[WikiEN-l] Lists which are sheer nonsense
rednblack at alum.mit.edu
rednblack at alum.mit.edu
Thu Mar 6 04:14:51 UTC 2003
My point is not that I don't like them personally; my point is that I don't
think they belong on Wikipedia. Now, if you take the point of view that I
should "just ignore" things that I don't like, then you don't think there is
such a beast, and anything goes on Wikipedia. Then we get more and more
articles about random nonsense, and soon we are everything3. I'd rather have
some semblance of standards - and reasonably high standards, at that - about
what makes an appropriate article. These lists offend me not because they're
not something I'm particularly interested in - there's plenty of that in the
Wikipedia, and that's fine by me. These lists offend me because I think they
lower the quality of Wikipedia, they lower the bar for what is a good article,
and they lower our expectations for other editors.
Saurabh
------
"It doesn't matter what government the country has. The power is held by those
who own and control medias." -- Ahmed Rami
In message <20030306015316.52459.qmail at web40910.mail.yahoo.com>, Zoe said:
>--0-1038858368-1046915596=:51715
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
>Is there something FORCING you to read these lists you dislike so much? Don't you have the option of ignoring them?
>Zoe
> rednblack at alum.mit.edu wrote:
>Okay. People are actively editing [[List of songs whose title does not appear
>in their lyrics]]. Four or five people have assured me I am a rotten git for
>daring to question the necessity of this article, but I can't help it. I think
>the fact that people created, discussed, and edited this article is just wrong.
>Even worse, people I respect (e.g. Tannin and Tarquin) are working on this
>article. I'm willing to tolerate most lists, even [[Lists of Americans]], or
>whatever it's called now. But this just caps it for me.
>
>I'd like to point out "What Wikipedia is not" #11:
>
># List repository of loosely associated topics such as; quotations, aphorisms
># or persons (But of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their
># entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly
># contributed to the list topic).
>
>This may not be definitive, but it at least suggests that we have some
>guidelines for what sort of lists should be considered appropriate, and what
>are total trash. I feel this particular list tips over into total trash. I have
>been assured that this list is valuable as an article, because people might be
>interested in it for its own sake (i.e. someone might want to know what songs
>have titles that don't appear in their lyrics), but I have a hard time taking
>this seriously. Are we going to insert every absurd contortion that the human
>mind can come up with into Wikipedia in the form of a list? E.g. [[List of
>left-handed Presidents]], [[List of towns with forty-story buildings]], [[List
>of drinks that contain banana]], etc., etc., etc.
>
>At some point this has got to stop. Can we draw a line in the sand, here? The
>trash lists have got to go. If there's not a clear organizing reason for it,
>then it shouldn't exist.
>
>Saurabh
>
>------
>"Slugs! He created slugs! They can't hear, they can't speak, they can't operate
>machinery... I mean, are we not in the hands of a lunatic?"
>-- The Evil One describes the Supreme Being, "Time Bandits"
>
>In message <200302281914.OAA22276 at TheWorld.com>, Tom Parmenter said:
>>Lists serve as an organizing tool. They show what we have and don't
>>have. [[List of people from the United States]] is too broad to be of
>>much use, but [[List of boogie woogie musicians]] is invaluable, both
>>as an aid to those of us working on the topic, but also the reader.
>>There may never be a full article on Drive'em Down, the legendary New
>>Orleans piano player, but he's in the Wikipedia, and in a place where
>>his contributions can be best understood.
>>
>>In addition to their use as indexes, the "Related changes" and "What
>>links here" are helpful to writers working in a particular area and
>>the talk pages serve as a meeting place.
>>
>>There are all kinds of lists.
>>
>>
>>The best lists are:
>>
>>- confined to a single graspable topic. If the topic is vast, the
>>better lists will have been largely assembled by some outside
>>authority, Hall of Fame or the like.
>>
>>- annotated, why is the person place or thing on the list?
>>
>>- organized in a useful fashion. They can be grouped by topic, in
>>alphabetical order, or chronological, whatever helps make the list
>>more useful.
>>
>>Further observations:
>>
>>- [[List of novelists]] is barely tolerable. It is huge, but at least
>>it is grouped by an amalgam of language/country identifiers that is
>>not intellectually rigorous. but works for the reader.
>>
>>- [[List of gay movies]] is in alphabetical order and unannotated. I
>>have been arguing on thetalk page that if it were annotated (why is
>>''Rebel Without a Cause'' a gay movie) and in chronological order
>>(showing changing attitudes) it would be more useful (and interesting,
>>always a big number with me).
>>
>>- [[List of musical topics]] is vast, alphabetical, and unannotated, but
>>it shows the scope of Wikipedia and give music-minded writers
>>something to chew on.
>>
>>- The alphabetical biography lists are much more useful if they are
>>annotated, which has been a side project of mine.
>>
>>- [[One hit wonders]] went immediately off the tracks. It started as
>>a list ofthose odd but classic numbers but was quickly mired down by
>>objections that so-and-so had had two hits (one of which was never
>>heard of and did not matter) and also by diligent folks with reference
>>books listing every song that had ever been on any hit parade for at
>>least a week.
>>
>>I'm very pro-list, and willing to take the good with the bad.
>>
>>If [[List of Mexican restaurants in Los Angeles]] shows up, so be it.
>>[[List of glass harmonicists]] will soon be along to make up for it.
>>
>>Tom Parmenter
>>Ortolan88
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
>--0-1038858368-1046915596=:51715
>Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
>
><P>Is there something FORCING you to read these lists you dislike so much? Don't you have the option of ignoring
>them?
