This debate is relevant to us, because we have been discussing lit fests, the profile of writers being invited/privileged etc... Not only on the basis of content, but also on the basis of age, looks, etc [ http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/28/books.booksnews]
Sometime in 2013, I started a Wikipedia page on *Goa Today*. As everyone reading this knows, this is Goa's oldest monthly, started way back in the 1960s, and has played an influential role in the literary life of the State. The discussions earlier today between Ben and Peter Nazareth only underline this point. And this is truth both when it was owned by Lambert Mascarenhas (jointly, if not mistaken, with Printwell owner FD Dantas, the father of our late much-respected journo colleague Norman Dantas; and ex-Speaker Machado) and also when owned by the Salgaocars.
As most would know, *Goa Today *has a significant expat audience, but hasn't been very active with its own web presence online. The logic probably being that if they had a website, people would prefer to read their magazine online and not subscribe to it. I know of a number of expats who subscribe to the monthly and read it eagerly each month.
What happens is that its lack of online visibility today gets translated (almost) into non-notability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goa_Today
See the debate above, which is telling! I've earlier disagreed with Wikipedians and pointed out that as long as their definition of notability is based on someone's (or some institution's) web presence, in English... this is going to be an unfair world for perhaps the majority on the planet! FN
Hoi, One way to raise the profile of this magazine is to make sure that it is well connected in Wikidata. I connected it to its founder, made it a magazine and noted when it was founded. Many more things can be added. It is certainly a way to raise available information on the magazine. It is one way to establish information on the subject.
I added some information to its founder and in this way I added surrounding information. The point is very much that never mind the English Wikipedia information, it should not be left to the vagaries of its notability criteria. Wikidata is much more about data and interrelating data. As such the Goa Today is easily notable.
<grin> there is more that can be done </grin> Thanks, GerardM
On 12 December 2014 at 17:31, Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या *فريدريك نورونيا fredericknoronha@gmail.com wrote:
This debate is relevant to us, because we have been discussing lit fests, the profile of writers being invited/privileged etc... Not only on the basis of content, but also on the basis of age, looks, etc [ http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/28/books.booksnews]
Sometime in 2013, I started a Wikipedia page on *Goa Today*. As everyone reading this knows, this is Goa's oldest monthly, started way back in the 1960s, and has played an influential role in the literary life of the State. The discussions earlier today between Ben and Peter Nazareth only underline this point. And this is truth both when it was owned by Lambert Mascarenhas (jointly, if not mistaken, with Printwell owner FD Dantas, the father of our late much-respected journo colleague Norman Dantas; and ex-Speaker Machado) and also when owned by the Salgaocars.
As most would know, *Goa Today *has a significant expat audience, but hasn't been very active with its own web presence online. The logic probably being that if they had a website, people would prefer to read their magazine online and not subscribe to it. I know of a number of expats who subscribe to the monthly and read it eagerly each month.
What happens is that its lack of online visibility today gets translated (almost) into non-notability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goa_Today
See the debate above, which is telling! I've earlier disagreed with Wikipedians and pointed out that as long as their definition of notability is based on someone's (or some institution's) web presence, in English... this is going to be an unfair world for perhaps the majority on the planet! FN -- P +91-832-2409490 M 9822122436 Twitter: @fn Facebook: fredericknoronha Latest from Goa,1556: http://goa1556.in/book/goa-in-sepia-tinted-postcards/ http://goa1556.in _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Do you really need to put wikidata into EVERY discussion? I think your comment is RIDICULOUS. At least I HOPE it is. I really hope that when a subject's notability is discussed, it is discussed based on INDEPENDENT sources, not on "oh, the guy has been putting this info all over Wikimedia, then it's probably important."
André
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, One way to raise the profile of this magazine is to make sure that it is well connected in Wikidata. I connected it to its founder, made it a magazine and noted when it was founded. Many more things can be added. It is certainly a way to raise available information on the magazine. It is one way to establish information on the subject.
I added some information to its founder and in this way I added surrounding information. The point is very much that never mind the English Wikipedia information, it should not be left to the vagaries of its notability criteria. Wikidata is much more about data and interrelating data. As such the Goa Today is easily notable.
