The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is now well-known because it's been on Wikipedia for so long

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is now well-known because it's been on Wikipedia for so long

Brian J Mingus
I notice that the article on the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon has recently
been deleted, and it has in fact been deleted many times over the years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baader-Meinhof_phenomenon

However, according to stats.grok.se, this article is quite popular, having
been viewed *around 350 thousand times since 2007*. Here's the script I
wrote:

for i in $(wget --quiet -O-
http://stats.grok.se/en/200712/Baader-meinhof%20phenomenon | grep '>2' |
cut -f2 -d'>' | cut -f1 -d'<');do wget --quiet -O-
http://stats.grok.se/en/$i/Baader-meinhof%20phenomenon | grep 'has been
viewed' | sed 's/.*viewed//;s/ //g';done

201402: 67419
201401: 20892
201312: 19924
201311: 5886
201310: 757
201309: 1801
201308: 756
201307: 1019
201306: 1153
201305: 3548
201304: 1092
201303: 1565
201302: 746
201301: 2291
201212: 586
201211: 612
201210: 1062
201209: 586
201208: 360
201207: 326
201206: 238
201205: 277
201204: 286
201203: 298
201202: 392
201201: 743
201112: 392
201111: 566
201110: 571
201109: 460
201108: 778
201107: 1735
201106: 452
201105: 368
201104: 409
201103: 336
201102: 649
201101: 475
201012: 295
201011: 274
201010: 373
201009: 325
201008: 363
201007: 609
201006: 844
201005: 751
201004: 810
201003: 522
200712: 454
Total: 348201

Wikipedia's policies are irrelevant: This phenomenon has entered the
lexicon, and is now well known simply due to its existence in Wikipedia.
Since the phenomenon didn't have a well known name, I've been telling
people about it for quite some time now, and it has recently enjoyed a huge
surge in popularity, *due to its existence on Wikipedia*.

The article should reinstated, a section concerning the unique nature of
its notability should be added.

Cheers,

Brian Mingus
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is now well-known because it's been on Wikipedia for so long

David Gerard-2
On 5 March 2014 22:04, Brian J Mingus <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Wikipedia's policies are irrelevant: This phenomenon has entered the
> lexicon, and is now well known simply due to its existence in Wikipedia.
> Since the phenomenon didn't have a well known name, I've been telling
> people about it for quite some time now, and it has recently enjoyed a huge
> surge in popularity, *due to its existence on Wikipedia*.


At least we killed "analogue disc record" before it entered English.


> The article should reinstated, a section concerning the unique nature of
> its notability should be added.


This argument doesn't seem to convince (though that does resemble
reasonable popularity). The fourth AFD notes the problem in this case:
really crappy sources. The sort of thing that would lead me to !vote
"delete without prejudice".

I recall finding a list somewhere of article titles that got lots of
hits but didn't have articles, but don't recall where. I may be
misremembering of course.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is now well-known because it's been on Wikipedia for so long

David Gerard-2
On 8 March 2014 09:20, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 5 March 2014 22:04, Brian J Mingus <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> The article should reinstated, a section concerning the unique nature of
>> its notability should be added.

> This argument doesn't seem to convince (though that does resemble
> reasonable popularity). The fourth AFD notes the problem in this case:
> really crappy sources. The sort of thing that would lead me to !vote
> "delete without prejudice".


linkto:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baader-Meinhof_phenomenon in Google shows
that it hits Reddit and apparently 4chan a bit. Apparently StumbleUpon
likes it too. This would account for the hit rates - it's an amusing
thing people would like there to be a name for, c.f. "The Meaning Of
Liff" - but still doesn't supply us with sufficient material to base a
solid article on.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is now well-known because it's been on Wikipedia for so long

Brian J Mingus
The reason the name stuck is that "Baader-Meinhof" is a weird name, and one
would not expect to see it multiple times independently in short
succession. Hence the name "Baader-Meinhof phenomenon" (which is also the
name of a book) is analogous to onomatopoeia in that both represent the
thing they are describing in some way - this is also similar to
homoiconicity. It's a perfect name - much better than "frequency illusion"
- and a substantial number of people now know it by this name, in part due
to its longstanding and interesting history of existence on Wikipedia,
which has advertised it to hundreds of thousands of people and generated
tens of thousands of websites which use it by that name.

The article should clearly stay!


