On 11/20/05, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2005/11/20, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com:
So every webpage is notable? You can get information from the page
itself
and from the Internet Archive.
Only if there is stuff to write about it. If not, it can happily be merged into a "list of websites" or some such thing.
I was talking of web pages, not websites. And how do you decide if there's something to write about it?
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
Just because something is notable doesn't mean it has to have its own separate article. I'd say most, if not all, information about web pages would be better off merged with something else. The way "you decide" if there's something to write about it is the same way "you decide" whether or not any bit of information improves an article or makes it worse, using a wiki.
People, on the other hand, tend to have separate identities from one another, and merging generally isn't a good idea. I especially hate when one person is redirected to another person, and I don't think that should ever be done. "Baby Gary who's 3 months old" might find a better home on a page about his family though, at least for a while. But please not as a separate section unto itself.
That's another pet peeve I have - when multiple different articles are "merged" into a single one in a way that puts each article as a separate headline (sometimes even with its own external links and other subsections). I guess this is done as a compromise between those who want to delete the information and those who want to keep it, but it seems like the worst of both worlds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Answers (a redirect to [[List of Google services and tools]]) is an example of where this disgusting technique takes place. I fail to see how this is a better way of organizing things. A list should be a list. An article on Google services and tools should discuss the relationship of the tools and services to one another, and discuss general trends which Google is making, not present a bunch of separate articles stuck together on one page.
Anthony
Occasionally, such as in the case of [[Google Answers]] there is merit in keeping them seperate articles. But even though wikipedia is not paper, how would you even go about linking to Baby Gary's family's page? (using the old example here)
Would we have a [[List of people]] that takes up more than our current database by itself?
And how would we verify these people if technically ssn # records (as are others) are to be held confidential?
On 11/20/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 11/20/05, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2005/11/20, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com:
So every webpage is notable? You can get information from the page
itself
and from the Internet Archive.
Only if there is stuff to write about it. If not, it can happily be merged into a "list of websites" or some such thing.
I was talking of web pages, not websites. And how do you decide if
there's
something to write about it?
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
Just because something is notable doesn't mean it has to have its own separate article. I'd say most, if not all, information about web pages would be better off merged with something else. The way "you decide" if there's something to write about it is the same way "you decide" whether or not any bit of information improves an article or makes it worse, using a wiki.
People, on the other hand, tend to have separate identities from one another, and merging generally isn't a good idea. I especially hate when one person is redirected to another person, and I don't think that should ever be done. "Baby Gary who's 3 months old" might find a better home on a page about his family though, at least for a while. But please not as a separate section unto itself.
That's another pet peeve I have - when multiple different articles are "merged" into a single one in a way that puts each article as a separate headline (sometimes even with its own external links and other subsections). I guess this is done as a compromise between those who want to delete the information and those who want to keep it, but it seems like the worst of both worlds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Answers (a redirect to [[List of Google services and tools]]) is an example of where this disgusting technique takes place. I fail to see how this is a better way of organizing things. A list should be a list. An article on Google services and tools should discuss the relationship of the tools and services to one another, and discuss general trends which Google is making, not present a bunch of separate articles stuck together on one page.
Anthony _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)
On 11/20/05, Ilya N. ilyanep@gmail.com wrote:
Occasionally, such as in the case of [[Google Answers]] there is merit in keeping them seperate articles. But even though wikipedia is not paper, how would you even go about linking to Baby Gary's family's page? (using the old example here)
Actually, that's a good question, and I can't really come up with an adequete answer off the top of my head. That said, it's really a problem that could be addressed better when an actual situation comes into place. Disambiguation is very ad hoc on Wikipedia, and this is probably the best way to handle it.
Then again, maybe grouping people by family isn't a good idea at all.
Would we have a [[List of people]] that takes up more than our current database by itself?
Eventually, hopefully.
And how would we verify these people if technically ssn # records (as are others) are to be held confidential?
Verifiability would be the key stumbling block, and why literally having a page for every person in the world would be an unreachable goal. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that SSN records are confidential, but I don't think they'd be very good for verifiability anyway, at least not for living people. The social security numbers of people who have died are public domain and available under the Freedom of Information Act (or for a fee from certain commercial sources). Getting a copy of that database would be nice for Wikisource, and we should certainly add the information to any relevant wiki page.
On 11/20/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 11/20/05, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2005/11/20, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com:
So every webpage is notable? You can get information from the page
itself
and from the Internet Archive.
Only if there is stuff to write about it. If not, it can happily be merged into a "list of websites" or some such thing.
I was talking of web pages, not websites. And how do you decide if
there's
something to write about it?
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
Just because something is notable doesn't mean it has to have its own separate article. I'd say most, if not all, information about web pages would be better off merged with something else. The way "you decide" if there's something to write about it is the same way "you decide" whether or not any bit of information improves an article or makes it worse, using a wiki.
People, on the other hand, tend to have separate identities from one another, and merging generally isn't a good idea. I especially hate when one person is redirected to another person, and I don't think that should ever be done. "Baby Gary who's 3 months old" might find a better home on a page about his family though, at least for a while. But please not as a separate section unto itself.
That's another pet peeve I have - when multiple different articles are "merged" into a single one in a way that puts each article as a separate headline (sometimes even with its own external links and other subsections). I guess this is done as a compromise between those who want to delete the information and those who want to keep it, but it seems like the worst of both worlds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Answers (a redirect to [[List of Google services and tools]]) is an example of where this disgusting technique takes place. I fail to see how this is a better way of organizing things. A list should be a list. An article on Google services and tools should discuss the relationship of the tools and services to one another, and discuss general trends which Google is making, not present a bunch of separate articles stuck together on one page.
Anthony _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia) _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org