<grin> there is more that can be done </grin> Thanks, GerardM
On 12 December 2014 at 17:31, Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या *فريدريك نورونيا fredericknoronha@gmail.com wrote:
This debate is relevant to us, because we have been discussing lit fests, the profile of writers being invited/privileged etc... Not only on the basis of content, but also on the basis of age, looks, etc [ http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/28/books.booksnews]
Sometime in 2013, I started a Wikipedia page on *Goa Today*. As everyone reading this knows, this is Goa's oldest monthly, started way back in the 1960s, and has played an influential role in the literary life of the State. The discussions earlier today between Ben and Peter Nazareth only underline this point. And this is truth both when it was owned by Lambert Mascarenhas (jointly, if not mistaken, with Printwell owner FD Dantas, the father of our late much-respected journo colleague Norman Dantas; and ex-Speaker Machado) and also when owned by the Salgaocars.
As most would know, *Goa Today *has a significant expat audience, but hasn't been very active with its own web presence online. The logic probably being that if they had a website, people would prefer to read their magazine online and not subscribe to it. I know of a number of expats who subscribe to the monthly and read it eagerly each month.
What happens is that its lack of online visibility today gets translated (almost) into non-notability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goa_Today
See the debate above, which is telling! I've earlier disagreed with Wikipedians and pointed out that as long as their definition of notability is based on someone's (or some institution's) web presence, in English... this is going to be an unfair world for perhaps the majority on the planet! FN -- P +91-832-2409490 M 9822122436 Twitter: @fn Facebook: fredericknoronha Latest from Goa,1556: http://goa1556.in/book/goa-in-sepia-tinted-postcards/ http://goa1556.in _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hoi. The subject IS notable. The problem indicated is that notabiliy is stacked against subjects that are not in the west. You will find that such subjects are woefully underdevelloped. When you notive the people involved in this magazine, you have to agree that the magazine is notable.
When subjects like this are well covered in Wikidata, they can be found in many Wikipedias. Now this is Wikipedia-l not English Wikipedia-l and consequently many Wikipedias that are centred in India WILL find this information never mind what the English Wikipedia in its infinite wisdom chooses to do.
Yes, Wikidata is relevant and I am not afraid to bang its drums. Thanks, GerardM
On 13 December 2014 at 09:39, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
Do you really need to put wikidata into EVERY discussion? I think your comment is RIDICULOUS. At least I HOPE it is. I really hope that when a subject's notability is discussed, it is discussed based on INDEPENDENT sources, not on "oh, the guy has been putting this info all over Wikimedia, then it's probably important."
André
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, One way to raise the profile of this magazine is to make sure that it is well connected in Wikidata. I connected it to its founder, made it a magazine and noted when it was founded. Many more things can be added. It is certainly a way to raise available information on the magazine. It is one way to establish information on the subject.
I added some information to its founder and in this way I added
surrounding
information. The point is very much that never mind the English Wikipedia information, it should not be left to the vagaries of its notability criteria. Wikidata is much more about data and interrelating data. As
such
the Goa Today is easily notable.
<grin> there is more that can be done </grin> Thanks, GerardM
On 12 December 2014 at 17:31, Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या *فريدريك نورونيا fredericknoronha@gmail.com wrote:
This debate is relevant to us, because we have been discussing lit
fests,
the profile of writers being invited/privileged etc... Not only on the basis of content, but also on the basis of age, looks, etc [ http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/28/books.booksnews]
Sometime in 2013, I started a Wikipedia page on *Goa Today*. As everyone reading this knows, this is Goa's oldest monthly, started way back in
the
1960s, and has played an influential role in the literary life of the State. The discussions earlier today between Ben and Peter Nazareth only underline this point. And this is truth both when it was owned by
Lambert
Mascarenhas (jointly, if not mistaken, with Printwell owner FD Dantas,
the
father of our late much-respected journo colleague Norman Dantas; and ex-Speaker Machado) and also when owned by the Salgaocars.
As most would know, *Goa Today *has a significant expat audience, but hasn't been very active with its own web presence online. The logic probably being that if they had a website, people would prefer to read their magazine online and not subscribe to it. I know of a number of
expats
who subscribe to the monthly and read it eagerly each month.
What happens is that its lack of online visibility today gets translated (almost) into non-notability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goa_Today
See the debate above, which is telling! I've earlier disagreed with Wikipedians and pointed out that as long as their definition of
notability
is based on someone's (or some institution's) web presence, in
English...
this is going to be an unfair world for perhaps the majority on the
planet!
