[WikiEN-l] Flagged Revisions on nl:wp

[Chad]

It's not a simple matter of being in the eye of the beholder, or it
being about a niche
subject. Provided it's well sourced and those sources establish why
the subject is
notable, there should most certainly be an article about every soap
opera that meets
these standards.

What I'm referring to is the absolute proliferation about subjects
that aren't necessarily
notable in their own right, but are simply notable due to association.
One cannot tell me
that every episode of Lost or Family Guy is notable in and of itself.
And yet (at least
with Lost, I've never read Family Guy-related articles), we have an
article on almost
each and every episode, notable only by their connection to a notable
show. Each
episode doesn't necessarily have independent sources discussing the subjects.

Chosen at random from Lost, let's look at [[Exposé (Lost]]. I see two
sources, one
being an ABC-related site (and therefore not necessarily a reliable source, it's
not a third party source), and IMDB, which is a great source of
information, but hardly
and establishment of notability, as they publish information on
practically everything
and everyone. Looking at the article itself, you have 6 sentences that
are not directly
related to describing the plot.

This model is repeated across every Lost episode, and countless other
TV shows. However,
this is not limited to only TV shows, but other subjects as well. It's
*this* proliferation of
absolute crap that I feel needs to be aggressively removed.

Chad H.

On Nov 21, 2007 7:57 PM, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> Chad wrote:
> > Granted, we're not completed in some areas that we should be, but there
> > is a very large signal-to-noise ratio in terms of articles. For every core
> > article there are 10 frivolous ones.
>
> What's "frivolous" is in the eye of the beholder. Take a look at our top
> 100 most heavily trafficked pages:
> <http://tools.wikimedia.de/~leon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?lang=en&wiki=enwiki&ns=articles&limit=100&month=11%2F2007&mode=view>
> The non-pop-culture articles are the exception rather than the rule.
> Most of the list consists of articles about works of fiction, computer
> games, and entertainers. And also a bunch of articles about sex, of
> course, this being the internet. People _want_ to read about that stuff,
> they aren't winding up at those articles accidentally.
>
> Wikipedia has a huge perceived signal-to-noise ratio because everybody
> has different ideas about what's "signal" and what's "noise." If
> everyone pruned out what they weren't interested in there'd be nothing
> at all left. Better to just ignore it.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>