Folks,
Tim Noah has published another article on Slate about consideration about whether he was notable enough for Wikipedia.
http://www.slate.com/id/2160644/?nav=fix
Noah concludes:
*The pro-Tims tended to agree with me that the notability standard ought to be eliminated outright. The anti-Tims argued that the notability standard was a necessary bulwark against anarchy and noted that I myself had asserted that it rendered me ineligible. Eventually an administrator (handle: JDoorjam) cut the process short, which is allowed under a **Wikipedia rule*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:IAR * that says you can ignore all other rules when the site's basic health is at stake. JDoorjam decreed that I would be "speedy kept" (i.e., reinstated immediately), and he explained he had short-circuited discussion because it was inviting "troll magnetry" (i.e., lots of uncouth people logging on and saying rude things) and "edit warring" (i.e., people repeatedly doing and undoing the same edits). As I write this, the final entered comment reads as follows:*
*Wow. That's just shameful. A run of the mill columnist intimidated you into keeping his article by bitching in a public forum. If that's all it takes, Wiki has a long way to go before it can be considered at all legitimate.*
*Not my intent, but also not my concern. I continue to believe that Wikipedia should stop putting on airs about legitimacy and repeal its notability standard. In a future column, I'll consider the arguments against my open-the-floodgates position as readers have presented them to me over the last few days.*
I don't think I agree wholeheartedly with that conclusion but it will continued to be argued long and hard on various Wikipedia forums.
Regards
*Keith Old*
On 2/27/07, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
*Not my intent, but also not my concern. I continue to believe that Wikipedia should stop putting on airs about legitimacy
We do what?
and repeal its notability standard.
Well, yes. We have to do something. Our current approach to notability is pretty much what you would get if you asked a committee to come up with 5 suggestions and chose the worst one.
Steve
Noah also appeared on NPR, which you can listen to here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7620868
I've been a fan of his for some time and I was a little.... peeved.... when I read his wikipedia articles (that is, his articles about wikipedia, not the other way around). However, he comes off much better when you hear him (and I really don't think he dislikes wikipedia, I think he's fascinated by us ;)
They called David Gerard for a comment, but they didn't really let him speak fully and I suspect that they edited his part heavily. It's a shame that him and Noah wasn't interviewed at the same time, that would've been great.
--Oskar
On 28/02/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Noah also appeared on NPR, which you can listen to here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7620868 They called David Gerard for a comment, but they didn't really let him speak fully and I suspect that they edited his part heavily. It's a shame that him and Noah wasn't interviewed at the same time, that would've been great.
They taped a few minutes of me explaining stuff, which they then used for their purposes. Which is probably fine by me. Do they usually put up transcripts of this stuff?
- d.
On 2/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
They taped a few minutes of me explaining stuff, which they then used for their purposes. Which is probably fine by me. Do they usually put up transcripts of this stuff?
According to http://www.npr.org/transcripts/ you have to buy them.
--Oskar
On 28/02/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
They taped a few minutes of me explaining stuff, which they then used for their purposes. Which is probably fine by me. Do they usually put up transcripts of this stuff?
According to http://www.npr.org/transcripts/ you have to buy them.
They used one sentence out of ten minutes ;-)
I favour Ben Lowe's response comment here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2160644/
- d.
On 2/27/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/07, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
*Not my intent, but also not my concern. I continue to believe that Wikipedia should stop putting on airs about legitimacy
We do what?
I think that Tim Noah misunderstands what's going on there. A lot of our notability guidelines appear to have been created out of a fear of not looking legitimate and acceptable - "How can we be accepted as a serious encyclopedia when we have articles about <xxx>?"
Wikipedia would do well to be less paranoid about external perception. For one thing, our articles on less conventional topics are very useful to our readers.
-Matt
On 2/28/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia would do well to be less paranoid about external perception.
Yeah, a lot of our meta-comments like "Please expand this section" seem to be getting stripped out, and tags are being pushed onto the talk page, for fear of readers realising that our encyclopaedia is still a work in progress.
Steve
On 28/02/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia would do well to be less paranoid about external perception.
Yeah, a lot of our meta-comments like "Please expand this section" seem to be getting stripped out, and tags are being pushed onto the talk page, for fear of readers realising that our encyclopaedia is still a work in progress.
This is why in press relations I try to turn "Wikipedia is not reliable" into a positive. It's not fact-checked sentence by sentence like Britannica, but it's good and useful - just read critically. That is, educating the readers.
(Most of the kerfuffle over students referencing Wikipedia is because the students are doing something stupid by doing so.)
- d.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:29:44 -0800, "Matthew Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote:
I think that Tim Noah misunderstands what's going on there. A lot of our notability guidelines appear to have been created out of a fear of not looking legitimate and acceptable - "How can we be accepted as a serious encyclopedia when we have articles about <xxx>?"
Up to a point. A lot of subject-specific guidelines were written by very small groups of dedicated fans. The primary notability criterion - being the subject of multiple non-trivial references in reliable secondary sources - is a pretty good starting point if you want to build a reference that is verifiable, neutral and neither a directory nor a publisher of first instance.
Guy (JzG)
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:50:19 +1100, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Well, yes. We have to do something. Our current approach to notability is pretty much what you would get if you asked a committee to come up with 5 suggestions and chose the worst one.
I strongly disagree. The primary notability criterion is mainly the work of Uncle G, and is in my view an excellent and well-reasoned test.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
I strongly disagree. The primary notability criterion is mainly the work of Uncle G, and is in my view an excellent and well-reasoned test.
Except when it excludes obviously "notable" people, places, and things, requires an unrealistic test, and misunderstands "notability." Aside from those things, it's quite excellent.
-Jeff
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:28:21 +1100, "Keith Old" keithold@gmail.com wrote:
*Wow. That's just shameful. A run of the mill columnist intimidated you into keeping his article by bitching in a public forum. If that's all it takes, Wiki has a long way to go before it can be considered at all legitimate.*
Painfully accurate.
Also, anyone who agitates for their own article should automatically be deleted :-)
Guy (JzG)