FN
P +91-832-2409490 M 9822122436 Twitter: @fn Facebook: fredericknoronha Latest from Goa,1556: http://goa1556.in/book/goa-in-sepia-tinted-postcards/ http://goa1556.in _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Let's put it this way: Wikipedia sees no flaw in accepting the unquestioned logic that if-you-don't-have-a-cyber-presence-or-aren't-mentioned-there-you-don't-exist-or-are-anyway-non-notable.
This stacks the cards strongly against those from non-English backgrounds, those from the less digitised parts of the world, and those who may be working in non-print/non-textual media (e.g. people who have worked for the Urdu service of the BBC, for instance, as it struck me when a page on journalist Reba Shahid came up for deletion recently).
I'm attempting to do two things here:
* Question the logic of such a position, and the impact it has on large parts of the planet.
* Ask whether issues like 'non-notability' need to be such a big issue, considering both the diversity of the planet, and also the fact that in the case of the Wikipedia, space isn't a huge problem as in the printed text. Those interested will refer to any entry they want; "non-notable" entries would automatically get less traction. Let the 'market' of information-seekers decide what is 'non-notable'.
Take an example of a prominent person from the world of Konkani literature in Goa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhavi_Sardesai who also edits the only literary joural in that language here. Her work is all in the Konkani language (Devanagari script) and thus not visible to those on Wikipedia who raise questions of notability.
This is a serious flaw if not systemic bias.
FN
On 13 December 2014 at 16:15, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi. The subject IS notable. The problem indicated is that notabiliy is stacked against subjects that are not in the west. You will find that such subjects are woefully underdevelloped. When you notive the people involved in this magazine, you have to agree that the magazine is notable.
When subjects like this are well covered in Wikidata, they can be found in many Wikipedias. Now this is Wikipedia-l not English Wikipedia-l and consequently many Wikipedias that are centred in India WILL find this information never mind what the English Wikipedia in its infinite wisdom chooses to do.
Yes, Wikidata is relevant and I am not afraid to bang its drums. Thanks, GerardM
On 13 December 2014 at 09:39, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
Do you really need to put wikidata into EVERY discussion? I think your comment is RIDICULOUS. At least I HOPE it is. I really hope that when a subject's notability is discussed, it is discussed based on INDEPENDENT sources, not on "oh, the guy has been putting this info all over Wikimedia, then it's probably important."
André
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, One way to raise the profile of this magazine is to make sure that it
is
well connected in Wikidata. I connected it to its founder, made it a magazine and noted when it was founded. Many more things can be added.
It
is certainly a way to raise available information on the magazine. It
is
one way to establish information on the subject.
I added some information to its founder and in this way I added
surrounding
information. The point is very much that never mind the English
Wikipedia
information, it should not be left to the vagaries of its notability criteria. Wikidata is much more about data and interrelating data. As
such
the Goa Today is easily notable.
<grin> there is more that can be done </grin> Thanks, GerardM
On 12 December 2014 at 17:31, Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या *فريدريك نورونيا fredericknoronha@gmail.com wrote:
This debate is relevant to us, because we have been discussing lit
fests,
the profile of writers being invited/privileged etc... Not only on the basis of content, but also on the basis of age, looks, etc [ http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/28/books.booksnews]
Sometime in 2013, I started a Wikipedia page on *Goa Today*. As
everyone
reading this knows, this is Goa's oldest monthly, started way back in
the
1960s, and has played an influential role in the literary life of the State. The discussions earlier today between Ben and Peter Nazareth
only
underline this point. And this is truth both when it was owned by
Lambert
Mascarenhas (jointly, if not mistaken, with Printwell owner FD Dantas,
the
father of our late much-respected journo colleague Norman Dantas; and ex-Speaker Machado) and also when owned by the Salgaocars.
As most would know, *Goa Today *has a significant expat audience, but hasn't been very active with its own web presence online. The logic probably being that if they had a website, people would prefer to read their magazine online and not subscribe to it. I know of a number of
expats
who subscribe to the monthly and read it eagerly each month.
What happens is that its lack of online visibility today gets
translated
(almost) into non-notability:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goa_Today
See the debate above, which is telling! I've earlier disagreed with Wikipedians and pointed out that as long as their definition of
notability
is based on someone's (or some institution's) web presence, in
English...
this is going to be an unfair world for perhaps the majority on the
planet!
