Daniel P.B.Smith wrote
On the one hand, I believe it is _quite possible_ to write good, well-sourced, encyclopedic articles on popular culture.
True.
On the other hand, I believe that such articles should be held to exactly the same standards as any other Wikipedia article, including deletion of material that cannot be sourced after sources have been requested and the requests have been outstanding for a reasonable length of time.
Low priority, for me, except in cases of defamation. But it also depends on other things. [[Bob Dylan]] should have everything nailed down with sources. The latest boy band - not so clear.
Deletion of material as unsourced is not anyway my kind of thing. 'Old school' Wikipedians probably want to make a serious effort to source dangling facts, before cutting them out. Or at least replace them with something that checks out.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Low priority, for me, except in cases of defamation. But it also depends on other things. [[Bob Dylan]] should have everything nailed down with sources. The latest boy band - not so clear.
Lower priority than defamation, to be sure. But I think this is a large and growing problem.
Here is a typical example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeli_Mateo
This is someone who *lost* on Philippine Idol, the Philippines version of "Pop Idol" or "American Idol". The entire bio has no references, the photo is almost certainly a copyvio (I would delete it now, but I want people to take a quick look at it first). "Greenarcher" claims to have created it, but unless he is the official photographer for the show, this seems quite unlikely.
The text is very much non-NPOV, and I have not yet done a check, but if I had to guess, it is a straight ripoff from another website.
This is a classic example of fancruft of the worst sort. There is virtually no chance that this article will ever improve, unless Ms. Mateo becomes actually famous. (This could happen! And if it did, we could have a good article about her.)
As it stands, I don't think there is much that can be done about this article other than deletion.
--Jimbo
On 09/11/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Lower priority than defamation, to be sure. But I think this is a large and growing problem. Here is a typical example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeli_Mateo
This is why I've been saying for ages that pop culture articles are the other side of WP:BLP - the fans turn them into hagiographies.
- d.
On 11/9/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Low priority, for me, except in cases of defamation. But it also depends on other things. [[Bob Dylan]] should have everything nailed down with sources. The latest boy band - not so clear.
Lower priority than defamation, to be sure. But I think this is a large and growing problem.
Here is a typical example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeli_Mateo
This is someone who *lost* on Philippine Idol, the Philippines version of "Pop Idol" or "American Idol". The entire bio has no references, the photo is almost certainly a copyvio (I would delete it now, but I want people to take a quick look at it first). "Greenarcher" claims to have created it, but unless he is the official photographer for the show, this seems quite unlikely.
The text is very much non-NPOV, and I have not yet done a check, but if I had to guess, it is a straight ripoff from another website.
Not bad. The text was introduced by an IP and taken from here:
http://starmometer.com/2006/09/20/jellica-jelli-marie-mateo-philippine-idol-...
Green archer's text was probably original.
This is a classic example of fancruft of the worst sort. There is virtually no chance that this article will ever improve, unless Ms. Mateo becomes actually famous. (This could happen! And if it did, we could have a good article about her.)
You sure they don't have gosip mags in the Philippines? Could be asking the people from tl.wikipedia. They appear to be doing quite well (has anyone checked if there any previous encyclopedias in the Filipino language?)
As it stands, I don't think there is much that can be done about this article other than deletion.
Merge and redirect would be one course of action now the copyvios have been vaporised.
geni wrote:
This is a classic example of fancruft of the worst sort. There is virtually no chance that this article will ever improve, unless Ms. Mateo becomes actually famous. (This could happen! And if it did, we could have a good article about her.)
You sure they don't have gosip mags in the Philippines?
I am sure they do, but even for most of the losing contestants on American Idol, there is basically no information about them after their 15 minutes of minor minor minor fame is over. For the winners, yes, there is often a lot of ongoing press coverage as their careers take off or flop. For some of the losers clever or stupid enough to do something outrageous to get more press coverage, there is also ongoing press coverage.
But for most of them, well, this was a great time in life for them, but there is not likely to be any verifiable news in the future, and what we have today is not sufficient for a standalone article that we can't police against vandalism and nonsense, etc.
I agree with the solution in cases like this of merging and in *some* cases, a standalone stub... but stubbing makes more sense only when we expect that a good article could be written.
--Jimbo
On Nov 9, 2006, at 11:36 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I am sure they do, but even for most of the losing contestants on American Idol, there is basically no information about them after their 15 minutes of minor minor minor fame is over. For the winners, yes, there is often a lot of ongoing press coverage as their careers take off or flop. For some of the losers clever or stupid enough to do something outrageous to get more press coverage, there is also ongoing press coverage.
