 37 bus in Didsbury.
Where's your reference?
On 11/6/03 11:22 AM, "Gareth Owen" wiki@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com writes:
Are you seriously suggesting that the late Mr. Bowman, Eagle Scout and computer specialist is a reasonable target for an article in an encyclopedia. If so, then there is such little common ground between what we think belongs in an encyclopedia, that further discussion is worthless.
The great thing about Wikipedia is that you can IGNORE the entry.
It causes you no harm and kills no trees.
Moreover, there is now a permanent memorial to this "nonentity". 100 years from now people may come to Wikipedia wondering who the ampitheatre is named for.
I'd be intrigued to see the opinions of others.
(Maybe a new server on non-entities.wikipedia.org)
Are you seriously suggesting that the late Ms. Boyce, disco dancer, and devoted partner to Catherine, is a reasonable target for an article in an encyclopedia. If so, then there is such little common ground between what we think belongs in an encyclopedia, that further discussion is worthless.
There is strong interest, and will likely continue to be for generations, in the gay victims of September 11. Their deaths and the succeeding lives of their partners--treated very differently from the heterosexual partners of victims-- are political issues with broad repercussions.
Are you seriously suggesting that the late Mr. Murray, amateur athlete and golfing charity worker, is a reasonable target for an article in an encyclopedia. If so, then there is such little common ground between what we think belongs in an encyclopedia, that further discussion is worthless.
Funny, how in your one line description of Mr. Murray, "founder of a sclerodema charity" became "golfing charity worker". I guess Jimbo Wales is a "volunteer website contributor". Not very interesting. And George Bush is a "federal employee".
I mean, can't you at least concede that at least John Joseph Murray did something "important"?
The entry needs editing for style, but it's not an unreasonable subject, even without the September 11 connection.
The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com writes:
I guess Jimbo Wales is a "volunteer website contributor".
Yes, I'd say thats exactly what Jimbo Wales is.
I mean, can't you at least concede that at least John Joseph Murray did something "important"?
In the sense of "important enough to be included in an encyclopedia." Not really, no.
Now tell me, would you push for his inclusion if he'd survived 9/11? (bear in mind that this would've enabled him to do *more* golf-based charitable work)
Gareth Owen wrote:
Now tell me, would you push for his inclusion if he'd survived 9/11?
But if the answer is "no" what does that prove? He *didn't* survive 9/11, and that's what makes him sufficiently noteworthy for someone to have bothered to write the entry in the first place. That's why he's there, right?
I mean, I don't understand the point of the hypothetical. You might as well ask "Would you push for having an article about Hitler if he had remained an obscure and failed artist?" Well, no, I suppose we wouldn't, but, uh, he didn't stay an artist, so he's apparently of enough interest for someone to bother writing an article about him.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com writes:
Gareth Owen wrote:
Now tell me, would you push for his inclusion if he'd survived 9/11?
But if the answer is "no" what does that prove?
Well, it pretty much proves that his only real claim to fame is the fact he died on 9/11. And it proves the only reason that Cunc is pushing for his non-deletion is because he has a bee in his bonnet -- and has had for the best part of the last 2 years -- about trying to make wikipedia.org a monument to 9/11. Its not, or at least it shouldn't be.
He *didn't* survive 9/11, and that's what makes him sufficiently noteworthy for someone to have bothered to write the entry in the first place.
Does dying in 9/11 make you noteworthy. I don't think so. Tragic, maybe. Deserving of sympathy, certainly. Noteworthy? No, thats not a word I'd care to use.
Does dying at Ypres make you noteworthy? Does dying in the Hundred Years War make you noteworthy? Does dying in Auschwitz make you noteworthy? Does dying in the 1918-1919 inflenza epidemic make you noteworthy? Does dying of industrial related illnesses due to management incompetence in Welsh coal mines make you noteworthy? [0]
No, no, no and no. All very tragic events -- and most of them of more long-term significance than 9/11[1] -- but being caught up in a noteworthy event doesn't make you noteworthy.