FN
P +91-832-2409490 M 9822122436 Twitter: @fn Facebook: fredericknoronha Latest from Goa,1556: http://goa1556.in/book/goa-in-sepia-tinted-postcards/ http://goa1556.in _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Il giorno 14/dic/2014 01:32, "Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या *فريدريك نورونيا" fredericknoronha@gmail.com ha scritto:
Let's put it this way: Wikipedia sees no flaw in accepting the
unquestioned
logic that
if-you-don't-have-a-cyber-presence-or-aren't-mentioned-there-you-don't-exist-or-are-anyway-non-notable.
I'd say the official position is "if you have a strong cyber position you're very likely to be notable"
This stacks the cards strongly against those from non-English backgrounds, those from the less digitised parts of the world, and those who may be working in non-print/non-textual media (e.g. people who have worked for
the
Urdu service of the BBC, for instance, as it struck me when a page on journalist Reba Shahid came up for deletion recently).
Coming up for deletion doesn't mean getting deleted. I understand the problem, it takes more effort to show that something with an apparently low google count is indeed notable, you may have to keep explaining the contest every time, and it's very likely that something gets deleted because people who may have been able to demonstrate it was notable didn't show up.
- Ask whether issues like 'non-notability' need to be such a big issue,
considering both the diversity of the planet, and also the fact that in
the
case of the Wikipedia, space isn't a huge problem as in the printed text.
Those interested will refer to any entry they want; "non-notable" entries would automatically get less traction. Let the 'market' of information-seekers decide what is 'non-notable'.
Non-notability is an important criterium to fight against people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, which is nowadays a huge problem. To answer your concerns, the problem is the way you measure notability. Google results work well in many cases: if something as a lot of hits from reliable external websites, than notability is very likely. However, this is a sufficient condition, not a necessary one (although people are often unaware of the difference).
Take an example of a prominent person from the world of Konkani literature in Goa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhavi_Sardesai who also edits the only literary joural in that language here. Her work is all in the Konkani language (Devanagari script) and thus not visible to those on Wikipedia
who
raise questions of notability.
I'm just speculating here, but it probably applies to some case. If someone has only written a short story which got published on some obscure journal, he/she is very unlikely to be notable. Now, if all you apparently find in google is this short story, then it's fair to raise a question about notability. In an ideal world, reliable sources that the person's production in language X is notable have been provided, so the doubt is solved and we all learn about another culture.
Of course in real world you may only get someone whose first language is not English, and not very familiar with Wikipedia policies, who will just say: I very like this writer; maybe another couple of persons will do the same (and get accused of sockpuppetry), and the article will be deleted, also thanks to the comment of a lazy native speaker guy who spent one minute on google and only found a few hits on a forum.
So, the problem is not notability, but the way it is measured. I'm sure that even in Goa someone tries to be in Wikipedia to get visibility, and even in the US someone who should be on Wikipedia gets deleted because no one is able to demonstrate the notability. Efforts to fill the gap are important, but controls must exist.
Cruccone
Hoi, There are so many people in Wikipedia who are hardly notable but who have a large base on Google. They just happen to be in the USA and they have been noted for instance as a councilor of a small USA village. How in hell does this mean notability ?
Google in English is not in and of itself reliable as an indicator when the lack of information from Google particularly from countries and other languages is considered as an argument of insisting on the lack of notability. The issue with self promoting is in a different domain;it is in the language and the culture where Google may indicate relevance. Thanks, GerardM
On 14 December 2014 at 08:59, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
Il giorno 14/dic/2014 01:32, "Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या *فريدريك نورونيا" fredericknoronha@gmail.com ha scritto:
Let's put it this way: Wikipedia sees no flaw in accepting the
unquestioned
logic that
if-you-don't-have-a-cyber-presence-or-aren't-mentioned-there-you-don't-exist-or-are-anyway-non-notable.
I'd say the official position is "if you have a strong cyber position you're very likely to be notable"
This stacks the cards strongly against those from non-English
backgrounds,
those from the less digitised parts of the world, and those who may be working in non-print/non-textual media (e.g. people who have worked for
the
Urdu service of the BBC, for instance, as it struck me when a page on journalist Reba Shahid came up for deletion recently).
Coming up for deletion doesn't mean getting deleted. I understand the problem, it takes more effort to show that something with an apparently low google count is indeed notable, you may have to keep explaining the contest every time, and it's very likely that something gets deleted because people who may have been able to demonstrate it was notable didn't show up.
