Ian Tresman wrote:
At 11:46 17/09/2007, you wrote:
On 17/09/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The magazine Pensée is notable, and nobody is questioning that. The article brought up for deletion was "Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered)", a "special series of ten issues of the magazine Pensée" devoted to a particular topic.
I think the interesting and idiosyncratic assumption that "all published books are suitable for an article" kicks in here. Do non-English projects make this same assumption? Does it vary between fiction and nonfiction? Enquiring minds want to know...
If Wikipedia were a paper-based encyclopedia, then I think there is no doubt that there would be certain selection criteria. Wikipedia is not paper, and consequently has decided that if it is (a) Verifiable (b) (non-trivial) Reliable sources, (c) written neutrally, then it is acceptable.
There should be no problem with (a) or (c). One still needs to distinguish between "verifiable" and "verified", and that distinction alone allows us not to be too concerned about having references about every imaginable point. Editors should be ready to respond to and discuss specific challenges, but the absence of a source by itself should not be taken as evidence that what is said is wrong.
Similarly, neutrality does not imply any need for long-winded debunkings, nor does it require labeling with such epithets as "pseudoscience". Certain avenues of scientific investigation eventually failed when more information became available, and eventually faded from public consciousness. It is grossly disingenuous to attach retroactive value judgements on these failed theories. That these avenues were once pursued remains as an historical fact deserving of a proper explanation. Anyone reading old material will encounter literary references to these concepts, and should be able to find an explanation about what the author is saying without wading through a lot of polemics. The failure of many of these theories can often be stated in one short paragraph that undermines a fundamental premise for the theory.
"(b)" presents a bigger problem because "reliable" is such a subjective concept. Opinions vary about what is reliable, and under what circumstances. Not everyone accepts daily newspapers as reliable sources. Some may insist on a strict adherence to peer reviewed publications, though I would argue that a wiki based website may be far more effective as a medium for peer review than a periodical whose distribution is limited to a handful of academics working for a university that is willing to pay exorbitant subscription fees. Triviality is also subjective; we do not lack for debates about popular culture where there is a claim that the very presence of such articles somehow diminish the value of the entire Wikipedia.
I noted that Wikipedia has 1000 article on all 1000 of the "top" asteroids (and many more), few of which are any more notable pieces of rock than another. In this instance, Wikipedia is acting as a catalogue, and many of the articles are merely "stubs". But that's fine by me, I'm sure asteroid #547 is notable to someone.
The saying used to be "Different strokes for different folks." Maybe asteroid #547 is notable, but surely #548 is not. ;-)
At least I know where to look for information on #547, little as that may be. Without it being on Wikipedia, it would be difficult for anyone unfamiliar with sources about astronomy to track down. Similarly, it would be difficult for a person looking for information about a specific TV episode to find the information that he wants.
Likewise, I see no problem Wikipedia summarising every book that was ever published. It already summarised every episode of many obscure TV programmes.
Absolutely! The media depend too much on the public's short attention span. A short attention span is essential to the economy. There is tremendous wealth in old material that now only rarely sees the light of day, but if people spend all their time looking at old stuff the demand for the new stuff will drop. As a measure of this, a magazine that has been publishing 100 pages per month for a century will have produced 120,000 pages (or 60,000 leaves). That alone gives a stack 20 feet high. Just imagine what modern publishers would need to compete with if it weren't for the copyright laws. :-)
Is this encyclopedic? Wikipedia is not your typical encyclopedia.
Indeed! There is more to what has been forgotten than lack of notability.
Ec