><P>Zoe
><P> <B><I>rednblack at alum.mit.edu</I></B> wrote:
><BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR>Okay. People are actively e
>diting [[List of songs whose title does not appear<BR>in their lyrics]]. Four or five people have assured me I am a rot
>ten git for<BR>daring to question the necessity of this article, but I can't help it. I think<BR>the fact that people c
>reated, discussed, and edited this article is just wrong.<BR>Even worse, people I respect (e.g. Tannin and Tarquin) are
> working on this<BR>article. I'm willing to tolerate most lists, even [[Lists of Americans]], or<BR>whatever it's calle
>d now. But this just caps it for me.<BR><BR>I'd like to point out "What Wikipedia is not" #11:<BR><BR># List repository
> of loosely associated topics such as; quotations, aphorisms<BR># or persons (But of course, there is nothing wrong wit
>h having lists if their<BR># entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly<BR># contributed to t
>he list topic).<BR><BR>This may not b!
>e definitive, but it at least suggests that we have some<BR>guidelines for what sort of lists should be considered appr
>opriate, and what<BR>are total trash. I feel this particular list tips over into total trash. I have<BR>been assured th
>at this list is valuable as an article, because people might be<BR>interested in it for its own sake (i.e. someone migh
>t want to know what songs<BR>have titles that don't appear in their lyrics), but I have a hard time taking<BR>this seri
>ously. Are we going to insert every absurd contortion that the human<BR>mind can come up with into Wikipedia in the for
>m of a list? E.g. [[List of<BR>left-handed Presidents]], [[List of towns with forty-story buildings]], [[List<BR>of dri
>nks that contain banana]], etc., etc., etc. <BR><BR>At some point this has got to stop. Can we draw a line in the sand,
> here? The<BR>trash lists have got to go. If there's not a clear organizing reason for it,<BR>then it shouldn't exist.<
>BR><BR>Saurabh<BR><BR>------<BR>"Slug!
>s! He created slugs! They can't hear, they can't speak, they can't operate<BR>machinery... I mean, are we not in the ha
>nds of a lunatic?" <BR>-- The Evil One describes the Supreme Being, "Time Bandits"<BR><BR>In message <200302281914.O
>AA22276 at TheWorld.com>, Tom Parmenter said:<BR>>Lists serve as an organizing tool. They show what we have and don'
>t<BR>>have. [[List of people from the United States]] is too broad to be of<BR>>much use, but [[List of boogie wo
>ogie musicians]] is invaluable, both<BR>>as an aid to those of us working on the topic, but also the reader.<BR>>
>There may never be a full article on Drive'em Down, the legendary New<BR>>Orleans piano player, but he's in the Wiki
>pedia, and in a place where<BR>>his contributions can be best understood.<BR>><BR>>In addition to their use as
> indexes, the "Related changes" and "What<BR>>links here" are helpful to writers working in a particular area and<BR
>>>the talk pages serve as a meetin!
>g place. <BR>><BR>>There are all kinds of lists. <BR>><BR>><BR>>The best lists are:<BR>><BR>>- con
>fined to a single graspable topic. If the topic is vast, the<BR>>better lists will have been largely assembled by so
>me outside<BR>>authority, Hall of Fame or the like. <BR>><BR>>- annotated, why is the person place or thing on
> the list?<BR>><BR>>- organized in a useful fashion. They can be grouped by topic, in<BR>>alphabetical order,
>or chronological, whatever helps make the list<BR>>more useful. <BR>><BR>>Further observations: <BR>><BR>&g
>t;- [[List of novelists]] is barely tolerable. It is huge, but at least<BR>>it is grouped by an amalgam of language/
>country identifiers that is<BR>>not intellectually rigorous. but works for the reader.<BR>><BR>>- [[List of ga
>y movies]] is in alphabetical order and unannotated. I<BR>>have been arguing on thetalk page that if it were annotat
>ed (why is<BR>>''Rebel Without a C!
>ause'' a gay movie) and in chronological order<BR>>(showing changing attitudes) it would be more useful (and interes
>ting,<BR>>always a big number with me).<BR>><BR>>- [[List of musical topics]] is vast, alphabetical, and unann
>otated, but<BR>>it shows the scope of Wikipedia and give music-minded writers<BR>>something to chew on. <BR>><
>BR>>- The alphabetical biography lists are much more useful if they are<BR>>annotated, which has been a side proj
>ect of mine. <BR>><BR>>- [[One hit wonders]] went immediately off the tracks. It started as<BR>>a list ofthose
> odd but classic numbers but was quickly mired down by<BR>>objections that so-and-so had had two hits (one of which
>was never<BR>>heard of and did not matter) and also by diligent folks with reference<BR>>books listing every song
> that had ever been on any hit parade for at<BR>>least a week. <BR>><BR>>I'm very pro-list, and willing to tak
>e the good with the bad.<BR>><BR>&!
>gt;If [[List of Mexican restaurants in Los Angeles]] shows up, so be it.<BR>>[[List of glass harmonicists]] will soo
>n be along to make up for it.<BR>><BR>>Tom Parmenter<BR>>Ortolan88<BR>><BR>>____________________________
>___________________<BR>>WikiEN-l mailing list<BR>>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org<BR>>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/
>listinfo/wikien-l<BR>><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>WikiEN-l mailing list<BR>WikiEN-l at wikip
>edia.org<BR>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l</BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
><a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/finance/mailtagline/*http://taxes.yahoo.com/">Yahoo! Tax Center</a> - forms, calculators,
>tips, and more
>--0-1038858368-1046915596=:51715--
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list