On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 2:25 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 8 March 2014 09:20, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 5 March 2014 22:04, Brian J Mingus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >> The article should reinstated, a section concerning the unique nature of
> >> its notability should be added.
>
> > This argument doesn't seem to convince (though that does resemble
> > reasonable popularity). The fourth AFD notes the problem in this case:
> > really crappy sources. The sort of thing that would lead me to !vote
> > "delete without prejudice".
>
>
> linkto:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baader-Meinhof_phenomenon in Google shows
> that it hits Reddit and apparently 4chan a bit. Apparently StumbleUpon
> likes it too. This would account for the hit rates - it's an amusing
> thing people would like there to be a name for, c.f. "The Meaning Of
> Liff" - but still doesn't supply us with sufficient material to base a
> solid article on.
>
>
> - d.
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is now well-known because it's been on Wikipedia for so long

David Gerard-2
On 8 March 2014 18:04, Brian J Mingus <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The reason the name stuck is that "Baader-Meinhof" is a weird name, and one
> would not expect to see it multiple times independently in short succession.
> Hence the name "Baader-Meinhof phenomenon" (which is also the name of a
> book) is analogous to onomatopoeia in that both represent the thing they are
> describing in some way - this is also similar to homoiconicity. It's a
> perfect name - much better than "frequency illusion" - and a substantial
> number of people now know it by this name, in part due to its longstanding
> and interesting history of existence on Wikipedia, which has advertised it
> to hundreds of thousands of people and generated tens of thousands of
> websites which use it by that name.
> The article should clearly stay!


Now you just need sources to this effect. There's always writing them ...


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is now well-known because it's been on Wikipedia for so long

Fred Bauder-2
And I thought it was just the Baader, Browder, Bauer phenomenon...

Fred Bauder

> On 8 March 2014 18:04, Brian J Mingus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> The reason the name stuck is that "Baader-Meinhof" is a weird name, and
>> one
>> would not expect to see it multiple times independently in short
>> succession.
>> Hence the name "Baader-Meinhof phenomenon" (which is also the name of a
>> book) is analogous to onomatopoeia in that both represent the thing
>> they are
>> describing in some way - this is also similar to homoiconicity. It's a
>> perfect name - much better than "frequency illusion" - and a
>> substantial
>> number of people now know it by this name, in part due to its
>> longstanding
>> and interesting history of existence on Wikipedia, which has advertised
>> it
>> to hundreds of thousands of people and generated tens of thousands of
>> websites which use it by that name.
>> The article should clearly stay!
>
>
> Now you just need sources to this effect. There's always writing them ...
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is now well-known because it's been on Wikipedia for so long

Elias Friedman
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
Wouldn't that be running afoul of the "Citogenesis" problem that Randall
Munroe so succinctly pointed out in his xkcd web comic:

https://xkcd.com/978/


Elias Max Friedman A.S., CCEMT-P
אליהו מתתיהו בן צבי
[hidden email]
"יְהִי אוֹר"


On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 1:19 PM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 8 March 2014 18:04, Brian J Mingus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > The reason the name stuck is that "Baader-Meinhof" is a weird name, and
> one
> > would not expect to see it multiple times independently in short
> succession.
> > Hence the name "Baader-Meinhof phenomenon" (which is also the name of a
> > book) is analogous to onomatopoeia in that both represent the thing they
> are
> > describing in some way - this is also similar to homoiconicity. It's a
> > perfect name - much better than "frequency illusion" - and a substantial
> > number of people now know it by this name, in part due to its
> longstanding
> > and interesting history of existence on Wikipedia, which has advertised
> it
> > to hundreds of thousands of people and generated tens of thousands of
> > websites which use it by that name.
> > The article should clearly stay!
>
>
> Now you just need sources to this effect. There's always writing them ...
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is now well-known because it's been on Wikipedia for so long

Daniel R. Tobias
In reply to this post by Brian J Mingus
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:04:31 -0700, Brian J Mingus wrote:

> Wikipedia's policies are irrelevant: This phenomenon has entered the
> lexicon, and is now well known simply due to its existence in Wikipedia.

I wouldn't say that "Wikipedia's policies are irrelevant" to anything
regarding Wikipedia, as this would be tautologically false. However,
there are always a whole bunch of often-conflicting policies to be
considered (including "Ignore All Rules"), which might pull in
different directions. With regard to a deleted article on a
phenomenon lacking sufficient reliable citations, but which is
starting to spread under that name (due in part to the past existence
of the Wikipedia article, and various mirrored copies some of which
still persist, and blogs and forum posts referencing it), the "end
game" would likely be either that the idea and name spread enough to
ultimately produce reliable sources allowing the article to be
recreated and kept (at which point the past deletion would be
irrelevant, and the article would belong under Wikipedia policy even
if its past history included self-reference to Wikipedia itself), or
it dies out without achieving notability and the deletion would
stand.


--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is now well-known because it's been on Wikipedia for so long

David Goodman-2
The most recent discussion is at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baader-Meinhof_phenomenon_(4th_nomination)-
-the basic argument was lack of sufficiently reliable sources, and,
looking at the deleted article, I can see that it was a reasonable basis
for deletion. The best way to proceed   would be to *first" try to find
some good sources and then go to WP:Deletion Review.


