Frustrated - WikiEN-l

18 Feb 2007


      I am very frustrated.
We have on Wikipedia a list with the following selection criteria:
-----------------
This is a list of notable tall men, starting at 198 cm (6 ft 6 in). In
several cases these men were among the tallest in their profession,
their province, or nation.
The concept of "what is tall" can vary by average height of any given
population. In the United States the highest percentile of height
given by the FAA is the 99th percentile, which is 75.2 inches or
approximately 191 centimetres.[1] Pediatricians place tall stature at
2.5 to 3 standard deviations above the mean for age and gender.[2][3]
In adult males this begins at around 192 cm. An additional 6 cm is
added to this second figure due to height variation and to assure that
comparative tallness is a part of the individuals notability or
significance.
Note: Names placed in this list must have their height be a part of
their fame or significance. As basketball players are noted as having
above average height this means they will need to be taller than the
cut-off point in order to be notable as tall. Exceptions to this is
members of the Philippine Basketball Association, as heights above 213
cm are essentially unheard of in their league, and early twentieth
century basketball players as they lived in an era where player height
was much smaller.
-----------------
Tall is defined by agreement of editors, not by any externally
verifiable definition.  After five or six deletion debates, no
consensus third-party definition of tall has been produced.  Average
height is increasing over time so the list naturally favours
contemporary figures.  Average height varies by country, so this list
favours Western (and especially Dutch) figures.  Average height varies
by ethnicity, so this list works against Vietnamese and Japanese, to
name but two.  We don't have a place in here for Edward I
("Longshanks"), whose height is an integral part of his notability,
because he's below the arbitrary criterion.  The height has changed
from 6'3" to 6'7" and up and down, based primarily on the size of the
resulting list, not any objective definition of tall.  We have to take
special measures (i.e. additional arbitrary criteria) to stop it
simply being a list of basketball players, which it more or less
became.
To me this list exemplifies all that is worst about the worst
Wikipedia lists.  The definition of tall is original research, the
selection of tall and men is indiscriminate anyway, the list has no
evident utility, is systemically biased in numerous ways.  We might as
well have [[List of stuff I like]] and leave it at that.
Compare with another list:
-----------------
This list provides a guide to the most important opera composers, as
determined by their presence on a majority of compiled lists of
significant opera composers. (See the "Lists Consulted" section for
full details.) The composers run from Jacopo Peri, who wrote the first
ever opera in late 16th century Italy, to John Adams, one of the
leading figures in the contemporary operatic world. The brief
accompanying notes offer an explanation as to why each composer has
been considered major. Also included is a section about major women
opera composers, compiled from the same lists. For an introduction to
operatic history, see Opera. The organisation of the list is by
birthdate.
-----------------
Here we have a list explicitly based on external criteria.  The list
has objective validity, and evident utility in identifying the most
significant composers in a particular genre.  Sadly we also have the
tacked-on section of "major women opera composers", of whom there are,
according to the sources, none at all, which was added in order to
appease a soapboxing editor who was absolutely determined to add a
composer whose work is published by his company.  It was asserted that
the lack of women was "systemic bias".  No, it's more that opera is
ludicrously expensive to produce, and for most of its history women
composers were vanishingly rare anyway.
Sadly, although we managed to delete the list of tall me once, that
was sent back to AfD and there is no consensus to delete it.  No
consensus in this case means that there is no clear majority of !votes
- policy and guidelines (which reflect a much wider consensus) are
that we do not have original research, and there is no credible
rebuttal of the assertion that the list of tall men is based on just
that.
OK, now I'll get off my soapbox.
Guy (JzG)
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG