Check this halfway decent stub, and the history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matti_H%C3%A4yry
It was tagged as a speedy, under A7, but there is an assertion of notability. We need better wording for the speedy policy page.
Phroziac wrote:
Check this halfway decent stub, and the history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matti_H%C3%A4yry
It was tagged as a speedy, under A7, but there is an assertion of notability. We need better wording for the speedy policy page.
We definitely need to place the use of cryptic, unexplained and ridiculous codes like "CSD A7" under ban penalty. I happen to be lucky enough to know what "CSD" means because I've been a Wikipedian for long enough, but this places the contributor at an extremely heavy disadvantage (and clearly is more than rude), and if not even I knew what A7 meant (before this example enlightened me) then clearly there is something majorly lacking in Wikipedians' communication skills repertoire.
What would YOU think if you contributed to some site, and then it said: "This page meets Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: CSD A7"?
A better way would be to have a {{csda7}} template which explains what it means in plain English and non-Wikipedian language. But that's just a suggestion.
Timwi
The whole of its content was just:
"Matti Häyry is Professor of Bioethics and Philosophy of Law at the University of Manchester. He studied philosophy and ethics in Helsinki, Finland, and he is Adjunct Professor of Practical Philosophy at the University of Helsinki."
Where's the assertion of notability? Being a fellow with a job which you went to school for is not in itself notable to the world at large, even if that job is being professor at a prominent university. What *is* an assertion of notability? Perhaps that's what needs to be clarified. To me, an assertion of notability would be a statement about something this fellow has *done*, not the job he happens to hold. Unless that job is in itself notable, which I suppose is where you and I probably differ on this (I don't think that being a professor is in-and-of-itself notable, but that might be because everyone I spend time around is planning on being a professor somewhere or another, eventually).
FF
On 9/16/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
Check this halfway decent stub, and the history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matti_H%C3%A4yry
It was tagged as a speedy, under A7, but there is an assertion of notability. We need better wording for the speedy policy page.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/16/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
The whole of its content was just:
"Matti Häyry is Professor of Bioethics and Philosophy of Law at the University of Manchester. He studied philosophy and ethics in Helsinki, Finland, and he is Adjunct Professor of Practical Philosophy at the University of Helsinki."
Where's the assertion of notability? Being a fellow with a job which you went to school for is not in itself notable to the world at large, even if that job is being professor at a prominent university. What *is* an assertion of notability? Perhaps that's what needs to be clarified. To me, an assertion of notability would be a statement about something this fellow has *done*, not the job he happens to hold. Unless that job is in itself notable, which I suppose is where you and I probably differ on this (I don't think that being a professor is in-and-of-itself notable, but that might be because everyone I spend time around is planning on being a professor somewhere or another, eventually).
FF
You have a point, but his notability or lack thereof shouldn't be decided with speedying. The no assertion of notability thing is for things like [[Sam Toupin]]. This article is basically about some 15 year old girl who likes DDR.
On 9/16/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
A better way would be to have a {{csda7}} template which explains what it means in plain English and non-Wikipedian language. But that's just a suggestion.
If CSD A7 is what I think it is, that would be {{nn-bio}}.
And, I would much prefer people used {{d}} instead of {{db}} if they're going to give a cryptic comment like that. Assuming CSD A7 is what I think it is, that would be {{nn-bio}}
I've had a look at, and done a small edit on, this chap's article. I'm pretty convinced I could get him through a AfD, not trouble. I've taken on much tougher cases and I nearly always win.
On 9/16/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
I've had a look at, and done a small edit on, this chap's article. I'm pretty convinced I could get him through a AfD, not trouble. I've taken on much tougher cases and I nearly always win.
This is what is wrong with AfD: people thinking they can "win". We aren't here to win. We're here to build an encyclopaedia. If an article not being deleted is victory to you, you should look at why you are editing. Your aggressive inclusionist (their word, not mine) attitude epitomises the struggles AfD has.
Sam
On 9/16/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
This is what is wrong with AfD: people thinking they can "win". We aren't here to win. We're here to build an encyclopaedia. If an article not being deleted is victory to you, you should look at why you are editing. Your aggressive inclusionist (their word, not mine) attitude epitomises the struggles AfD has.
But what would it hurt to keep this article?
On 9/16/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
I've had a look at, and done a small edit on, this chap's article. I'm pretty convinced I could get him through a AfD, not trouble. I've taken
on
much tougher cases and I nearly always win.
This is what is wrong with AfD: people thinking they can "win". We aren't here to win. We're here to build an encyclopaedia. If an article not being deleted is victory to you, you should look at why you are editing. Your aggressive inclusionist (their word, not mine) attitude epitomises the struggles AfD has.