I mean, I don't understand the point of the hypothetical. You might as well ask "Would you push for having an article about Hitler if he had remained an obscure and failed artist?"
But what Hitler went on to do changed the world. Thats why his article doesn't begin "Adolf Hitler, failed painter". Hitler has something else
What the 9/11 victims went on to do is -- through not fault of their own -- nothing.
If we indiscriminately include 9/11 victims by virtue of their being 9/11 victims, then we might as well start including people whose sole claim to fame is that they're failed painters.
(Daniel C. Boyer, at least will be buoyed by this news).
I'm interested in hearing about just *why* you think such articles "have no place on Wikipedia". What's the harm? How does it negatively impact us?
It make us look like we can't distinguish people of note, and can't determine what it means to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
And because, basically, they're just post mortem vanity pages.
[0] Please say yes, I feel like my grandfather needs a write up. Please say no, I'd just like to see the reasons.
[1] (The WTC collapse killed 2,792 people in one day. The 1919 inflenza killed 22 million people in 18 months, or equivalent to 10-15 9/11s, every day)
Gareth Owen wrote:
Well, it pretty much proves that his only real claim to fame is the fact he died on 9/11.
Which in turn means that he does, in fact, have a claim to fame, and should be included, right?
And it proves the only reason that Cunc is pushing for his non-deletion is because he has a bee in his bonnet -- and has had for the best part of the last 2 years -- about trying to make wikipedia.org a monument to 9/11. Its not, or at least it shouldn't be.
Well, I understand where you're coming from here, although I think that's a bit unfair to Cunc. We started sep11.wikipedia.org in an effort to resolve the problem of 'memorials' instead of article. And Cunc was basically supportive of that idea, as I recall.
Does dying at Ypres make you noteworthy? Does dying in the Hundred Years War make you noteworthy? Does dying in Auschwitz make you noteworthy? Does dying in the 1918-1919 inflenza epidemic make you noteworthy? Does dying of industrial related illnesses due to management incompetence in Welsh coal mines make you noteworthy? [0]
My answer to all of these would hinge on confirmability by other contributors. I personally find the history of ordinary people quite interesting, particularly if placed in the context of a time.
[0] Please say yes, I feel like my grandfather needs a write up. Please say no, I'd just like to see the reasons.
Are there newspaper articles about your grandfather? Anything that we could easily verify?
[1] (The WTC collapse killed 2,792 people in one day. The 1919 inflenza killed 22 million people in 18 months, or equivalent to 10-15 9/11s, every day)
*nod* But if your point is that we can't have articles about all those people, I'd say that we're arguing then about a non-existent problem, because no one is trying to add those articles, are they?
Think along the lines of Studs Terkel's _Hard Times_, a book about ordinary people during the great depression, oral histories. The people in the book are, arguably, not noteworthy. But reading about them is valuable because they took part in an important time and event (the U.S. Great Depression of the 1930s).
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com writes:
Which in turn means that he does, in fact, have a claim to fame, and should be included, right?
No more than everyone else who has ever died during any other notable event. And I happen to think that thats not a very good claim to fame. Sorry.
I personally find the history of ordinary people quite interesting, particularly if placed in the context of a time.
So do I. But wikipedia.org is *not* a place for new research, and that applies to new research in social history. There is certainly *a* place for research of this kind.
But ... the way to tell these peoples stories in an encyclopedia is not with a lot of articles about individual people, but a considered, well researched article about conditions on the whole.
Are there newspaper articles about your grandfather?
No. I guess he was too ordinary.
[1] (The WTC collapse killed 2,792 people in one day. The 1919 inflenza killed 22 million people in 18 months, or equivalent to 10-15 9/11s, every day)
But if your point is that we can't have articles about all those people
Its not. Its that this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Flu (or, rather an improved one much like) is the way to deal with the social history of that epidemic, much as these articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_Terrorist_Attacks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_Terrorist_Attack/Memorials... are the way to deal with the socio-historical facets of 9/11
Think along the lines of Studs Terkel's _Hard Times_, a book about ordinary people during the great depression, oral histories.