On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Daniel R. Tobias <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:04:31 -0700, Brian J Mingus wrote:
>
> > Wikipedia's policies are irrelevant: This phenomenon has entered the
> > lexicon, and is now well known simply due to its existence in Wikipedia.
>
> I wouldn't say that "Wikipedia's policies are irrelevant" to anything
> regarding Wikipedia, as this would be tautologically false. However,
> there are always a whole bunch of often-conflicting policies to be
> considered (including "Ignore All Rules"), which might pull in
> different directions. With regard to a deleted article on a
> phenomenon lacking sufficient reliable citations, but which is
> starting to spread under that name (due in part to the past existence
> of the Wikipedia article, and various mirrored copies some of which
> still persist, and blogs and forum posts referencing it), the "end
> game" would likely be either that the idea and name spread enough to
> ultimately produce reliable sources allowing the article to be
> recreated and kept (at which point the past deletion would be
> irrelevant, and the article would belong under Wikipedia policy even
> if its past history included self-reference to Wikipedia itself), or
> it dies out without achieving notability and the deletion would
> stand.
>
>
> --
> == Dan ==
> Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
> Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
> Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



--
David Goodman

DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is now well-known because it's been on Wikipedia for so long

geni
In reply to this post by Elias Friedman
On 9 March 2014 10:46, Elias Friedman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Wouldn't that be running afoul of the "Citogenesis" problem that Randall
> Munroe so succinctly pointed out in his xkcd web comic:
>
> https://xkcd.com/978/
>

No. If you are writing the sources for scratch rather than just copying
Wikipedia that isn't an issue. The classic example being this source:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/04/the-remarkable-notability-of-old-man-murray/

In the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_Murray

article


--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is now well-known because it's been on Wikipedia for so long

Rich Farmbrough
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_missed_articles
On 08/03/2014 09:20, David Gerard wrote:
> I recall finding a list somewhere of article titles that got lots of
> hits but didn't have articles, but don't recall where. I may be
> misremembering of course. - d.


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is now well-known because it's been on Wikipedia for so long

Brian J Mingus
*Most often requested* nonexistent articles per day (based on *149* days in
year *2008*).

?


On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Richard Farmbrough <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_missed_articles
>
> On 08/03/2014 09:20, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> I recall finding a list somewhere of article titles that got lots of hits
>> but didn't have articles, but don't recall where. I may be misremembering
>> of course. - d.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is now well-known because it's been on Wikipedia for so long

Rich Farmbrough
Like so much it needs updating. It is of historical interest, at the
very least.  For  example I discovered the unusual "[[List of big-bust
models and performers]]" which was deleted at the 6th AfD, partly on the
basis that it was redundant to [[Category:Big-bust models and
performers]].  This category was later deleted on the basis that if the
list was deleted, the category was irredeemable.   A later redirect at
"[[List of big bust performers]]" was speedily deleted with the summary
"(R3<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#R3>: Recently created,
implausible redirect)" - the page was then getting 864 hits a month,
down from the *2,182* per day of 2008.  This is a good example of where
a piecemeal approach produces perverse results.

  On 28/03/2014 03:18, Brian J Mingus wrote:

> *Most often requested* nonexistent articles per day (based on *149* days in
> year *2008*).
>
> ?
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Richard Farmbrough <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_missed_articles
>>
>> On 08/03/2014 09:20, David Gerard wrote:
>>
>>> I recall finding a list somewhere of article titles that got lots of hits
>>> but didn't have articles, but don't recall where. I may be misremembering
>>> of course. - d.
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is now well-known because it's been on Wikipedia for so long

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Rich Farmbrough
On 28 March 2014 01:02, Richard Farmbrough <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 08/03/2014 09:20, David Gerard wrote:

>> I recall finding a list somewhere of article titles that got lots of hits
>> but didn't have articles, but don't recall where. I may be misremembering of
>> course. - d.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_missed_articles


Yeah, that's the list I was thinking of. Possibly someone should run a
report again ...


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is now well-known because it's been on Wikipedia for so long

Brian J Mingus
I don't see why this script shouldn't be permanently installed into
Common.js assuming it works.


On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:03 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 28 March 2014 01:02, Richard Farmbrough <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > On 08/03/2014 09:20, David Gerard wrote:
>
> >> I recall finding a list somewhere of article titles that got lots of
> hits
> >> but didn't have articles, but don't recall where. I may be
> misremembering of
> >> course. - d.
>
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_missed_articles
>
>
> Yeah, that's the list I was thinking of. Possibly someone should run a
> report again ...
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l