But I do win. And it is a struggle. A struggle to make an article so good that it cannot be deleted. Otherwise why would anyone want to hang out on AfD? And as a by-product Wikipedia gets some pretty good articles.
On 9/16/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
But I do win. And it is a struggle. A struggle to make an article so good that it cannot be deleted. Otherwise why would anyone want to hang out on AfD? And as a by-product Wikipedia gets some pretty good articles.
You win against whom? You may succeed. But you don't win. If you think you do, you should consider that everyone (well, near everyone) on Wikipedia wants to _improve_ it. So your attitude of seeing victory is simply not helpful.
Sam
On 9/16/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
But I do win. And it is a struggle. A struggle to make an article so good that it cannot be deleted. Otherwise why would anyone want to hang out on AfD? And as a by-product Wikipedia gets some pretty good articles.
You win against whom? You may succeed. But you don't win. If you think you do, you should consider that everyone (well, near everyone) on Wikipedia wants to _improve_ it. So your attitude of seeing victory is simply not helpful.
If the game is to improve an article to a point where the consensus is "keep", then concensus has also decided that a win in this game improves Wikipedia, and is therefore helpful.
Just as not all losses necessarily include a victor, not all victories require losers. Should delete nominators really consider it a loss if the article is improved and the consensus "keep"? Obviously not.
Tony's actions prove that he's going for win-win rather than win-lose. He's improving the encyclopedia. I hope more people join him in his game.
However, the win/lose jargon should be kept under close control by all who use it.
On 9/16/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
You win against whom? You may succeed. But you don't win. If you think you do, you should consider that everyone (well, near everyone) on Wikipedia wants to _improve_ it. So your attitude of seeing victory is simply not helpful.
You may not find it helpful to you. I find it helpful to me to think that I make Wikipedia a visibly better place by improving small stubs to the point where their useful informational content ensures that they will not be deleted. Others have a boast list about how many articles they have created from scratch, still others a list of featured articles. But for me the greatest feeling is to see people vote "keep" and express admiration for, and thanks for, the deathbed cleanups that I perform.
Whom do I win against? Well that's the wrong question. If Wikipedia is improved, we all win.
On 9/16/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
You have a point, but his notability or lack thereof shouldn't be decided with speedying. The no assertion of notability thing is for things like [[Sam Toupin]]. This article is basically about some 15 year old girl who likes DDR.
But... but.... I thought that "article does not assert notability" was a criteria for speedy deletion? Wasn't that what you were complaining about? At what level are you objecting to the policy -- the fact that someone speedied something under this criteria, or the criteria itself?
FF
On 9/16/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
You have a point, but his notability or lack thereof shouldn't be decided with speedying. The no assertion of notability thing is for things like [[Sam Toupin]]. This article is basically about some 15 year old girl who likes DDR.
But... but.... I thought that "article does not assert notability" was a criteria for speedy deletion? Wasn't that what you were complaining about? At what level are you objecting to the policy -- the fact that someone speedied something under this criteria, or the criteria itself?
The Sam Toupin article would have been quietly throttled at birth six months ago--no CSD A7 necessary , just a commonsense attitude that, well, this is a guy writing about his girl.
Two articles routinely speedied on January 27 this year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Benhooper
Ben Hooper is a great man who is always your best friend and pal, look for him around and say "Hello Ben"
Image:Http://www.freewebs.com/postal-dude/me.JPGhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freewebs.com%2Fpostal-dude%2Fme.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Francis_Bayliss
A person who is extremely good at sport or physical activities. Now we have CSD A7 and suddenly we're discussing whether academics with major government positions and teaching posts in several countries are speedy candidates.
This is not an advance. We're moving backward and engaging in pointless arguments about articles we shouldn't even be thinking of deleting.
On 9/16/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
You have a point, but his notability or lack thereof shouldn't be decided with speedying. The no assertion of notability thing is for things like [[Sam Toupin]]. This article is basically about some 15 year old girl who likes DDR.
But... but.... I thought that "article does not assert notability" was a criteria for speedy deletion? Wasn't that what you were complaining about? At what level are you objecting to the policy -- the fact that someone speedied something under this criteria, or the criteria itself?
The Sam Toupin article would have been quietly throttled at birth six months ago--no CSD A7 necessary , just a commonsense attitude that, well, this is a guy writing about his girl.
Hmm, why didn't it get speedied then? And what good is A7?
On 16/09/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Unless that job is in itself notable, which I suppose is where you and I probably differ on this (I don't think that being a professor is in-and-of-itself notable, but that might be because everyone I spend time around is planning on being a professor somewhere or another, eventually).