Or Lawrence Ritter's "The Glory Of Their Times". They're both great books.
Neither of them happen to be encyclopedias.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Gareth Owen wrote:
Now tell me, would you push for his inclusion if he'd survived 9/11?
But if the answer is "no" what does that prove? He *didn't* survive 9/11, and that's what makes him sufficiently noteworthy for someone to have bothered to write the entry in the first place. That's why he's there, right?
I mean, I don't understand the point of the hypothetical. You might as well ask "Would you push for having an article about Hitler if he had remained an obscure and failed artist?" Well, no, I suppose we wouldn't, but, uh, he didn't stay an artist, so he's apparently of enough interest for someone to bother writing an article about him.
My point about this is that there are plenty of people who have died in noteworthy events. In fact, there are literally millions of them. I strongly oppose one-sentence stub entires reading: "Blah blah was an eagle scout who died in the Sep. 11 attacks." "Blah blah was a plumber who died in the Holocaust." "Blah blah was a shoe salesman who died in WW2." "Blah blah was a computer programmer who died in the Vietnam war." "Blah blah was a farmer who died in the Khmer Rouge genocide."
There is plenty of verifiable material to import literally millions of such stubs. There's WW2 combat casualty information available from the US government, for one.
If we have all these articles though, Wikipedia will be a joke.
-Mark
On 11/6/03 2:14 PM, "Delirium" delirium@rufus.d2g.com wrote:
My point about this is that there are plenty of people who have died in noteworthy events. In fact, there are literally millions of them. I strongly oppose one-sentence stub entires reading: "Blah blah was an eagle scout who died in the Sep. 11 attacks." "Blah blah was a plumber who died in the Holocaust." "Blah blah was a shoe salesman who died in WW2." "Blah blah was a computer programmer who died in the Vietnam war." "Blah blah was a farmer who died in the Khmer Rouge genocide."
There is plenty of verifiable material to import literally millions of such stubs. There's WW2 combat casualty information available from the US government, for one.
If we have all these articles though, Wikipedia will be a joke.
Practically none of the sept. 11 entries are one liners. (The only ones which do exist have had most of their content moved to the sep11 wiki because the existing content was subjective--the continued existence of the entries preserves the edit history.) Those should be considered with a grain of salt (though the preservation of the edit history should be considered as a factor). But there are a lot of straw man arguments being used here.
Noone is recommending importing millions of stubs.
Noone is recommending importing thousands of stubs.
Every september 11-related entry was created by hand and individually added.
On 11/6/03 11:46 AM, "Gareth Owen" wiki@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com writes:
I guess Jimbo Wales is a "volunteer website contributor".
Yes, I'd say thats exactly what Jimbo Wales is.
I'd say he's the "founder of Wikipedia, the largest copylefted reference in the world."
I mean, can't you at least concede that at least John Joseph Murray did something "important"?
In the sense of "important enough to be included in an encyclopedia." Not really, no.
Now tell me, would you push for his inclusion if he'd survived 9/11? (bear in mind that this would've enabled him to do *more* golf-based charitable work)
If someone had bothered to write newspaper articles about him, and someone else had added the entry to Wikipedia, then yes. I've created at least one equivalent entry (with no Sep-11 connection) before.
I probably wouldn't have bothered to add the entry unless I knew the guy.
My opinion is the same as yours. Such articles have no place on Wikipedia.
RickK
Gareth Owen wiki@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that the late Mr. Bowman, Eagle Scout and computer specialist is a reasonable target for an article in an encyclopedia. If so, then there is such little common ground between what we think belongs in an encyclopedia, that further discussion is worthless.
I'd be intrigued to see the opinions of others.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
Rick wrote:
My opinion is the same as yours. Such articles have no place on Wikipedia.
Is your opinion the same as Gareth's that further discussion is worthless? I hope not, and I hope he'll change his mind about that, too.
