[WikiEN-l] Attack Site Wars, Episode VII... The Return of the Essjay

[Todd Allen]

Blu Aardvark wrote:
> Why does Wikipedia have to have an entry on everything that is reported 
> by some media source or other?
>
> Yes, the event was covered by a few reliable sources, but it didn't take 
> long for the media to forget all about it. And nobody will even give a 
> rat's behind about the Essjay Controversy in five, ten years, except for 
> maybe a few Wikipedia users who were affected by it. Just because a 
> person or event made some headlines doesn't necessarily mean that that 
> person or event is notable. Oh, it's *verifiable*, to be sure, but 
> verifiability is not the same as notability, or else Wikipedia would 
> have articles on anyone who has ever made their local rag. (Nobody is 
> arguing for that. At least, I hope nobody is...)
>
> Do real encyclopedias devote space to discussing singular events that 
> happened to be reported by some random notable media source? Not 
> generally. Now, granted, real encyclopedias generally don't have lists 
> of episodes in television series as well (and some would argue that 
> having those lists is one of Wikipedia's strong points), and there are 
> quite a few other things that might not be found in traditional 
> encyclopedias due to the fact that Wikipedia is an entirely different 
> medium. However, as for events that just happened to get a flurry of 
> media attention that then died down, isn't that what Wikinews is for?
>
> Todd Allen wrote:
>   
>> I don't believe there's any form of "punishment" here. This issue turned
>> out to be a pretty major one, reported on by quite a few reliable
>> sources, so we have an article on it. That's not a punishment, it's what
>> we do.
>>   
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>   
In general, I'd tend to agree we shouldn't have news-type items, unless
they're of lasting significance. I would tend to argue, though, that due
to Wikipedia's size, popularity, and stature, Wikipedia itself will
certainly be a subject of future study-of encyclopedias, of the
Internet, and in relation to many other topics. That will certainly
include its triumphs and its tribulations. The Essjay situation might
not make headlines ten or twenty years from now, but I'd dare to say it
will get looked up. Someone studying the pseudonymous nature of the
Internet, and its drawbacks, may very well look up such a situation. It
certainly also might be of interest to someone studying the history of
The New Yorker, or of notable failures with fact-checking in the media
in general, that's not just a name misspelling that gets a quick
correction the next day. I don't think it will get buried in dust
anytime soon.

Of course, if you think it ought to get merged somewhere, go suggest a
merger! Or just do it and go through the [[WP:BRD]] (bold, revert,
discuss) cycle. Just don't go through the [[WP:BREW]] (bold, revert,
edit war) cycle.

Hrm, maybe that one ought to get written...

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070628/d4e4ff2f/attachment.pgp