Note that UK "professorship" is a couple of grades above US "professorship"; not that that makes it notable, but it's closer than it may initially seem. Not sure about Finland, mind you.
On 9/16/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Note that UK "professorship" is a couple of grades above US "professorship"; not that that makes it notable, but it's closer than it may initially seem. Not sure about Finland, mind you.
He's not just any professor. He holds umpteen chairs in Finland and England. He's a the university's BPA rep, he's the head of their centre for professional ethics, back in Finland he's Permanent Expert on Bioethics, National Research and Development Center for Welfare and Health. And that's only half of it.
On Sep 16, 2005, at 12:31 PM, Fastfission wrote:
Being a fellow with a job which you went to school for is not in itself notable to the world at large, even if that job is being professor at a prominent university.
For what it's worth, I disagree. I think that in an encyclopedia, which values peer-reviewed sources and academic knowledge particularly highly, there is a real case to be made that professors at accredited universities are notable. The way I see it, pretty much all professors, whether PhDs, JDs, or whatever, have made some sort of contribution to their field - law review articles, dissertations, other publications. If we're the sum total of human knowledge, we'd cover all those contributions. Thus articles on the professors seem sensible by default.
I'll go one further, in fact. I think everyone who has been main or sole author on a publication in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal deserves a Wikipedia article. Yes, this would include a whole lot of grad students. But if they're making or have made verifiable contributions to their field, we should be including them. No question.
-Snowspinner
On 9/16/05, Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
For what it's worth, I disagree. I think that in an encyclopedia, which values peer-reviewed sources and academic knowledge particularly highly, there is a real case to be made that professors at accredited universities are notable. The way I see it, pretty much all professors, whether PhDs, JDs, or whatever, have made some sort of contribution to their field - law review articles, dissertations, other publications. If we're the sum total of human knowledge, we'd cover all those contributions. Thus articles on the professors seem sensible by default.
I'll go one further, in fact. I think everyone who has been main or sole author on a publication in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal deserves a Wikipedia article. Yes, this would include a whole lot of grad students. But if they're making or have made verifiable contributions to their field, we should be including them. No question.
My brother was one of three main authors of a published article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal as an <u>undergrad</u> student. But there's no way I would agree that he deserves an article on that basis alone.
Combine that with his name on several patents as inventor or co-inventor, that he's a highly desired public speaker in one of his fields of expertise, the books he's credited in, and the books he's in the process of writing and I think he's getting closer.
But based on a single article? That seems a little extreme to me. If you felt the compulsion, it would be better to summarize each of the thousands of peer reviewed journal articles themselves and mention each otherwise not-notable-enough-for-an-article-of-their-own authors there.
On 9/16/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/05, Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
My brother was one of three main authors of a published article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal as an <u>undergrad</u> student. But there's no way I would agree that he deserves an article on that basis alone.
In this case, I would probably say to redirect him to an article on the article in question.
-Snowspinner
On 9/16/05, Phil Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/05, Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
My brother was one of three main authors of a published article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal as an <u>undergrad</u> student. But there's no way I would agree that he deserves an article on that basis alone.
In this case, I would probably say to redirect him to an article on the article in question.
I might add that my brother was not just "a" main author, he was the primary author of this particular article, which itself doesn't really need a Wikipedia article. There were several others where he was credited, all as an undergrad.
If there were an article such as "List of published authors in the journal Science" and "List of published authors in the Journal of the American Medical Association" with the names of each article for each peer reviewed journal and publication, I would add him where applicable without delay.
However, I'm pretty sure such articles should not exist.
I'll go one further, in fact. I think everyone who has been main or sole author on a publication in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal deserves a Wikipedia article. Yes, this would include a whole lot of grad students. But if they're making or have made verifiable contributions to their field, we should be including them. No question.
-Snowspinner _______________________________________________
I'd prefer including their contribution over their person.
On Sep 16, 2005, at 2:24 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
I'd prefer including their contribution over their person.
I considered this, but I think there are too many cases where it would be too unclear what to do. I'm thinking off-handedly of, say, an article on the Freudian death drive and the notion of "creative descruction," particularly as it applies to David Cronenberg's film _ExistenZ_. Add the content of this (quite important) article to [[Death drive]], [[Creative destruction]], and [[ExistenZ]]? Or an article on the article title?
Since many fields - particularly the humanities - have a real sense of intellectual movement and development over the course of somebody's work, a central article on the scholar that lays out the body of work seems to me tremendously helpful. If they only have one article, sure - redirect their name to the article. But for anyone with a body of work, it seems to me that a summary of that body of work is notable.
-Snowspinner