I'm interested in hearing about just *why* you think such articles "have no place on Wikipedia". What's the harm? How does it negatively impact us?
I think the benefits are easily identifiable -- these are topics that are of ongoing interest to people, they have historical relevance in the long run, wiki is not paper so they don't hurt anything, and so on.
But the costs are harder for me to identify. These aren't appearing on the front page. They will only been seen by people who are looking for them. Given the mechanics of VfD, it's a lot more work to delete them than to just ignore them or (better) throw in a couple more lines to improve them.
--Jimbo
Well, if people feel that there is a space for Wikipedia in these devotionals, and others that there is not, there is no middle ground, and therefore what is there to discuss?
Why shouldn't they be in the encyclopedia? Because they make Wikipedia look bad. People look at these articles and say, "How can they claim to be a serious encyclopedia when they have articles about how someone is beloved by their dog?"
RickK
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote: Rick wrote:
My opinion is the same as yours. Such articles have no place on Wikipedia.
Is your opinion the same as Gareth's that further discussion is worthless? I hope not, and I hope he'll change his mind about that, too.
I'm interested in hearing about just *why* you think such articles "have no place on Wikipedia". What's the harm? How does it negatively impact us?
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
This is from Daniel Quinlan (quinlan@pathname.com), not me. ----------------------------------------------------
Before I make a few comments, this should be discussed on the talk page. I don't subscribe to the lists because I already get too much email and I'd rather work on articles and help try to make Wikipedia valuable (which also includes collaborative editing work on VfD and other pages outside of the article space).
Deletion is a tool like any other. I don't believe anyone who has voted on VfD to "delete" an article has proposed that *any* bad article be deleted. A few people vote to keep articles nearly 100% of the time, but since there aren't too many in comparison to everyone else, the strategy seems to be to push to end deletion. I suspect they equate deletion with censorship or believe that all information is worthwhile, but before I go too deeply into anti-deletionism, I'd rather talk about why deletion is a valuable tool.
Let's talk about bad articles. In evolution, maybe we'd call them unfit individuals. For any Wikipedia article, there are two basic attributes that make it: (1) the title and (2) the content.
How do we improve bad articles?
1. we rewrite them (original content becomes history) 2. we redirect them (original title becomes secondary) 3. we delete them (both title and content are destroyed)
I'd hate to see one of our most basic tools removed.
Using redirection instead of deletion can never fix a POV title, a vandalism title, etc. When someone creates 17 redirects to their own personal article and makes it impossible to find someone with a similar name, redirection can't fix that either. Deletion takes bad articles off of the radar of search engines and that's a good thing. And yes, it destroys really bad content too and that's a good thing.
I suspect much of the growing distress of some people over deletion is that as Wikipedia grows, the frequency with which new articles need to be deleted may be increasing, but I don't stress about it. No medium is perfect. There are more people on the internet, more people finding Wikipedia, and making contributions, etc. That has really helped improve Wikipedia and if it side-effect is that more vandals and non-helpful people find us, I think we've dealt with it pretty well.
Deletion also exerts a lot of evolutionary pressure on editors. If you write a really inappropriate unencyclopedic article (like "politician So-and-so is evil"), it might be deleted. A lot of horrible articles are rewritten regularly and removed from VfD because there's pressure to delete them. That's good just like having polar bears eat cute baby seals is good. If the content is worthwhile it will come back and it can still be easily undeleted (actually, much more easily than it can be deleted, I helped write both guidelines). Of course, vandals generally don't ask to have their articles undeleted. :-)
- Daniel
P.S. Please feel free to help with my redirect fix-up project:
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump#Fixing_broken_links_w...
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_Quinlan/redirects
________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk
Trying to enter this conversation is like hopping on a merry go round ... spinning at 1000 km/hr.
First off, we should stop using the label "deletionists" as it maligns and inaccurately portrays what folks are genuinely are doing in good faith -- seeking better editorial quality and to further trust in Wikipedia. It's no more fair than calling people abortionists or supporters of euthanasia "suicidists." Lets find another label.
Second, people are demonizing VfD and the process when the alternative is far worse - deletion wars, having to dig back into ost edit histories, resurrecting conversations, etc.
VfD clarifies -- it tries to quantify and clarify the will of the community. It provides a firm deadline, which humans respond to. It provides a unified forum for discussion on the entire range of topics in Wikipedia (and by extension, humankind). It is pointed to by boilerplate text added to articles, which shows up in peoples' Watchlists. The signal to noise ratio is quite good -- obvious deletes get deleted, and obvious keeps get kept.
It's one of the few places where one can feel "in touch" with the pulse of what happens in Wikipedia. It's the last stop between quality and chaos. This is especially true for folks who believe in Wikipedia as a place with quality editorial content and worthy of reader trust, and not as an attic for all things under the sky.
So I would argue "Wiki is not paper" is not a good enough to justify the tremendous reach of adding all victims of all tragedies in the history of the universe. Yes, being paper-based limits what to put in a paper encyclopedia. But what's more important to the editors of those encyclopedias is good judgment, fostering trust between the publisher and reader, and the pursuit of "the truth."
-Fuzheado
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rick Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 10:43 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rampant Deletionism
Well, if people feel that there is a space for Wikipedia in these devotionals, and others that there is not, there is no middle ground, and therefore what is there to discuss?
Why shouldn't they be in the encyclopedia? Because they make Wikipedia look bad. People look at these articles and say, "How can they claim to be a serious encyclopedia when they have articles about how someone is beloved by their dog?"
RickK
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Rick wrote:
My opinion is the same as yours. Such articles have no place on Wikipedia.
Is your opinion the same as Gareth's that further discussion is worthless? I hope not, and I hope he'll change his mind about that, too.
I'm interested in hearing about just *why* you think such articles "have no place on Wikipedia". What's the harm? How does it negatively impact us?
_____
Do you Yahoo!? Protect http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
Rick wrote:
Well, if people feel that there is a space for Wikipedia in these devotionals, and others that there is not, there is no middle ground, and therefore what is there to discuss?
Well, for example, the discussion might clarify for you that no one is advocating that _devotionals_ be included.
Why shouldn't they be in the encyclopedia? Because they make Wikipedia look bad. People look at these articles and say, "How can they claim to be a serious encyclopedia when they have articles about how someone is beloved by their dog?"
Is this a specific reference, or a straw man?
--Jimbo
STOP CALLING ANY ARGUMENTS THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH STRAW MEN!!!!
RICKK
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote: Rick wrote:
Well, if people feel that there is a space for Wikipedia in these devotionals, and others that there is not, there is no middle ground, and therefore what is there to discuss?
Well, for example, the discussion might clarify for you that no one is advocating that _devotionals_ be included.
Why shouldn't they be in the encyclopedia? Because they make Wikipedia look bad. People look at these articles and say, "How can they claim to be a serious encyclopedia when they have articles about how someone is beloved by their dog?"
Is this a specific reference, or a straw man?
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
On 6 Nov 2003, Gareth Owen wrote:
The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com writes:
Let me pick the second one from that list, and repeat it here in full: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Edward_Bowman,_Jr.
Shawn Edward Bowman, Jr. (19XX-September 11, 2001) was a computer specialist and active Eagle Scout. Born and raised in Staten Island, he worked as an information specialist in the human resources department of Cantor Fitzgerald in the World Trade Center.
He died at age 28 in the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack in the destruction of the World Trade Center.
He was survived by his then-pregnant wife Jennifer and his son, Liam (age 2). His son Jack Shawn was born January 2002.
He was an Eagle Scout in Troop 43, Staten Island. He was a member of the staff of Camp Aquehonga for 5 years. He worked in various positions, working as the Camp Services Director in 1992. In the summer of 2002, Camp Aquehonga, after raising over $15,000, rebuilt the campfire area as the Shawn E. Bowman, Jr. Ampitheatre.