Not that I think this is a good idea necessarily, but...
Intro Paragraph
==Biography==
Phrased in terms of "The show presented Mr. Wales as a..."
==Audition Process==
Mr. Wales auditioned with "If I Were a Rich Man" from "Fiddler on the Roof," to the delight of judges X and Y. Z, on the other hand...
==In the competition==
Discussion of what they sang, quotes to the media coverage of the show at the time as well as the judges comments giving a sense of the judgment of how it was, were they in the bottom three, etc.
==Elimination==
Self-evident. Don't forget to mention if he cried!
==After Idol==
Any information on their post-Idol careers, drawn from varieties of "Where are They Nows," later media features, etc.
That's a non-stub article that would be drawn entirely from verifiable sources, and could be done on pretty much any American Idol contestant. To someone who knows where to look, I'm sure it could be done for Filipino Idol.
Now, I think it's a stupid article to write. I look at someone who writes that and wonder why they can't go fix some of the articles that make Wikipedia into a bit of a joke on serious academic topics. But, you know, I have no inherent problem with the article. It's just not one of the first million I'd write.
I mean, there are topics that can never be destubbed in popular culture - red shirts in Star Trek, a lot of individual episodes (Which can have synopses, but often nothing else), etc. And there are topics that are utter and irredeemable trainwrecks - anything having to do with continuity or cannon. (Star Trek, Star Wars, and Babylon 5 are the three exceptions that I can think of to this. And adding to the aggravation is that these NEVER die in AfD) But this isn't one of them. And I think understanding what articles we really can't source or really shouldn't write is a key step in fixing popular culture.
-Phil
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 11:54:03 -0500, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
This is someone who *lost* on Philippine Idol, the Philippines version of "Pop Idol" or "American Idol". The entire bio has no references, the photo is almost certainly a copyvio (I would delete it now, but I want people to take a quick look at it first). "Greenarcher" claims to have created it, but unless he is the official photographer for the show, this seems quite unlikely.
You don't know how relieved I am to hear that. Some of the scariest words I've heard lately from an established editor were "reality contestants are inherently notable".
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
You don't know how relieved I am to hear that. Some of the scariest words I've heard lately from an established editor were "reality contestants are inherently notable".
It's not like i'm exactly ''wrong''.
-Jeff
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:13:18 -0500, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
You don't know how relieved I am to hear that. Some of the scariest words I've heard lately from an established editor were "reality contestants are inherently notable".
It's not like i'm exactly ''wrong''.
In my view you are. The contestant is not notable, their performance in the reality show may have been.
Guy (JzG)
On Nov 10, 2006, at 5:15 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:13:18 -0500, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
You don't know how relieved I am to hear that. Some of the scariest words I've heard lately from an established editor were "reality contestants are inherently notable".
It's not like i'm exactly ''wrong''.
In my view you are. The contestant is not notable, their performance in the reality show may have been.
May I suggest that this debate highlights the problems with ontological categories of "notable" and "non-notable?"
To my mind there are three categories of articles in terms of this.
1) Useful articles that provide context and verifiable, neutral information of general interest on a topic. 2) Bad articles that provide unverifiable or biased information, or no context of use to anyone but fans/partisans/etc, but that somebody is willing and capable of fixing. 3) Bad articles that provide unverifiable or biased information, or no context of use to anyone but fans/partisans/etc, and that furthmore have nobody who is willing and capable of fixing them.
We keep 1, fix 2, and delete 3. If an article on a topic that got deleted by #3 comes along that is #2 or #1, we keep/fix it. If a topic goes so far as to be impossible to fix, we repeatedly delete it, and, sometimes, as a convenience to prevent admins from having to get into a fight on these things, protect blank.
No muss, no fuss, no ontological concepts of notability.
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
That's a good idea, Phil -- it allows us to be a supercomprehensive encyclowhatnot while it permits us to get rid of crap.
On 11/10/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 10, 2006, at 5:15 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:13:18 -0500, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
You don't know how relieved I am to hear that. Some of the scariest words I've heard lately from an established editor were "reality contestants are inherently notable".
It's not like i'm exactly ''wrong''.
In my view you are. The contestant is not notable, their performance in the reality show may have been.
May I suggest that this debate highlights the problems with ontological categories of "notable" and "non-notable?"
To my mind there are three categories of articles in terms of this.
- Useful articles that provide context and verifiable, neutral
information of general interest on a topic. 2) Bad articles that provide unverifiable or biased information, or no context of use to anyone but fans/partisans/etc, but that somebody is willing and capable of fixing. 3) Bad articles that provide unverifiable or biased information, or no context of use to anyone but fans/partisans/etc, and that furthmore have nobody who is willing and capable of fixing them.
We keep 1, fix 2, and delete 3. If an article on a topic that got deleted by #3 comes along that is #2 or #1, we keep/fix it. If a topic goes so far as to be impossible to fix, we repeatedly delete it, and, sometimes, as a convenience to prevent admins from having to get into a fight on these things, protect blank.
No muss, no fuss, no ontological concepts of notability.
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:23:05 -0500, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
In my view you are. The contestant is not notable, their performance in the reality show may have been.
May I suggest that this debate highlights the problems with ontological categories of "notable" and "non-notable?"
To my mind there are three categories of articles in terms of this.
- Useful articles that provide context and verifiable, neutral
information of general interest on a topic. 2) Bad articles that provide unverifiable or biased information, or no context of use to anyone but fans/partisans/etc, but that somebody is willing and capable of fixing. 3) Bad articles that provide unverifiable or biased information, or no context of use to anyone but fans/partisans/etc, and that furthmore have nobody who is willing and capable of fixing them.
We keep 1, fix 2, and delete 3. If an article on a topic that got deleted by #3 comes along that is #2 or #1, we keep/fix it. If a topic goes so far as to be impossible to fix, we repeatedly delete it, and, sometimes, as a convenience to prevent admins from having to get into a fight on these things, protect blank.
No muss, no fuss, no ontological concepts of notability.
I completely agree. I tried to change [[WP:N]] and its sub guidelines to include the fundamental basis for gauging inclusion - can we verify that the content is factually correct and neutrally stated from credible sources - but was shouted down.
For me, notable is a shorthand for something that has enough critical attention to allow coverage within policy. As a sideline, individuals whose public exposure is limited to a single event should normally, in my view, be covered under that event, because otherwise we have "John Doe ran for mayor of New York in 2006 on an independent ticket and polled 200 votes on a platform of higher taxes for all. He was last heard of selling insurance in New Jersey", which is no kind of a biography. A cobweb, in oldspeak.
Guy (JzG)
Perhaps we can make a page where we document the idea of if-good-keep-if-can-be-good-fix-otherwise-delete.
On 11/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:23:05 -0500, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
In my view you are. The contestant is not notable, their performance in the reality show may have been.
May I suggest that this debate highlights the problems with ontological categories of "notable" and "non-notable?"
To my mind there are three categories of articles in terms of this.
- Useful articles that provide context and verifiable, neutral
information of general interest on a topic. 2) Bad articles that provide unverifiable or biased information, or no context of use to anyone but fans/partisans/etc, but that somebody is willing and capable of fixing. 3) Bad articles that provide unverifiable or biased information, or no context of use to anyone but fans/partisans/etc, and that furthmore have nobody who is willing and capable of fixing them.
We keep 1, fix 2, and delete 3. If an article on a topic that got deleted by #3 comes along that is #2 or #1, we keep/fix it. If a topic goes so far as to be impossible to fix, we repeatedly delete it, and, sometimes, as a convenience to prevent admins from having to get into a fight on these things, protect blank.
No muss, no fuss, no ontological concepts of notability.
I completely agree. I tried to change [[WP:N]] and its sub guidelines to include the fundamental basis for gauging inclusion - can we verify that the content is factually correct and neutrally stated from credible sources - but was shouted down.
For me, notable is a shorthand for something that has enough critical attention to allow coverage within policy. As a sideline, individuals whose public exposure is limited to a single event should normally, in my view, be covered under that event, because otherwise we have "John Doe ran for mayor of New York in 2006 on an independent ticket and polled 200 votes on a platform of higher taxes for all. He was last heard of selling insurance in New Jersey", which is no kind of a biography. A cobweb, in oldspeak.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:13:18 -0500, Jeff Raymond wrote:
You don't know how relieved I am to hear that. Some of the scariest words I've heard lately from an established editor were "reality contestants are inherently notable".
It's not like i'm exactly ''wrong''.
In my view you are. The contestant is not notable, their performance in the reality show may have been.
There is a distinction to be made in the "Idol" shows where an inherent notability could be ascribed to the "Top 12". They certainly distinguish themselves from the hordes who make fools of themselves in the auditions. Being able to reach the Top 12 requires a certain effort in developing skills that is not there for contestants in most other reality shows.
Ec