[WikiEN-l] Price we pay from the Deletionists: Y-Combinator looking to fund Wikipedia-like startup

[Oldak Quill]

2008/7/20 Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 4:16 AM, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2008/7/20 geni <geniice at gmail.com>:
>>> 2008/7/20 Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com>:
>>>> Although there are plenty of people turned-off and turned-away by the
>>>> deletion of factually correct, verifiable and referenced articles.
>>>> There is nothing quite as disheartnening as working on an article,
>>>> only for a faceless gang of self-appointed AfDers to come along and
>>>> decide that this article falls below an arbitrary threshold for
>>>> inclusion in Wikipedia. My Wikipedia experience has been significantly
>>>> soured by such arbitrary deletions and my efforts toward Wikipedia
>>>> have fallen off recently as a result.
>>>
>>> Getting a properly reffed article deleted is quite a trick.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If I knew that my work could survive at least in some form (a
>>>> publicly-viewable deletion namespace with libel and slander removed,
>>>> e.g.), perhaps I would allow myself to get more excited about working
>>>> on Wikipedia again.
>>>
>>> If you wrote it yourself there are no shortage of free webhosts on
>>> which it can survive.
>>
>> The point isn't about a particular article ("my work" was a wrong
>> expression to use here): it is to do with the efforts I put into
>> editing Wikipedia and whether it is worth it. I've had problems with
>> referenced, factually-accurate and verifiable articles that I have
>> worked on being deleted due to questions to notability. It is also
>> disheartening to go to AfD and see articles which are referenced,
>> factually-accurate and verifiable being deleted due to notability.
>>
>> --
>> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
> I can write a referenced, factually-accurate and verifiable (public
> records) article about my car or my dog, or for that matter myself.
> For quality control and undue weight reasons, we still shouldn't
> -have- those articles. That's why we ask "Has someone who is reliable
> on this subject and doesn't have any interest in promoting it written
> a significant amount about it?" It's really a reasonable question, and
> keeps a lot of garbage out. However, as always, one man's trash is
> another man's treasure, and if someone else would like to start up a
> project to put it -elsewhere-, be it fancruft on a Wikia or
> all-imaginable-kinds-of-cruft on some new project, that's just fine.
> It's just not allowed -on Wikipedia-, the Web's a big place, and
> (unless it's a copyvio, libel, or something else illegal), there's
> likely a place where it does fit in.

And this would be the opposite extreme. But I am not suggesting this.
For what it's worth, your car or your dog is likely not independently
verifiable in reliable sources?

My issue is with where we currently place the threshold for incusion -
it tends to be quite arbitrary, and informed by notions of what
encyclopedias have previously contained. As a result, a much larger
amount of verifiable information about pop culture falls under the
threshold; while the threshold for science inclusion is much lower. I
am not contending how low the threshold is for science subjects - that
is fantastic - I am contending how high we set the threshold for pop
culture.

What is the harm or the damage in including articles on television
episodes? These tend to be verifiable in independent, reliable
sources, factually-accurate and referenced...

Finally, I understand that this content could find a place _somewhere_
on the web. That is not the issue. I am posting to a list called
WikiEN-l and am discussing English Wikipedia policy. I disagree with
how we set the threshold for inclusion, where we set it, and how we
determine whether some content is under the threshold or not. I don't
think "this content could be somewhere else" sufficiently explains why
this content shouldn't be at English Wikipedia.

Essentially, what we decide to include in Wikipedia, along with how we
decide to present this information, makes up what we think Wikipedia
should be. I do not think Wikipedia should arbitrarily discriminate
against television episodes based upon subjective ideas of what is
"encyclopedic". If we can write an article on a television episode
that is verifiable to reliable sources, factually accurate and
referenced, I don't understand why this shouldn't be included.
Particularly when it is bound to be helpful to someone, and might help
bring more editors to Wikipedia who might start by editing something
familiar to them. Ultimately what will bring more bitterness to
editors: our current arbitrary position against some pop culture
subjects, or a more inclusive, more eventualist approach to the
problem?

-- 
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)