[WikiEN-l] Notability and Fiction

Wed Jul 1 11:59:47 UTC 2009

I've not involved in editing articles on fiction myself, but I often get involved in notability-related discussions. 

Am I understanding your point right: 

At the moment, from my understanding, notability is defined through a single guideline setting universal principles, supplemental by subsidiary guidelines that interpret this guideline. In the event of conflict between the central guideline and the subsidiary, the central one should prevail. 

You're suggesting that [[WP:FICT]] and presumably other specific guidelines should be allowed to depart from the central guideline which would just become a default guideline to be applied where a subsidiary guideline doesn't exist? 

Andrew 

----- "Surreptitiousness" <surreptitious.wikipedian at googlemail.com> wrote: 
> From: "Surreptitiousness" <surreptitious.wikipedian at googlemail.com> 
> To: "charles r matthews" <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>, "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org> 
> Sent: Wednesday, 1 July, 2009 12:44:36 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal 
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability and Fiction 
> 
> 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 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> 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 
> 