- Ask whether issues like 'non-notability' need to be such a big issue,
considering both the diversity of the planet, and also the fact that in
the
case of the Wikipedia, space isn't a huge problem as in the printed text.
Those interested will refer to any entry they want; "non-notable" entries would automatically get less traction. Let the 'market' of information-seekers decide what is 'non-notable'.
Non-notability is an important criterium to fight against people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, which is nowadays a huge problem. To answer your concerns, the problem is the way you measure notability. Google results work well in many cases: if something as a lot of hits from reliable external websites, than notability is very likely. However, this is a sufficient condition, not a necessary one (although people are often unaware of the difference).
Take an example of a prominent person from the world of Konkani
literature
in Goa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhavi_Sardesai who also edits
the
only literary joural in that language here. Her work is all in the
Konkani
language (Devanagari script) and thus not visible to those on Wikipedia
who
raise questions of notability.
I'm just speculating here, but it probably applies to some case. If someone has only written a short story which got published on some obscure journal, he/she is very unlikely to be notable. Now, if all you apparently find in google is this short story, then it's fair to raise a question about notability. In an ideal world, reliable sources that the person's production in language X is notable have been provided, so the doubt is solved and we all learn about another culture.
Of course in real world you may only get someone whose first language is not English, and not very familiar with Wikipedia policies, who will just say: I very like this writer; maybe another couple of persons will do the same (and get accused of sockpuppetry), and the article will be deleted, also thanks to the comment of a lazy native speaker guy who spent one minute on google and only found a few hits on a forum.
So, the problem is not notability, but the way it is measured. I'm sure that even in Goa someone tries to be in Wikipedia to get visibility, and even in the US someone who should be on Wikipedia gets deleted because no one is able to demonstrate the notability. Efforts to fill the gap are important, but controls must exist.
Cruccone _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Those arguments only hold water if you go by a raw Google count. That's indeed a much too rough measure. At the very least one should compare this number with the number to be expected from the given type of subject if notable - I have accepted subjects with only a few dozen links (although really in those cases the check was more about realness than about notability), and rejected subjects with thousands (that's really too little for a web-based software tool). But the real correct way would be to not look at the number at all, and instead see if you can find a handful of links that by their nature can establish notability.
André
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, There are so many people in Wikipedia who are hardly notable but who have a large base on Google. They just happen to be in the USA and they have been noted for instance as a councilor of a small USA village. How in hell does this mean notability ?
Google in English is not in and of itself reliable as an indicator when the lack of information from Google particularly from countries and other languages is considered as an argument of insisting on the lack of notability. The issue with self promoting is in a different domain;it is in the language and the culture where Google may indicate relevance. Thanks, GerardM
On 14 December 2014 at 08:59, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
Il giorno 14/dic/2014 01:32, "Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या *فريدريك نورونيا" fredericknoronha@gmail.com ha scritto:
Let's put it this way: Wikipedia sees no flaw in accepting the
unquestioned
logic that
if-you-don't-have-a-cyber-presence-or-aren't-mentioned-there-you-don't-exist-or-are-anyway-non-notable.
I'd say the official position is "if you have a strong cyber position you're very likely to be notable"
This stacks the cards strongly against those from non-English
backgrounds,
those from the less digitised parts of the world, and those who may be working in non-print/non-textual media (e.g. people who have worked for
the
Urdu service of the BBC, for instance, as it struck me when a page on journalist Reba Shahid came up for deletion recently).
Coming up for deletion doesn't mean getting deleted. I understand the problem, it takes more effort to show that something with an apparently low google count is indeed notable, you may have to keep explaining the contest every time, and it's very likely that something gets deleted because people who may have been able to demonstrate it was notable didn't show up.
- Ask whether issues like 'non-notability' need to be such a big issue,
considering both the diversity of the planet, and also the fact that in
the
case of the Wikipedia, space isn't a huge problem as in the printed text.
Those interested will refer to any entry they want; "non-notable" entries would automatically get less traction. Let the 'market' of information-seekers decide what is 'non-notable'.
Non-notability is an important criterium to fight against people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, which is nowadays a huge problem. To answer your concerns, the problem is the way you measure notability. Google results work well in many cases: if something as a lot of hits from reliable external websites, than notability is very likely. However, this is a sufficient condition, not a necessary one (although people are often unaware of the difference).
