An ironic thing about schools vs species is that I could write an article about a species that has only ever been observed by one scientist, has only one paper about it in an obscure journal, and only one specimen in a jar somewhere, and yet no one would dream of deleting the article for non-notability (in fact we have a number of such articles already), while an article about the largest high school in Cleveland would probably cause a furious VfD debate. Is the obscure species, which is of interest to maybe a few dozen specialists, really more notable than the high school and its thousands of students?
This is very interesting. I think it proves that the notability criterium is out of whack. It seems like when "the deletionists" say "notability" of information, they instead mean "usability" of information. Because noone can claim that one specimen of one species documented in one academic journal is more notable than any high school in Cleveland. However, the information about the specimen might well be more useful than that about the school....
.... to biologists!
But not to anyone else. Is it so that the deletions is a symptom of the fact that many wikipedians see the target audience as something else than many other wikipedians see it? If we assume that Wikipedia HAS a limited number of target audiences, then I can understand that people want to delete factual, verifiable information. It doesn't make sense to have an article about a school in Cleveland if Wikipedia's target audience is not Clevelanders (or foreign exchange students..) It also makes sense to delete [[Melissa Doll]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Doll if Wikipedia's target audience is not fans of Melissa Doll/people interested in porn actors.
And so on. So maybe Wikipedia's *only* target audience is the target audience that Encyclopaedia Brittanica has. But I don't think so. I'm a member of the community and I has a say in what goes into Wikipedia too. So does everyone else that has ever written something in Wikipedia. We are all authors and contributors.
For every article ever witten someone has thought "I know this and I think this is useful for someone else." Which means that everything ever written has passed someones test of usability. That doesn't mean that it has to be included in Wikipedia, but I think more thought should be spent on that fact than currently is.
To summarize. Don't delete articles because they aren't "notable", delete articles because they aren't usable. Delete information about someones bank account number because, while it might be verifiable at an ATM machine, it isn't usable to a large enough audience. Keep information about Cleveland's high schools because that information is usable to thousands of students. Delete information about some random street because nothing interesting has ever happened there. Keep information about US President's dogs because thousands of people do find that information useful.
-- Eric B. and Rakim
_________________________________________________________________ Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.com/
On Monday 01 November 2004 12:32, Eric B. and Rakim wrote:
Delete information about some random street because nothing interesting has ever happened there.
I disagree. A knowledge base full of random streets would be useful to people living near these streets. Some streets have interesting properties and all streets have their own special history.
Aha, perhaps something new in this debate - I like this - is 'usability' something that we can agree on, a perhaps move forward with? Mark
--- "Eric B. and Rakim" eric_b_and_rakim@hotmail.com wrote:
An ironic thing about schools vs species is that I
could write an
article about a species that has only ever been
observed by one
scientist, has only one paper about it in an
obscure journal, and
only one specimen in a jar somewhere, and yet no
one would dream of
deleting the article for non-notability (in fact we
have a number
of such articles already), while an article about
the largest high
school in Cleveland would probably cause a furious
VfD debate. Is
the obscure species, which is of interest to maybe
a few dozen
specialists, really more notable than the high
school and its
thousands of students?
This is very interesting. I think it proves that the notability criterium is out of whack. It seems like when "the deletionists" say "notability" of information, they instead mean "usability" of information. Because noone can claim that one specimen of one species documented in one academic journal is more notable than any high school in Cleveland. However, the information about the specimen might well be more useful than that about the school....
.... to biologists!
But not to anyone else. Is it so that the deletions is a symptom of the fact that many wikipedians see the target audience as something else than many other wikipedians see it? If we assume that Wikipedia HAS a limited number of target audiences, then I can understand that people want to delete factual, verifiable information. It doesn't make sense to have an article about a school in Cleveland if Wikipedia's target audience is not Clevelanders (or foreign exchange students..) It also makes sense to delete [[Melissa Doll]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Doll if Wikipedia's target audience is not fans of Melissa Doll/people interested in porn actors.
And so on. So maybe Wikipedia's *only* target audience is the target audience that Encyclopaedia Brittanica has. But I don't think so. I'm a member of the community and I has a say in what goes into Wikipedia too. So does everyone else that has ever written something in Wikipedia. We are all authors and contributors.
For every article ever witten someone has thought "I know this and I think this is useful for someone else." Which means that everything ever written has passed someones test of usability. That doesn't mean that it has to be included in Wikipedia, but I think more thought should be spent on that fact than currently is.
To summarize. Don't delete articles because they aren't "notable", delete articles because they aren't usable. Delete information about someones bank account number because, while it might be verifiable at an ATM machine, it isn't usable to a large enough audience. Keep information about Cleveland's high schools because that information is usable to thousands of students. Delete information about some random street because nothing interesting has ever happened there. Keep information about US President's dogs because thousands of people do find that information useful.
-- Eric B. and Rakim
_________________________________________________________________
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.com/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com
OK, so then please explain the "usability" of [[List of externally visible animal parts]] and why it deserves to be kept.
