[WikiEN-l] Notability and Fiction

[Surreptitiousness]

Charles Matthews wrote:
> Surreptitiousness wrote:
>   
>> As a result of the recent RFC on Notability and Fiction, I've drafted an 
>> essay at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_and_fiction.  
>> Feel free to edit and engage to reach a consensus on the issue, so that 
>> the current fractured state of play might be encouraged to heal itself. 
>> But please don't protect "positions".  We don;t need to restate [[WP:V]] 
>> for the umpteenth time, we already have it.  We just need to say that 
>> there are bad articles and there are good articles, and mainly bad 
>> articles are bad due to style rather than substance. When there's no 
>> substance, it is usually easy to see and such articles with regards 
>> fiction are not a "problem" for notability to "cure", they are a 
>> "problem" which is already "cured" by a number of other policies. 
>> Notability on Wikipedia has become too restricting and from my view it 
>> is time to roll it back and let each subject area define its own 
>> guidance, because we don't have a one size fits all approach, as evinced 
>> by [[WP:BLP]].  Every subject area is afflicted by different issues, and 
>> the solutions to those issues also differ. If Wikipedia is to continue, 
>> it needs to recognise that fact, and would that we had the leadership to 
>> recognise, reflect and build accordingly. Otherwise, I fear Wikipedia 
>> will stagnate. The greatest asset Wikipedia has is adaptability.  That 
>> adaptability is in danger of becoming stifled.
>>
>>   
>>     
> I don't really see what is going on there: but the essay seems to be 
> saying that an article is acceptable if it meets fundamental content 
> policy OR various other things, while I would think it acceptable if it 
> meets fundamental content policy AND various things. Further, it doesn't 
> do to mix up the status of an article and a topic. I wrote about this 
> once (from a different angle): 
> http://brianna.modernthings.org/article/149/charles-matthews-on-notability
>   
It's a wiki, go edit it. The essay should be saying, look, here's what 
happens, deal with it. Currently there is too much bickering and too 
many people interested more in "fighting the good fight" than accepting 
[[WP:IAR]].  Go read [[WP:FICT]] and the numerous archives to get a 
sense of the polarised viewpoints.  I'd defend fundamental content 
policy for all it is worth, but anyone who thinks articles are always 
deleted at afd because they do not comply with fundamental content 
policy really needs to participate in afd a lot more, and also 
understand exactly how nuanced and disputed the meaning of fundamental 
content policy actually is. If it was clear what fundamental content 
policy actually meant, I doubt we'd be where we are. The original 
research policy has a number of different meanings and applications, and 
can mean different things in different fields. The central battleground 
is at what point does something become worth writing about:  Is it when 
a book is available for sale in nigh on every bookshop in the country?  
Is that enough for an article? At what point do we stop ourselves and 
others from writing about something.  My clearest experience of this is 
with regards the Wayne Rooney article, which in its earliest incarnation 
said something along the lines of "Remember the name". Yes, it's one 
example and can be countered by many others, but the point remains.  
When dealing with fiction, when is "too much information"?  Coatracks 
don't tend to apply, unless we are seriously considering applying the 
force of a coatrack to an article on a minor character in Harry Potter 
by stating that such an article overstates the worth of the character to 
the point that a reader may come away with the impression that the 
character is central to the understanding of the work.  Such a position 
will conflict with the view that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is 
not limited by paper, and since details regarding the character can be 
easily verified in primary source, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss 
that character in the article on the work itself, and also perfectly 
reasonable to split that section off when the article grows too large.

This is precisely about the status of "article" and "topic", and I agree 
with you when you say that "summary style 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SUMMARY>, highly desirable as it 
is, operate only through individually notable topics." The issue is what 
is a notable topic, and to what depth do we allow a topic to delve 
within its cluster of articles. Since, as seen at Featured Topics, we 
have defined a topic as being a cluster of articles related to that 
topic. Yes, we have very lofty principles.  The problem is in 
recognising that not all of our editors subscribe to them, and also that 
our policies, save [[WP:NPOV]], are actually slaves to consensus.  When 
consensus in a given area is not behind current policy, what happens?  
For example, a site wide poll on [[WP:PLOT]] found no consensus for it 
to remain policy.  Yet some of those that wish it to remain will not 
accept its removal. If we have rejected WP:CONSENSUS as the means for 
determining policy, we should be more open about it. If we have now come 
to accept cabals, and that there is an elite who have a better 
understanding of what Wikipedia is and what policy means, great.  But if 
that is not the case, we need to work out what the vast majority of 
Wikipedians actually desire, because otherwise Wikipedia is going to 
become either a battleground or a protected environment, either of which 
is detrimental. The ideas of collegiate discussion, civility and 
assuming good faith have long been eroded by a lack of respect for them 
amongst admins, and a long leash approach at arb-com, but nothing better 
has emerged to prop up collaboration.  I am quite prepared to take an 
eventualist position through a  restraint from editing, since it is 
impossible now to tell what guidance and policies actually apply. It was 
far easier when I first started, because you could write and edit 
without fear; that is no longer the case. It has become impossible to 
edit because the standard accepted tactic now is to revert rather than 
refine, and refuse to discuss other than restate a position.

Best regards,

User:Hiding