Take an example of a prominent person from the world of Konkani
literature
in Goa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhavi_Sardesai who also edits
the
only literary joural in that language here. Her work is all in the
Konkani
language (Devanagari script) and thus not visible to those on Wikipedia
who
raise questions of notability.
I'm just speculating here, but it probably applies to some case. If someone has only written a short story which got published on some obscure journal, he/she is very unlikely to be notable. Now, if all you apparently find in google is this short story, then it's fair to raise a question about notability. In an ideal world, reliable sources that the person's production in language X is notable have been provided, so the doubt is solved and we all learn about another culture.
Of course in real world you may only get someone whose first language is not English, and not very familiar with Wikipedia policies, who will just say: I very like this writer; maybe another couple of persons will do the same (and get accused of sockpuppetry), and the article will be deleted, also thanks to the comment of a lazy native speaker guy who spent one minute on google and only found a few hits on a forum.
So, the problem is not notability, but the way it is measured. I'm sure that even in Goa someone tries to be in Wikipedia to get visibility, and even in the US someone who should be on Wikipedia gets deleted because no one is able to demonstrate the notability. Efforts to fill the gap are important, but controls must exist.
Cruccone _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Dec 13, 2014, at 7:31 PM, Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या *فريدريك نورونيا fredericknoronha@gmail.com wrote:
Let's put it this way: Wikipedia sees no flaw in accepting the unquestioned logic that if-you-don't-have-a-cyber-presence-or-aren't-mentioned-there-you-don't-exist-or-are-anyway-non-notable.
The Wiki is far less demanding in this respect than the world in general. Do you think US media overruns the planet because it's *good*?
This stacks the cards strongly against those from non-English backgrounds,
What is the *real problem* here? Is it that a web site has a policy that favours material on the web? Or is it that there are still people in the world who don't have easy access to the web?
It's a problem, surely, just the Wiki's.
Maury
Frederick, I agree that this is a problem, particularly for subjects relating to the global South. There are millions of topics that are worth having in Wikipedia, but which may have few or no internet sources, and whose print sources may all be in non-English languages.
I would like to see us stop having back and forth about whether this is a bug or a feature and put our collective mental energy towards brainstorming creative solutions that could lead to greater inclusion of topics and narratives from the global South that may not have any web presence.
In particular, Frederick, I am curious to hear any ideas you may have on solutions to this systemic problem.
- Mark Williamson On Dec 13, 2014 5:32 PM, "Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या *فريدريك نورونيا" fredericknoronha@gmail.com wrote:
Let's put it this way: Wikipedia sees no flaw in accepting the unquestioned logic that
if-you-don't-have-a-cyber-presence-or-aren't-mentioned-there-you-don't-exist-or-are-anyway-non-notable.
This stacks the cards strongly against those from non-English backgrounds, those from the less digitised parts of the world, and those who may be working in non-print/non-textual media (e.g. people who have worked for the Urdu service of the BBC, for instance, as it struck me when a page on journalist Reba Shahid came up for deletion recently).
I'm attempting to do two things here:
- Question the logic of such a position, and the impact it has on large
parts of the planet.
- Ask whether issues like 'non-notability' need to be such a big issue,
considering both the diversity of the planet, and also the fact that in the case of the Wikipedia, space isn't a huge problem as in the printed text. Those interested will refer to any entry they want; "non-notable" entries would automatically get less traction. Let the 'market' of information-seekers decide what is 'non-notable'.
Take an example of a prominent person from the world of Konkani literature in Goa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhavi_Sardesai who also edits the only literary joural in that language here. Her work is all in the Konkani language (Devanagari script) and thus not visible to those on Wikipedia who raise questions of notability.
This is a serious flaw if not systemic bias.
FN
On 13 December 2014 at 16:15, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi. The subject IS notable. The problem indicated is that notabiliy is
stacked
against subjects that are not in the west. You will find that such
subjects
are woefully underdevelloped. When you notive the people involved in this magazine, you have to agree that the magazine is notable.
When subjects like this are well covered in Wikidata, they can be found
in
many Wikipedias. Now this is Wikipedia-l not English Wikipedia-l and consequently many Wikipedias that are centred in India WILL find this information never mind what the English Wikipedia in its infinite wisdom chooses to do.
Yes, Wikidata is relevant and I am not afraid to bang its drums. Thanks, GerardM
On 13 December 2014 at 09:39, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com
wrote:
Do you really need to put wikidata into EVERY discussion? I think your comment is RIDICULOUS. At least I HOPE it is. I really hope that when a subject's notability is discussed, it is discussed based on INDEPENDENT sources, not on "oh, the guy has been putting this info all over Wikimedia, then it's probably important."
