[WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

[Ray Saintonge]

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:59:49 -0500 (EST), "Jeff Raymond" wrote:
>  
>
>>>No, no, no, a thousand times no.  Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a
>>>tertiary source, a distillation of secondary sources, not a publisher
>>>of first instance.
>>>      
>>>
>>And no one is REALISTICALLY disagreeing with this.  Something can be a
>>tertiary distillation without REQUIRING "multiple, non-trivial, secondary
>>sources" for inclusion.  Don't set up an argument I'm not making.
>>    
>>
>How?  Have you ever looked at a paper encyclopaedia?  Every article is
>verifiable from numerous published sources.  We're not paper so we can
>extend to a huge number of articles, and that takes us to the edge of
>what can be referenced from numerous published sources, but if we step
>over that edge we cease to be an encyclopaedia and become something
>else.
>
I think we sometimes put too much weight on the distinction between 
secondary and tertiary sources, or that the published sources must be 
numerous.  For paper encyclopedias it's easy because of their space 
limitations.  For us one reliable source should be plenty for an initial 
article; more can be added later when they are found.  This construct of 
an "edge" to step over is highly subjective, and that it should define 
the limits of what is encyclopedic is an unwarranted limitation.

>>>>[[Ern Westmore]] - Oscar-winning makeup artist, second generation of the
>>>>famed Westmore family, had his own television show.  My research -
>>>>extensive for a non-wiki project I'm working on, but not *highly*
>>>>extensive (local news reports, etc) - does not uncover him as THE SUBJECT
>>>>of multiple secondary sources.  Many independent mentions in articles and
>>>>books, but never as the subject, and the best source I've found about him
>>>>so far was written by his brother, which calls into question
>>>>"independent."  Does this mean our general idea of "notability" is
>>>>working, or not?
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>It means you haven't yet found the sources.  There will be sources.
>>>There will be, for example, the citations from the Academy Awards,
>>>describing his work.  Go to the library, look in Halliwell and other
>>>film guides.  Look in the trade magazines for the film industry.  Not
>>>on the net?  Who cares.
>>>      
>>>
>>No, it means that it's highly likely they don't exist.  Your assumption
>>that they do when I can tell you first hand that they so far don't don't
>>in ways Wikipedia requires is coming from a place where the effort hasn't
>>been made.  I've taken more time than I should looking for information on
>>this guy - it's not there in the way we allegedly want it.
>>    
>>
>So maybe there are no secondary sources and we can't have an article.
>Shame.  there are eight billion other things to work on...
>
If the conclusion from being only unable to find secondary sources is 
that we can't have an article on a subject which many will agree to be 
otherwise valid that indicates that there is something seriously wrong 
with our criteria.

>There are people I consider significant and important.  No sources
>exist.  I can't document them.  Saxon Aldred, organ builder, for
>example.  Peter Collins, yes, and Noel Mander and others, but not
>Saxon.  I managed to find sources for Andrew Parnell, which was not
>easy.  I think we should have an article on Colin Slee, there may now
>be enough sources on him.  There will probably never be enough on
>Peter Moore, a predecessor of Jeffrey John as dean of St. Albans.
>These people are acknowledged as important by their peers. 
>
I know nothing about the organists in an obscure English town.  If you 
have one source for each of these people that's fine.  You may not find 
a second source yourself, but that doesn't mean that no one else can.  A 
strict interpretation of your view means that you can't add the article 
because you have only one source, and some other editor can't write the 
article because he also has only one (albeit different) source.  The 
result is absurd.  How can either of you know of the other source unless 
one of you first writes the article.

Wikipedia is a work in progress, and each article within it is a work in 
progress.  When a policy inhibits the ability of two editors to 
collaborate it frustrates our major objective of making all knowledge 
freely available.  To collaborate those two editors must first be aware 
of each other's existence.

>>>There seems to be an informal agreement that census data counts for
>>>places.
>>>      
>>>
>>An informal agreement that doesn't reflect reality, though.  It's only an
>>agreement until people who disagree come along.
>>    
>>
>Correct.
>
And when they disagree they should be trying to find a mutually 
acceptable solution.  That is very difficult when the issue is phrased 
in black and white keep/delete terms. 

>>>My view is that we should change the subject-specific notability
>>>guidelines to be an indication of the types of sources which are
>>>considered reliable for that type of content.  But to say something is
>>>notable when it plainly has not been noted may be to misunderstand the
>>>definition of notability, in terms of an encyclopaedia.
>>>      
>>>
>>Our views are somewhat similar in the first half, but not in the second. 
>>Things are encyclopedic without being "notable," and our "notability"
>>guidelines do a piss-poor job reflecting that in many important cases.
>>    
>>
>For values of important that may fall short of attracting the
>attention of reliable secondary sources :-)
>
We would do better diverting many of these debates to sub-groups like 
the WikiProjects where a significant number of participants have a clue 
about the topic.  This would also ease us away from the stilted and 
artificial declarations of notability that have recently been demanded.

Ec