RickK
Mark Richards marich712000@yahoo.com wrote: Aha, perhaps something new in this debate - I like this - is 'usability' something that we can agree on, a perhaps move forward with? Mark
--- "Eric B. and Rakim" wrote:
An ironic thing about schools vs species is that I
could write an
article about a species that has only ever been
observed by one
scientist, has only one paper about it in an
obscure journal, and
only one specimen in a jar somewhere, and yet no
one would dream of
deleting the article for non-notability (in fact we
have a number
of such articles already), while an article about
the largest high
school in Cleveland would probably cause a furious
VfD debate. Is
the obscure species, which is of interest to maybe
a few dozen
specialists, really more notable than the high
school and its
thousands of students?
This is very interesting. I think it proves that the notability criterium is out of whack. It seems like when "the deletionists" say "notability" of information, they instead mean "usability" of information. Because noone can claim that one specimen of one species documented in one academic journal is more notable than any high school in Cleveland. However, the information about the specimen might well be more useful than that about the school....
.... to biologists!
But not to anyone else. Is it so that the deletions is a symptom of the fact that many wikipedians see the target audience as something else than many other wikipedians see it? If we assume that Wikipedia HAS a limited number of target audiences, then I can understand that people want to delete factual, verifiable information. It doesn't make sense to have an article about a school in Cleveland if Wikipedia's target audience is not Clevelanders (or foreign exchange students..) It also makes sense to delete [[Melissa Doll]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Doll if Wikipedia's target audience is not fans of Melissa Doll/people interested in porn actors.
And so on. So maybe Wikipedia's *only* target audience is the target audience that Encyclopaedia Brittanica has. But I don't think so. I'm a member of the community and I has a say in what goes into Wikipedia too. So does everyone else that has ever written something in Wikipedia. We are all authors and contributors.
For every article ever witten someone has thought "I know this and I think this is useful for someone else." Which means that everything ever written has passed someones test of usability. That doesn't mean that it has to be included in Wikipedia, but I think more thought should be spent on that fact than currently is.
To summarize. Don't delete articles because they aren't "notable", delete articles because they aren't usable. Delete information about someones bank account number because, while it might be verifiable at an ATM machine, it isn't usable to a large enough audience. Keep information about Cleveland's high schools because that information is usable to thousands of students. Delete information about some random street because nothing interesting has ever happened there. Keep information about US President's dogs because thousands of people do find that information useful.
-- Eric B. and Rakim
_________________________________________________________________
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.com/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. - www.yahoo.com/a
Why do you think I think this needs to be kept? Perhaps it does, after all, there might be some concievable utility to it. I would keep it if anyone made a cogent case for why it might be useful. Mark
Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote: OK, so then please explain the "usability" of [[List of externally visible animal parts]] and why it deserves to be kept.
RickK
Mark Richards wrote: Aha, perhaps something new in this debate - I like this - is 'usability' something that we can agree on, a perhaps move forward with? Mark
--- "Eric B. and Rakim" wrote:
An ironic thing about schools vs species is that I
could write an
article about a species that has only ever been
observed by one
scientist, has only one paper about it in an
obscure journal, and
only one specimen in a jar somewhere, and yet no
one would dream of
deleting the article for non-notability (in fact we
have a number
of such articles already), while an article about
the largest high
school in Cleveland would probably cause a furious
VfD debate. Is
the obscure species, which is of interest to maybe
a few dozen
specialists, really more notable than the high
school and its
thousands of students?
This is very interesting. I think it proves that the notability criterium is out of whack. It seems like when "the deletionists" say "notability" of information, they instead mean "usability" of information. Because noone can claim that one specimen of one species documented in one academic journal is more notable than any high school in Cleveland. However, the information about the specimen might well be more useful than that about the school....
.... to biologists!
But not to anyone else. Is it so that the deletions is a symptom of the fact that many wikipedians see the target audience as something else than many other wikipedians see it? If we assume that Wikipedia HAS a limited number of target audiences, then I can understand that people want to delete factual, verifiable information. It doesn't make sense to have an article about a school in Cleveland if Wikipedia's target audience is not Clevelanders (or foreign exchange students..) It also makes sense to delete [[Melissa Doll]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Doll if Wikipedia's target audience is not fans of Melissa Doll/people interested in porn actors.
And so on. So maybe Wikipedia's *only* target audience is the target audience that Encyclopaedia Brittanica has. But I don't think so. I'm a member of the community and I has a say in what goes into Wikipedia too. So does everyone else that has ever written something in Wikipedia. We are all authors and contributors.
For every article ever witten someone has thought "I know this and I think this is useful for someone else." Which means that everything ever written has passed someones test of usability. That doesn't mean that it has to be included in Wikipedia, but I think more thought should be spent on that fact than currently is.
To summarize. Don't delete articles because they aren't "notable", delete articles because they aren't usable. Delete information about someones bank account number because, while it might be verifiable at an ATM machine, it isn't usable to a large enough audience. Keep information about Cleveland's high schools because that information is usable to thousands of students. Delete information about some random street because nothing interesting has ever happened there. Keep information about US President's dogs because thousands of people do find that information useful.
-- Eric B. and Rakim
_________________________________________________________________
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.com/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. - www.yahoo.com/a _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com/a