[Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
33 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

Ryan Kaldari-2
First they deleted Michelle Obama's arms,[1] now they want to get rid of
Justin Bieber on Twitter.[2] What is the world coming to!

[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michelle_Obama%27s_arms
[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Justin_Bieber_on_Twitter

Ryan Kaldari

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

Svip
On 3 July 2012 10:52, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]> wrote:

> First they deleted Michelle Obama's arms,[1] now they want to get rid of
> Justin Bieber on Twitter.[2] What is the world coming to!

I can't believe _I_ am not the ultimate ruler on what is valuable
enough to get on Wikipedia.  It seems most of the delete comments on
the Justin Bieber article are mostly people who dislike Justin Bieber.

Surely Lady Gaga on Twitter[3] should be deleted as well?  Or perhaps
that is different, because they like Lady Gaga more than they like
Justin Bieber.

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

David Richfield
Michelle Obama's Arms seems to me to have been a perfectly reasonable
deletion based on the discussion.  The sources were a list of
tabloid-style articles.

If I had to guess, I'd say the BeebTweet AFD will be closed as "no
consensus" despite all the ILikeIt, IDon'tLikeIt and OtherStuffExists
crap going on.  It's frightfully trivial, but for me the main question
is whether we have editors who will maintain it, and I think the
answer is clearly "yes", so I really don't care whether it stays or
goes.

--
David Richfield
[[:en:User:Slashme]]
+27718539985

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

Tom Morris-5
In reply to this post by Svip
On Tuesday, 3 July 2012 at 10:15, Svip wrote:
> I can't believe _I_ am not the ultimate ruler on what is valuable
> enough to get on Wikipedia. It seems most of the delete comments on
> the Justin Bieber article are mostly people who dislike Justin Bieber.
>
> Surely Lady Gaga on Twitter[3] should be deleted as well? Or perhaps
> that is different, because they like Lady Gaga more than they like
> Justin Bieber.
>
> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter 

To be fair, 'Ashton Kutcher on Twitter' is also up for deletion too. In both the Kutcher and Bieber case, there's a lot of "I don't like it, therefore it can't be notable!"

I just cannot see any legitimate argument for deletion being presented. They all basically boil down to "don't like it!"

--
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

Thomas Morton
On 3 July 2012 12:02, Tom Morris <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 3 July 2012 at 10:15, Svip wrote:
> > I can't believe _I_ am not the ultimate ruler on what is valuable
> > enough to get on Wikipedia. It seems most of the delete comments on
> > the Justin Bieber article are mostly people who dislike Justin Bieber.
> >
> > Surely Lady Gaga on Twitter[3] should be deleted as well? Or perhaps
> > that is different, because they like Lady Gaga more than they like
> > Justin Bieber.
> >
> > [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter
>
> To be fair, 'Ashton Kutcher on Twitter' is also up for deletion too. In
> both the Kutcher and Bieber case, there's a lot of "I don't like it,
> therefore it can't be notable!"
>
> I just cannot see any legitimate argument for deletion being presented.
> They all basically boil down to "don't like it!"
>
>
Hammersoft makes a compelling argument.

I've been keeping track of the discussion (no particular personal opinion
on it) and currently some of the deletion arguments seems to be holding
strong sway; particularly comments about NOTDIR & content forking etc.

The keep arguments largely centre around ILIKEIT; some assert notability
under GNG but so far no one has presented a source that adequately covers
this. I've been through a big portion of the sources looking for one that
covers this intersection/topic in sufficient depth to assert notability and
so far there isn't one.

It's essentially a collection of trivial mentions & news/gossip reports.

Whether that adds up to GNG I don't know. The keep votes aren't doing a
good job of convincing me.

Tom
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

Tarc Meridian
In reply to this post by Tom Morris-5

I think that is a very dismissive misreading of the discussion.

Some people have it in their heads that "appears in reliable sources equates to article-worthiness", but the problem here is that the doings of celebrities is covered in excruciating detial by the media, including what tey eat, the clothes they wear, and so on.  Same for some politicians, such as every Thanksgiving some poor sod gets to stand outside the White House gate and breathlessly report what is on the President's table, or at XMas the reports of what the First Family bought each other.  Reliably sourced?  Yes.  Encyclopedic worthiness of "White House Thanksgiving 2009 Dinner Table" ?  None at all.


> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:02:46 +0100
> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!
>
> On Tuesday, 3 July 2012 at 10:15, Svip wrote:
> > I can't believe _I_ am not the ultimate ruler on what is valuable
> > enough to get on Wikipedia. It seems most of the delete comments on
> > the Justin Bieber article are mostly people who dislike Justin Bieber.
> >
> > Surely Lady Gaga on Twitter[3] should be deleted as well? Or perhaps
> > that is different, because they like Lady Gaga more than they like
> > Justin Bieber.
> >
> > [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter 
>
> To be fair, 'Ashton Kutcher on Twitter' is also up for deletion too. In both the Kutcher and Bieber case, there's a lot of "I don't like it, therefore it can't be notable!"
>
> I just cannot see any legitimate argument for deletion being presented. They all basically boil down to "don't like it!"
>
> --
> Tom Morris
> <http://tommorris.org/>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
     
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

Fred Bauder-2
>
> I think that is a very dismissive misreading of the discussion.
>
> Some people have it in their heads that "appears in reliable sources
> equates to article-worthiness", but the problem here is that the doings
> of celebrities is covered in excruciating detial by the media, including
> what tey eat, the clothes they wear, and so on.  Same for some
> politicians, such as every Thanksgiving some poor sod gets to stand
> outside the White House gate and breathlessly report what is on the
> President's table, or at XMas the reports of what the First Family bought
> each other.  Reliably sourced?  Yes.  Encyclopedic worthiness of "White
> House Thanksgiving 2009 Dinner Table" ?  None at all.
>

I guess anything that people are interested in is our guideline; however
those who are interested it are going to have to write, and monitor, most
of this stuff themselves. It can be interesting. I remember a TV show
about Queen Elizabeth's kitchen; fascinating, in a way...

Actually, White House cuisine is an issue; prime rib, real prime rib, is
readily available to the White House; eating a lot of that, a favorite of
Nixon, will clog up blood circulation to the brain.

Fred


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

Svip
In reply to this post by Tarc Meridian
On 3 July 2012 15:35, Tarc Meridian <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Same for some politicians, such as every Thanksgiving some poor
> sod gets to stand outside the White House gate and breathlessly
> report what is on the President's table, or at XMas the reports of
> what the First Family bought each other.  Reliably sourced?  Yes.
> Encyclopedic worthiness of "White House Thanksgiving 2009
> Dinner Table" ?  None at all.

Is it not about time that we stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopaedia,
because it is really not?  One might argue that Wikipedia has changed
the definition of what an encyclopaedia is, but I think it is really
more of a 'detailed general knowledge bank'.  A catalogue of
knowledge.

What does 'encyclopaedic worthiness' even mean?  If Wikipedia is an
encyclopaedia, then all those niche-wikis are encyclopaedia too.  Then
suddenly if there is a White House wiki, then surely "White House
Thanksgiving 2009 Dinner Table" becomes 'encyclopaedic worthiness'
within that scope.

It is hard to say where the line goes.  I agree that _just_ because
something is reliably sourced, does not make it worthy for an entire
Wikipedia article.  But _what_ does make it worthy of Wikipedia's
attention?

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

Thomas Morton
On 3 July 2012 14:49, Svip <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 3 July 2012 15:35, Tarc Meridian <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Same for some politicians, such as every Thanksgiving some poor
> > sod gets to stand outside the White House gate and breathlessly
> > report what is on the President's table, or at XMas the reports of
> > what the First Family bought each other.  Reliably sourced?  Yes.
> > Encyclopedic worthiness of "White House Thanksgiving 2009
> > Dinner Table" ?  None at all.
>
> Is it not about time that we stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopaedia,
> because it is really not?  One might argue that Wikipedia has changed
> the definition of what an encyclopaedia is,


I prefer the latter; because it sets the distinction of being a work of
reference.

Really, Wikipedia hasn't redefined "encyclopaedia"; what it has done is
demonstrated that encyclopaedia's of an unprecedented scale can be written.

Our coverage is significantly wider than other encyclopaedias - but still
very narrow (biased heavily toward current events in the Western world).

What does 'encyclopaedic worthiness' even mean?  If Wikipedia is an
> encyclopaedia, then all those niche-wikis are encyclopaedia too.  Then
> suddenly if there is a White House wiki, then surely "White House
> Thanksgiving 2009 Dinner Table" becomes 'encyclopaedic worthiness'
> within that scope.
>

It's about levels of detail; if the WH Thanksgiving dinner was a matter of
ongoing interest then it should certainly be mentioned (probably in the WH
article, or something). But specific details of food served  each year,
etc, are happily left to the source material. Which is the point of a
summary resource.


> It is hard to say where the line goes.  I agree that _just_ because
> something is reliably sourced, does not make it worthy for an entire
> Wikipedia article.  But _what_ does make it worthy of Wikipedia's
> attention?


This is the crux of the problem. Our notability guidelines don't help
define a line between what should be included and what shouldn't. Many many
many things can be written about that would pass GNG. As Hammersoft points
out, if we take this article as notable then there are several other JB on
XYZ articles that could be written,

Question is; do we need that level of detail.

Decisions over levels of detail are haphazard and varying across all of
Wikipedia, to the extent that no one can answer this question.

Tom
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

Mike DuPont
Would it be possible to get copies of the older non-notable articles?
I would like to add them all to speedydeletion.wikia.com
thanks,
mike



James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org
Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

Mark
In reply to this post by Thomas Morton
On 7/3/12 3:56 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:

>> It is hard to say where the line goes.  I agree that _just_ because
>> something is reliably sourced, does not make it worthy for an entire
>> Wikipedia article.  But _what_ does make it worthy of Wikipedia's
>> attention?
>
> This is the crux of the problem. Our notability guidelines don't help
> define a line between what should be included and what shouldn't. Many many
> many things can be written about that would pass GNG. As Hammersoft points
> out, if we take this article as notable then there are several other JB on
> XYZ articles that could be written,
>
> Question is; do we need that level of detail.
>
> Decisions over levels of detail are haphazard and varying across all of
> Wikipedia, to the extent that no one can answer this question.
>
I think that's true, but I think that's because it's a *relatively*
small problem overall, as a proportion of deletion discussions and
controversy, so there just hasn't been a lot of need to undertake the
nearly-impossible task of specifying what level of detail we should
cover, and in which areas.

The biggest angst producer in my view is actually the opposite case:
something that seems like it "should" be covered, since it's notable,
but for which the extant sources are really lacking, making it
hard/impossible to write a well-sourced article. People get very angry
when something they view as clearly notable (a programming language,
say) is deleted due to lack of 3rd-party sources. I think the root
problem here is a feeling that sources "should" or even "must" track
notability, so given that something is clearly important (at least in a
community), the lack of sources we consider acceptable is unexpected.
Imo the problem is just that the literature sometimes lags and sometimes
has blind spots; journalists, sociologists, historians, etc. don't cover
everything important in full detail, instantly. I wrote a bit about that
last year:
http://www.kmjn.org/notes/wikipedia_notability_verifiability.html

In the other direction, the vast majority of things we really shouldn't
cover I think are axed by the same verifiability guideline, without need
to declare them un-notable, since they don't have good sources on them.  
This strange case of well-sourced, but perhaps too detailed for
Wikipedia, is I think a much smaller issue. In addition, it seems to
only produce any sort of controversy in certain areas of pop culture:
details about celebrities, too-in-depth plot summarization by
tv/film/novel fans, too blow-by-blow summary of a musician's every doing
(also by fans), etc. In many areas there really is no controversy about
going every bit as deep as we can find sources for, within some level of
common sense that does not seem to often be exceeded. Are there multiple
good sources for one particular piece of pottery found in a Minoan site?
Well, let's have an article on that pottery piece, then, even if we end
up with 500 such articles. Perhaps that seems less problematic to people
because: 1) the sources really are *very* good in that case, not merely
"ok" sources like newspaper articles; and 2) Wikipedia here isn't doing
anything too groundbreaking, but just annexing the kind of content that
subject-specialist encyclopedias would traditionally cover.

-Mark


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Svip
On 3 July 2012 14:49, Svip <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 3 July 2012 15:35, Tarc Meridian <[hidden email]> wrote:

> What does 'encyclopaedic worthiness' even mean?  If Wikipedia is an
> encyclopaedia, then all those niche-wikis are encyclopaedia too.


Well, yes, they basically replace the specialist encyclopedias. (Main
difference from Wikipedia: original research allowed; a different
standard of what's article-worthy.)


> It is hard to say where the line goes.  I agree that _just_ because
> something is reliably sourced, does not make it worthy for an entire
> Wikipedia article.  But _what_ does make it worthy of Wikipedia's
> attention?


You seem to be saying that we must have a bright line. The evidence
appears to be against this. Consistency is not a terminal goal.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

Marc-Andre
In reply to this post by Mark
On 03/07/2012 11:09 AM, Delirium wrote:
> 1) the sources really are *very* good in that case, not merely "ok"
> sources like newspaper articles;

My own (admitedly radical) point of view is that popular media - and
that includes newspapers nowadays - are not reliable sources at all in
the first place.  If you use that filter, you suddenly notice most of
the more controversial articles (regarding notability) instantly find
themselves without sources.

I don't believe that's a coincidence.  Even at their best, popular media
has no interest beyond what's hot and topical at the moment, and
attracting eyeballs with sensationalism is paramount -- accuracy be
damned if needed.

-- Coren / Marc


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

Andreas Kolbe-2
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 03/07/2012 11:09 AM, Delirium wrote:
>
>> 1) the sources really are *very* good in that case, not merely "ok"
>> sources like newspaper articles;
>>
>
> My own (admitedly radical) point of view is that popular media - and that
> includes newspapers nowadays - are not reliable sources at all in the first
> place.  If you use that filter, you suddenly notice most of the more
> controversial articles (regarding notability) instantly find themselves
> without sources.
>
> I don't believe that's a coincidence.  Even at their best, popular media
> has no interest beyond what's hot and topical at the moment, and attracting
> eyeballs with sensationalism is paramount -- accuracy be damned if needed.
>
> -- Coren / Marc



I agree with Marc. The other day, someone said here on the list, "It's
almost as if what the press say and what the facts are in reality are two
different things that have only a very tenuous relationship."

This was in reference to reporting on a Wikimedia-related matter. In this
field, many Wikimedians recognise readily that media reporting is often
inept, and the level of accuracy of the information given to the public is
very poor. What people fail to do is to apply this insight to the wider
situation. Two of my favourite quotes:

---o0o---

What people outside do not appreciate is that a newspaper is like a
soufflé, prepared in a hurry for immediate consumption. This of course is
why whenever you read a newspaper account of some event of which you have
personal knowledge it is nearly always inadequate or inaccurate.
Journalists are as aware as anyone of this defect; it is simply that if the
information is to reach as many readers as possible, something less than
perfection has often to be accepted. —David E. H. Jones, in New Scientist,
Vol. 26

Actually, I'd say newspapers are more like commercial fast-food than
soufflé. It isn't just that they are prepared in haste, it is that
unwholesome additives and artificial sweeteners are added to true content,
in order to make the whole thing more tasty. No one really asks whether the
result is edifying or healthy, because it is generally consumed with a
pinch of (even more superfluous) salt. —User:Scott MacDonald

---o0o---

What would a Wikipedia look like that did not make use of press sources? It
would look a hell of a lot more like an encyclopedia. Thousands of silly
arguments would never arise. Thousands of apposite criticisms of Wikipedia
would never arise. These are good things.

Unfortunately, such a Wikipedia would also have vastly impoverished
coverage of popular culture and current affairs. The articles on Lady Gaga
and Barack Obama would be years behind events; the articles on the Japan
earthquakes, which I believe Wikipedia was widely praised for, would only
now begin to be written, articles on many towns and villages would lack
colour and detail.

If Wikipedia stopped using press sources, you'd have to have a news-based
'pedia somewhere else (and I don't mean Wikinews).
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

David Gerard-2
On 4 July 2012 00:04, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I agree with Marc. The other day, someone said here on the list, "It's
> almost as if what the press say and what the facts are in reality are two
> different things that have only a very tenuous relationship."


Yes, in response to you trying to support a claim by reference to a
newspaper report. Does that mean you actually changed your mind?
Excellent.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

Andreas Kolbe-2
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:15 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 4 July 2012 00:04, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I agree with Marc. The other day, someone said here on the list, "It's
> > almost as if what the press say and what the facts are in reality are two
> > different things that have only a very tenuous relationship."
>
>
> Yes, in response to you trying to support a claim by reference to a
> newspaper report. Does that mean you actually changed your mind?
> Excellent.
>


It's not really what we are talking about here, but – no, actually, I
haven't changed my mind, because the press's tendency towards
simplification was quite consciously exploited in this case (to link the
"Wikipedia" name to opposition to the extradition of O'Dwyer).

The press can be manipulated to all sorts of ends, sacrificing accuracy and
nuance in the process. That's precisely the problem.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

Marc-Andre
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe-2
On 03/07/2012 7:04 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

> What would a Wikipedia look like that did not make use of press sources? It
> would look a hell of a lot more like an encyclopedia. Thousands of silly
> arguments would never arise. Thousands of apposite criticisms of Wikipedia
> would never arise. These are good things.
>
> Unfortunately, such a Wikipedia would also have vastly impoverished
> coverage of popular culture and current affairs. The articles on Lady Gaga
> and Barack Obama would be years behind events; the articles on the Japan
> earthquakes, which I believe Wikipedia was widely praised for, would only
> now begin to be written, articles on many towns and villages would lack
> colour and detail.

Well, if I were suddenly named dictator of Wikipedia, I'd probably
suggest that a "recent event" namespace be created, where popular media
were acceptable sources, and make them verbotten in mainspace.  
Mainspace articles might have a hatnote with a link to the other
namespace along the lines of "for recent, less authoritative coverage".

We'd have our cake and eat it too.

-- Coren / Marc


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

Andreas Kolbe-2
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Marc A. Pelletier <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 03/07/2012 7:04 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>> What would a Wikipedia look like that did not make use of press sources?
>> It
>> would look a hell of a lot more like an encyclopedia. Thousands of silly
>> arguments would never arise. Thousands of apposite criticisms of Wikipedia
>> would never arise. These are good things.
>>
>> Unfortunately, such a Wikipedia would also have vastly impoverished
>> coverage of popular culture and current affairs. The articles on Lady Gaga
>> and Barack Obama would be years behind events; the articles on the Japan
>> earthquakes, which I believe Wikipedia was widely praised for, would only
>> now begin to be written, articles on many towns and villages would lack
>> colour and detail.
>>
>
> Well, if I were suddenly named dictator of Wikipedia, I'd probably suggest
> that a "recent event" namespace be created, where popular media were
> acceptable sources, and make them verbotten in mainspace.  Mainspace
> articles might have a hatnote with a link to the other namespace along the
> lines of "for recent, less authoritative coverage".
>
> We'd have our cake and eat it too.



How would you deal with biographies of people like heads of state, who are
subjects of serious academic study as well as daily news articles?
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

Marc-Andre
On 03/07/2012 7:42 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> How would you deal with biographies of people like heads of state, who are
> subjects of serious academic study as well as daily news articles?

There's nothing that prevents a subject from having an article in both
namespaces.  One can be seen as the complement of the other; mainspace
would become more encyclopedic and there would be a neat space where the
more recent coverage can be found for further information.

It'd only be a matter of educating editors and readers; the mainspace is
the most reliable and seriously sourced "base" of articles, at the cost
of being possibly a bit dated or drier.  The space "below the fold" is
more timely, and possibly more detailed at the cost of being possibly
less reliable.

I mean, the whole point is to be able to both have a reliable
encyclopedia /and/ have a legitimate place for popular culture coverage
and recent information.  Readers would have access to both, with a
better way of knowing which is which.

Not perfect, I know, but I'm pretty sure that would be a long-term win.

-- Coren / Marc


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

David Gerard-2
On 4 July 2012 00:48, Marc A. Pelletier <[hidden email]> wrote:

> There's nothing that prevents a subject from having an article in both
> namespaces.  One can be seen as the complement of the other; mainspace would
> become more encyclopedic and there would be a neat space where the more
> recent coverage can be found for further information.


We could call it "Wikinews".


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
12