André
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, One way to raise the profile of this magazine is to make sure that it
is
well connected in Wikidata. I connected it to its founder, made it a magazine and noted when it was founded. Many more things can be
added.
It
is certainly a way to raise available information on the magazine. It
is
one way to establish information on the subject.
I added some information to its founder and in this way I added
surrounding
information. The point is very much that never mind the English
Wikipedia
information, it should not be left to the vagaries of its notability criteria. Wikidata is much more about data and interrelating data. As
such
the Goa Today is easily notable.
<grin> there is more that can be done </grin> Thanks, GerardM
On 12 December 2014 at 17:31, Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या *فريدريك نورونيا fredericknoronha@gmail.com wrote:
This debate is relevant to us, because we have been discussing lit
fests,
the profile of writers being invited/privileged etc... Not only on
the
basis of content, but also on the basis of age, looks, etc [ http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/28/books.booksnews]
Sometime in 2013, I started a Wikipedia page on *Goa Today*. As
everyone
reading this knows, this is Goa's oldest monthly, started way back
in
the
1960s, and has played an influential role in the literary life of
the
State. The discussions earlier today between Ben and Peter Nazareth
only
underline this point. And this is truth both when it was owned by
Lambert
Mascarenhas (jointly, if not mistaken, with Printwell owner FD
Dantas,
the
father of our late much-respected journo colleague Norman Dantas;
and
ex-Speaker Machado) and also when owned by the Salgaocars.
As most would know, *Goa Today *has a significant expat audience,
but
hasn't been very active with its own web presence online. The logic probably being that if they had a website, people would prefer to
read
their magazine online and not subscribe to it. I know of a number of
expats
who subscribe to the monthly and read it eagerly each month.
What happens is that its lack of online visibility today gets
translated
(almost) into non-notability:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goa_Today
See the debate above, which is telling! I've earlier disagreed with Wikipedians and pointed out that as long as their definition of
notability
is based on someone's (or some institution's) web presence, in
English...
this is going to be an unfair world for perhaps the majority on the
planet!
FN
P +91-832-2409490 M 9822122436 Twitter: @fn Facebook:
fredericknoronha
Latest from Goa,1556: http://goa1556.in/book/goa-in-sepia-tinted-postcards/ http://goa1556.in _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
P +91-832-2409490 M 9822122436 Twitter: @fn Facebook: fredericknoronha Latest from Goa,1556: http://goa1556.in/book/goa-in-sepia-tinted-postcards/ http://goa1556.in _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या *فريدريك نورونيا fredericknoronha@gmail.com wrote:
What happens is that its lack of online visibility today gets translated (almost) into non-notability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goa_Today
See the debate above, which is telling! I've earlier disagreed with Wikipedians and pointed out that as long as their definition of notability is based on someone's (or some institution's) web presence, in English... this is going to be an unfair world for perhaps the majority on the planet! FN
How is it telling? I see one person showing doubts, then another person swamping the discussion with arguments in favour, after which everyone seems to consider the issue resolved. Maybe if Bejnar had not put this material forward or had not been as eloquent, there would have been more baseless discussion, but then again, maybe not.
To be honest, and I hope that you don't take this as criticism of you as the writer, because that's not how it's meant, I don't think losing the article in the way it was would be that bad. It was a two-line stub, with one of the two lines not really relevant to the subject (what Macarenhas was when he founded the magazine is relevant, what he is now, is not) . The worst thing about it might be that a deletion for being non-notable would have harmed the chances of re-creation.
In the end, I don't see how you would like to see this changed, except by dropping any notability criterion we have. As the nominator writes "I couldn't establish that [this] meets WP:NOTABILITY". There is no requirement that notability must be established online, just that it must be established (although he might be blamed for not trying harder - when I do a Google search for '"Goa Today" magazine', the sheer diversity of links would be enough for me to consider it notable). If notability is an issue at all, there is a necessity to establish it when it is in doubt. And yes, that might mean that for some subjects it's easier to do than for others. But to me, the way to handle that kind of 'hard cases' is exactly the way it is done here: Write a message "I could not establish notability of this subject, can one of you?" Perhaps another procedure might be better than the current AfD. But that would just be shaving at the margins.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org