[WikiEN-l] I'm disappointed in Wikipedia.

[Brian Salter-Duke]

On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 04:02:29PM -0700, K P wrote:
>  On 6/16/07, Brian Salter-Duke <b_duke at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 09:02:06PM -0700, Todd Allen wrote:
> > > Anthony wrote:
> > > > On 6/16/07, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On 6/15/07, The Mangoe <the.mangoe at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> At any rate, there are
> > > >>> some 1400 tenure and tenure-track faculty at UMD. Harvard has more.
> > > >>> That makes hundreds of thousands "notable", just counting present
> > > >>> faculty; the dead of course hugely outnumber them. The survival of 
> > the
> > > >>> project relies upon the lack of interest most people have in entering
> > > >>> these directories (for that is what they will largely be).
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >> Are you suggesting that the project won't survive with 1400 additional
> > > >> entries?  If so, I have to disagree.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > Sorry, misread.  Are you suggesting that the project won't survive
> > > > with hundreds of thousands of additional entries?  I still disagree.
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > > >
> > > >
> > > I wouldn't go so far as to say it would kill off the project, but I
> > > believe it would be bad for it. We're not attempting to create "Who's
> > > Who in Academia", we're attempting to create an encyclopedia. By
> > > covering subjects which are barely of note, very little information
> > > exists for, and will be forgotten completely ten years from now, we are
> > > giving them undue weight simply by inclusion. That violates NPOV, which
> > > -is- a core principle.
> >
> > I do not think anybody is really suggesting that all academics should
> > get a wikipedia article. It is at least arguable that Professors in the
> > UK and other Commonwealth countries, where most acdaemics are not
> > Professors, should have an article. In the US that would apply to named
> > and distinguished chairs which are comparable.
> >
> > What concerns me is that we do give undue weight to people in other
> > areas, where in general they are even less notable. For example, just
> > taking one example I looked up just now, my local AFL Club, the
> > [[Western Bulldogs]], has an article that lists the current squad of
> > players. There are 44. That means some of them  will hardly get a game
> > the whole session. Only 3 are redlinks. 41 of them appear to have
> > articles. Most of these people will be far more forgotten in 10 years
> > time than academics who will have published something. It seems to me
> > that we include sports people and some others far more easily than we
> > include academics. We even had two Australian Vice Chancelloes up at AfD
> > this last week. We have articles for only about half the Fellows of the
> > Royal Society, the National Academy of Sciences and many other highly
> > notable academies. We need more articles on good academics.
> >
> > If only people would write about academics who deserve an article rather
> > on vanity stuff about their supervisor or themseleves. Oh well!.
> >
> > Brian.
> >
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> > --
> >          Brian Salter-Duke            b_duke at bigpond.net.au
> >               [[User:Bduke]]  mainly on en:Wikipedia.
> >           Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity
> >
> >
>  Yes, there are some pretty minor football players with articles, but
>  they do get written up in the news in such a way that the information
>  is available on the web.
> 
>  A current AfD, American Polygraph Association, a professional
>  organization for, well, polygraph technicians.  The organization
>  itself has been the subject of much international research and scandal
>  because professional polygraph organizations outside of North America
>  disagree with a technique favored by the APA--the organization and
>  this technique have, therefore, been the subject of numerous articles
>  in international psychology and criminalogy journals, not the stuff
>  found on the web.  This is old stuff from when I studied witness
>  testimony, not current knowledge, but I was able to find a couple of
>  sources.
> 
>  Oh, let's see, why was it nominated for deletion?  According to 
>  user:Wikihermit:
> 
>  Non notable organization.
> 
>  In other words, someone's personal point of view offered up as an
>  exercise in wasting time.

Indeed, and the AfD's for Australian University Vice Chancellors are a
waste of time too. Footy players get internet references. Academics get
references too, but they are often less accessable. We should treat them
the same.
 
>  Football players?  They're everywhere. I just edited an aricle for a
>  college (American) football quarterback.
> 
>  KP

-- 
          Brian Salter-Duke            b_duke at bigpond.net.au  
               [[User:Bduke]]  mainly on en:Wikipedia.
           Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity