[Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... issues from the Third World

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
107 messages Options
1 ... 3456
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... issues from the Third World

Subsume
True enough. But if its really isolated to the third-world than I'm sure
someone can produce several examples of wonderful articles nixed by ignorant
deletionists. Examples can be made and wrists can be slapped?

-S

On 1/13/07, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> It's only hopelessly obscure if you're looking at it from the first world
> :-)
>
> On 13/01/07, Steve <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Some questions.
> >
> > Is the procedure really failing? Are we all just nava-gazing? Is it as
> > simple as David Goodman suggested several thousand words back when he
> > explained that the important articles can only be saved by active,
> > interested participation? Are we fighting for a hopelessly obscure
> minority?
> >
> > -S
> >
> > On 1/12/07, Confusing Manifestation <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > What nobody seems to have mentioned is the fact that in AfD
> > > discussions admins are *supposed* to look at all the votes and the
> > > reasonaing behind them, and make an informed decision based on that
> > > (which is exactly what several posts have said should be done). Of
> > > course there are probably a fair few who don't, and in any case the
> > > informed decision is still liable to have a bit of bias behind it, but
> > > just saying "a thousand 'delete, nn' shouldn't count as much as one
> > > 'keep, here's a bunch of references'" isn't actually adding anything
> > > to the procedure that isn't (theoretically at least) already there.
> > >
> > > CM
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... Notability

David Goodman
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge
An good article that is properly defended is less likely to be
deleted. I have seen many worthy articles fail because there are no
outside references, and the claims are either exorbitant or mild. You
can not expect others to know, unless you tell them.

On 1/13/07, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ian Tresman wrote:
>
> >>>Technically all Wikipedia editors are outside their field since they
> >>>are all generally anonymous. That leaves common sense which is
> >>>generally described in WP:NOTABLE.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>That is a remarkably illogical non-sequitur.  Being anonymous does not
> >>imply that one loses all connection with his fields of interest.
> >>
> >>
> >No, it means that it is not verifiable.
> >
> >I've invited experts in their field to contribute their expertise to
> >Wikipedia, only to have it vetoed by an anonymous editor who claim to
> >be a professor and an expert in his field.
> >
> >You would think that two verifiable experts in their field would have
> >sway over an anonymous unverifiable editor.
> >
> This makes so little sense that I wonder whether we are talking about
> the same thing.  What I have been talking about is having editors with a
> common interest having the strongest influence on determining the
> notability of an article.  This has nothing to do with inviting experts
> to contribute.  It has to do with ignoramuses using their cookie-cutter
> interpretation of notability (or verifiability ) to delete articles
> about which they know nothing.
>
> Ec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.

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

Re: [Wikipedia-l] formalism (was: Re: Entries for deletion.... issues from the Third World)

David Goodman
In reply to this post by David Monniaux-2
I'd distinguish between the sources used to establish the notability
of the article  and those for the verifiablity of details.

The sort of source which helps the most in defending the notability of
the article is a book review or product review, and the better known
the source for this, the better, but for perfectly good subjects, only
non-standard sources are available.

For details, I agree that some of the articles are excessive. This is
particularly the case in the sciences, where some of the articles are
footnoted as densely as for a scholarly review--which is not WP.  But
if a fact is challenged it does have to be documented.

I think trying to get FA status (etc) under the current practices not
worth the trouble. If you want it, you do have to follow the fashion.
If they are going to be on the main page, an illustration is not
unreasonable. Otherwise, the answer to someone who asks for a
illustration is obvious: go put one in yourself.

I'm more concerned with the substance of articles.

On 1/9/07, David Monniaux <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> >>For individual articles, the way to do it is to put in a clearly
> >>sufficient number of citations. from printed works. (accompanied by
> >>English translations if necessary). I've found that specific citations
> >>from peer-reviewed journals do help, if they are at all pertinent. So
> >>do Ph.d. theses and even Masters theses.
> >>
> This is the current vogue on Wikipedia: everything should have a
> gazillion inline citations, and conversely, anything that does not have
> a gazillion inline citations is bad. This is how very good articles that
> used to have FA status or ability one or two years ago are now
> considered "horrible" according to the current fashion.
> Now, what this vogue leads to:
> * We have very good articles (in terms of content and accuracy) on which
> nobody who knows the topic objects anything is wrong, but which are
> considered bad because not every statement that any person who have
> heard about the issue would agree with has a source.
>
> * We have horrific articles, but in which everything is "sourced".
> Anything goes: trivia, mention of the subject appearing in a Seinfeld
> episode, quotations from newspapers on fields they are incompetent about
> (such as science), etc.
>
> Formally speaking, they sound nice, and they please the crowd who thinks
> that what's important in life is sticking to formal rules and earn good
> marks for it. However, those articles really are a shame.
>
> In addition, this kind of "sourcing" has a strong bias towards Internet
> sources (Internet-accessible newspapers, sites, etc.), which, on the
> other hand, tend to be very inadequate on many topics. I remember
> recently reading an evaluation of an article on fr: (I think, 'Women in
> Iran') by a known specialist. What she said:
> * A lot of relevant literature on the issue is ignored.
> * On the other hand, Internet sources, often not much good, are
> overrepresented.
> * There are numerous errors.
> But this article nearly made it to "featured" status, because, formally
> speaking, it had everything! Many citations, photos etc.
>
> To me, the rules that we create, as all rule systems, have this perverse
> effect that people work more to fulfill the rules ("we should have a
> photo" even on abstract topics, "we should have a gazillion citations"
> even if they are low quality) than to fulfill the goal (having good
> articles that people knowing the subject would agree reflect the various
> notable points of view in an unbiased way).
>
> -- DM
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.

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

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... Notability

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by David Goodman
David Goodman wrote:

>An good article that is properly defended is less likely to be
>deleted. I have seen many worthy articles fail because there are no
>outside references, and the claims are either exorbitant or mild. You
>can not expect others to know, unless you tell them.
>
All good articles also need time to evolve.  Stubs don't seem like much,
but they are a beginning.  References are a good thing; good references
are even better.  These too develop over time.  References are more
important when the facts are in dispute, but many articles can afford
patience when dealing with references.

Ec




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

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... Notability

David Goodman
I prefer to write that way too, but it isn't safe now.   There are a
few editors running amuck with speedys on new stubs. Any editor can
place a speedy. It takes an admin to actually delete it, but they do
delete it if you haven't contested it with a hangon tag. You may have
less than an hour, depending how busy things are. If you start a new
article, stay and watch it.

On 1/13/07, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:

> David Goodman wrote:
>
> >An good article that is properly defended is less likely to be
> >deleted. I have seen many worthy articles fail because there are no
> >outside references, and the claims are either exorbitant or mild. You
> >can not expect others to know, unless you tell them.
> >
> All good articles also need time to evolve.  Stubs don't seem like much,
> but they are a beginning.  References are a good thing; good references
> are even better.  These too develop over time.  References are more
> important when the facts are in dispute, but many articles can afford
> patience when dealing with references.
>
> Ec
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.

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

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... Notability

Ray Saintonge
David Goodman wrote:

>I prefer to write that way too, but it isn't safe now.   There are a
>few editors running amuck with speedys on new stubs. Any editor can
>place a speedy. It takes an admin to actually delete it, but they do
>delete it if you haven't contested it with a hangon tag. You may have
>less than an hour, depending how busy things are. If you start a new
>article, stay and watch it.
>
Sometimes it comes to that, but it's an unhealthy environment when you
keep having to watch out for who's ciming up behind you with a knife, or
you need to spend your time defending your edits.  That seriously cuts
down the time you have to do constructive things.

Ec


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

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... Notability

David Goodman
Yes, and here have been multiple comments on various user pages that WP
people are finding that they need to concentrate on either process or
editing. To some extent this is inevitable--there has always been a
separation between writing (=WP editing), true editing (=WP revising, often
done separately from writing the main text), and publishing (=WP process).
In WP and in the Real World, many authors eventually become editors, and
then engage in quality-control functions. Perhaps we expect too much.

On 1/15/07, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> David Goodman wrote:
>
> >I prefer to write that way too, but it isn't safe now.   There are a
> >few editors running amuck with speedys on new stubs. Any editor can
> >place a speedy. It takes an admin to actually delete it, but they do
> >delete it if you haven't contested it with a hangon tag. You may have
> >less than an hour, depending how busy things are. If you start a new
> >article, stay and watch it.
> >
> Sometimes it comes to that, but it's an unhealthy environment when you
> keep having to watch out for who's ciming up behind you with a knife, or
> you need to spend your time defending your edits.  That seriously cuts
> down the time you have to do constructive things.
>
> Ec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>



--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
1 ... 3456