Are you seriously suggesting that the late Mr. Bowman, Eagle Scout and computer specialist is a reasonable target for an article in an encyclopedia. If so, then there is such little common ground between what we think belongs in an encyclopedia, that further discussion is worthless.
I'd be intrigued to see the opinions of others.
I'm puzzled about this entire discussion. I thought that this collection of biographies of all of the 9/11 victims was one of the jewells in the crown of Wikipedia?
Geoff
On 11/6/03 2:04 PM, "Geoff Burling" llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
I'm puzzled about this entire discussion. I thought that this collection of biographies of all of the 9/11 victims was one of the jewells in the crown of Wikipedia?
The September 11 pages led to a huge surge in traffic and participation in Wikipedia, and for a long time were the top portals to the site. I'm not sure where they stand now.
I included Talossan language on VfD because the article, as written, was nonsense. It has since been modified to make it a legitimate topic. VfD frequently serves such a useful purpose. Putting the title on "Articles needing attention" is useless, because nothing EVER gets fixed that's on that page.
RickK
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote: I"Talossan language" -- a perfectly legitimate topic
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
Rick wrote:
I included Talossan language on VfD because the article, as written, was nonsense. It has since been modified to make it a legitimate topic. VfD frequently serves such a useful purpose. Putting the title on "Articles needing attention" is useless, because nothing EVER gets fixed that's on that page.
Well, that's a valid concern, but perhaps this merely suggests that we should, as a community, strongly de-emphasize the VfD page, strongly de-emphasize deletions, and instead hang out on "Articles needing attention".
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Rick wrote:
I included Talossan language on VfD because the article, as written, was nonsense. It has since been modified to make it a legitimate topic. VfD frequently serves such a useful purpose. Putting the title on "Articles needing attention" is useless, because nothing EVER gets fixed that's on that page.
Well, that's a valid concern, but perhaps this merely suggests that we should, as a community, strongly de-emphasize the VfD page, strongly de-emphasize deletions, and instead hang out on "Articles needing attention".
I agree. Wikipedia must be well carpeted, if we judge it by the opportunites that we have for people to sweep things under them :-)
This line of inquiry begs the question, "How do we make 'Articles needing attention' more functional?" That list does just keep getting longer. Also if I follow a link from there, I'm often left wondering whether it has already been fixed, or maybe it shouldn't have been on that list in the first place. Encouraging people to go there and take time to actually deal with an article of their choice could bring the length of the list down. We perhaps need to update the page that advises newbies about what they can do to contribute so that they can easily go to "Articles needing attention"
Ec
Nonsense and nonsense.
"Takeover"? If you have valid arguments against the deletion, then please present them. But to just avoid the issue and make ad hominem attacks is not productive. Please go to VfD and detail, point by point, on each article listed, why they should not be deleted, and if your arguments are other than, "We shouldn't delete anything", then your arguments will be taken into account. But those of us who DO frequent VfD, and feel it's useful, do not delete things just for the sake of deletion. There are too many articles on the Wikipedia that need to be deleted, unless someone (perhaps you?) wants to take the time to make all of the useless articles useful by writing meaningful content.
As for the one vote means don't delete, that's more than ridiculous, that's the dictatorship of the minority. And there were, and still are, several users who create accounts solely for the purpose of voting no on any and all items listed on VfD.
RickK
The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com wrote: So is the obvious takeover of the VfD page by a horde of deletionists. Once upon a time one vote against deletion was enough to stop deletion. And that is all it should take.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
Rick wrote:
There are too many articles on the Wikipedia that need to be deleted, unless someone (perhaps you?) wants to take the time to make all of the useless articles useful by writing meaningful content.
There is no reason for a rule which says that all articles have to be either useful or deleted, which is what you're implying. Take for example "Talossan language" which you listed on VfD.
This article is a stub, and I guess you're saying that it should be either improved right away or deleted.
I think that's mistaken. The most important thing to remember is that if left there, it *doesn't hurt anything*. And since, as it turns out, this is a known topic that several other people have heard about, there's a fair change that someone will stumble on the article at some point and find it useful, even if it stays just the way it is.
--Jimbo
I have no problem with the article as it currently exists. At the time that I listed it on VfD, it basically said that it was the language of a nonexistant place created by somebody who the writer said might have been Canadian. The author himself (or herself) didn't even know who created the language, so why put in speculation? There was no mention at the time that it was a conlang, there was no mention that it was anything other than somebody's made up language for a made up place. VfD has served a useful purpose, by pointing out that this article needed work, something that would not have happened if it was listed on "Articles needing attention".
RickK
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote: Rick wrote:
There are too many articles on the Wikipedia that need to be deleted, unless someone (perhaps you?) wants to take the time to make all of the useless articles useful by writing meaningful content.
There is no reason for a rule which says that all articles have to be either useful or deleted, which is what you're implying. Take for example "Talossan language" which you listed on VfD.
This article is a stub, and I guess you're saying that it should be either improved right away or deleted.
I think that's mistaken. The most important thing to remember is that if left there, it *doesn't hurt anything*. And since, as it turns out, this is a known topic that several other people have heard about, there's a fair change that someone will stumble on the article at some point and find it useful, even if it stays just the way it is.
--Jimbo
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
The Cunctator wrote:
So is, imho, the renewed assault on the sep. 11 pages, but I guess that's to be expected, since the argument "some people put so much work into carefully researching the reports on the lives of the people killed that day and creating entries for them, and we can't be bothered to do the same for other people who have been killed, so we should delete all the entries" will never die.
That doesn't make any sense. I *can* be bothered to do the work, but I purposely choose not to, because it's not appropriate to Wikipedia. I could mass-import stubs on Oklahoma City deaths, or WW2 soldier deaths, or Iraq soldier deaths, or hell, my grandfather's death, but none of these are appropriate.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
That doesn't make any sense. I *can* be bothered to do the work, but I purposely choose not to, because it's not appropriate to Wikipedia. I could mass-import stubs on Oklahoma City deaths, or WW2 soldier deaths, or Iraq soldier deaths,
Let's do remember, though, that mass-importing raises a lot of additional issues that are relevant here.
One of the checks and balances against triviality is "can it be confirmed?" Another important one is "has anyone bothered to write about it?" Mass-imports defeat this latter check, and so are subject to a higher degree of scrutiny than hand-edited entries.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
One of the checks and balances against triviality is "can it be confirmed?" Another important one is "has anyone bothered to write about it?" Mass-imports defeat this latter check, and so are subject to a higher degree of scrutiny than hand-edited entries.
I don't think the latter one's really relevant in this case: the only reason the sep11 entries have drawn more work than the ww2 victims is that Wikipedia did not exist during ww2. If it did, it's quite likely everyone would've been adding entries as the body bags of their friends came in.
-Mark
Let's do remember, though, that mass-importing raises a lot of additional issues that are relevant here.
One of the checks and balances against triviality is "can it be confirmed?" Another important one is "has anyone bothered to write about it?" Mass-imports defeat this latter check, and so are subject to a higher degree of scrutiny than hand-edited entries.
--Jimbo
That is the essence of what is wrong with the Rambot census junk
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
That is the essence of what is wrong with the Rambot census junk
Yes, well, the ongoing complaints about those articles (which I happen to like) certainly proves that mass-adds do shortcircuit a certain check against trivia that we need to be careful about.
I happen to like those articles very much, but your point is still valid.
--Jimbo
I stronly object to that information as junk. It is extremely useful, and deserves to be in the Wikipedia, just as much as information about any other location in the world.
RickK, the one that's being attacked as a deletionist
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Let's do remember, though, that mass-importing raises a lot of additional issues that are relevant here.
One of the checks and balances against triviality is "can it be confirmed?" Another important one is "has anyone bothered to write about it?" Mass-imports defeat this latter check, and so are subject to a higher degree of scrutiny than hand-edited entries.
--Jimbo
That is the essence of what is wrong with the Rambot census junk
Fred
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
Rick wrote:
I stronly object to that information as junk. It is extremely useful, and
deserves to be in the Wikipedia, just as much as information about any other location in the world.
Indeed, it's an extremely important base to work from. Though I wouldn't mind an option for Random Page to skip it.
-- Jake
Jake Nelson wrote:
Rick wrote:
I stronly object to that information as junk. It is extremely useful, and
deserves to be in the Wikipedia, just as much as information about any other location in the world.
Indeed, it's an extremely important base to work from. Though I wouldn't mind an option for Random Page to skip it.
I suppose that such an option wouldn't hurt anything.
I do support keeping these pages, and I'm clearly not alone in that view. Nevertheless, they are constantly mentioned by some of the deletionists as things that should go. That alone makes us inclusionists uncomfortable and suspicious about the other side's motives.
Ec
From: Ray Saintonge Jake Nelson wrote:
Rick wrote:
I stronly object to that information as junk. It is extremely
useful,
and
deserves to be in the Wikipedia, just as much as information about
any
other
location in the world.
Indeed, it's an extremely important base to work from. Though I
wouldn't
mind an option for Random Page to skip it.
I suppose that such an option wouldn't hurt anything.
I do support keeping these pages, and I'm clearly not alone in that view. Nevertheless, they are constantly mentioned by some of the deletionists as things that should go. That alone makes us inclusionists uncomfortable and suspicious about the other side's
motives.
I've expressed my dissatisfaction with the Rambot pages in the past and suggested methods of dealing with such auto-added content. Just as proponents of deletionism aren't monolithic zealots, neither are proponents of inclusionism.
Rick wrote:
I stronly object to that information as junk. It is extremely useful, and deserves to be in the Wikipedia, just as much as information about any other location in the world.
Yes, I agree. For the purposes of narrowing this discussion and clarifying where everyone stands, I think we should acknowledge that nearly everyone (and I almost wrote 'everyone') agrees that whatever the standards for robot-entries ought to be, it's a different matter than hand-entries. Robot entries need to be held to a higher standard than hand-entries.
--Jimbo
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
That is the essence of what is wrong with the Rambot census junk
What? Rambot, the crown jewel on the head of the wiki -- actually coming under scrutiny for belying the Wikispirit? Golly, could it be that I actually had a point in challenging the Israbot's stats too?
~S~ By golly.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
That is the essence of what is wrong with the Rambot census junk
What? Rambot, the crown jewel on the head of the wiki -- actually coming under scrutiny for belying the Wikispirit? Golly, could it be that I actually had a point in challenging the Israbot's stats too?
~S~ By golly.
It was generally agreed by everyone who responded to this post except for you that Rambot's stuff was very good.
Fred
From: Fred Bauder
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
That is the essence of what is wrong with the Rambot census junk
What? Rambot, the crown jewel on the head of the wiki -- actually coming under scrutiny for belying the Wikispirit? Golly, could it be that I actually had a point in challenging the Israbot's stats too?
~S~ By golly.
It was generally agreed by everyone who responded to this post except
for
you that Rambot's stuff was very good.
That's not true. I stated my dislike of Rambot.
I wrote:
WW2 soldier deaths
In the spirit of concrete examples, does anyone have objections to the automated importing of verifiable stubs (ranging from one sentence to 5 sentences) on the following 160,000 people?
http://www.accessgenealogy.com/worldwar/
-Mark
On 11/6/03 2:21 PM, "Delirium" delirium@rufus.d2g.com wrote:
I wrote:
WW2 soldier deaths
In the spirit of concrete examples, does anyone have objections to the automated importing of verifiable stubs (ranging from one sentence to 5 sentences) on the following 160,000 people?
I do.
Noone is recommending the automated importing of stubs.
If, however, you wish to add the individual stories from that list, based on publicly available records, then I encourage you to do so.