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

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
107 messages Options
123456
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Andre Engels
2007/1/8, Frederick Noronha <[hidden email]>:
>
> Hmmm... some interesting issues being raised below. Just for argument
> sake: what happens if an "un-notable" entry makes it to Wikipedia?
> Would it be a grave error? Notability, after all, is mostly related to
> context. Would Shakespeare have been as "noted" a writer, if he had to
> be born in, say, Upper Egypt?


That's a big hypothetical - if he had been born there, how much and what
would he have written? Having somehting un-notable may not be a grave error,
but having thousands of un-notable things clogs Wikipedia, makes
fact-checking harder and opens the doors wide to usage of Wikipedia for
advertisement.

I think the problem lies elsewhere. The trouble is: people or
> institutions being packaged to be what they are not. Or bloated claims
> about institutions or organisations or individuals.
>
> Rather than just delete entries for being un-notable, perhaps we need
> to find ways to ensure that what's written is both accurate and
> tallies with the reality. --FN
>

But what if what is written is that so-and-so once wrote an internet page
(that a few hundred people have looked at). Do you really want to just keep
that in if you found that he really has done so?

--
Andre Engels, [hidden email]
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
_______________________________________________
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.... issues from the Third World

Subsume
In reply to this post by Frederick Noronha [फ़रेदरिक नोरोनया] فريدريك نورونيا
I don't think it would be a grave error, but our opinions about this do not
matter. There are people who do think its heresy.

Because these people are so focused on notability and reduction of error,
these like minds collect at AFD/Speedy delete. Since Wikipedia is a
volunteer effort, people will gravitate towards jobs which fulfill their
particular passion. So, I think this rule explains why deletionists are
attracted to AFD as a hangout.

Its kind of like the tenant here in American law (and probably elsewhere)
that says its better to let 100 guilty people free than to send 1 innocent
person to jail. However, the inverse of this is true at AFD.

In the west, where something like an Oral tradition/history is so foreign to
us its not hard for us to write it off as hearsay, non-notable, even gossip.
And yet any random thing that our news media decides to attend to for the
minute becomes instantly notable. There's no way to appeal this because its
just what Wikipedia has become. At the very least I hope this discussion is
generating rhetoric for you to use in AFD debates against deletionists. It
sounds like a lot of very wonderful things are being lost.


-S

On 1/8/07, Frederick Noronha <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hmmm... some interesting issues being raised below. Just for argument
> sake: what happens if an "un-notable" entry makes it to Wikipedia?
> Would it be a grave error? Notability, after all, is mostly related to
> context. Would Shakespeare have been as "noted" a writer, if he had to
> be born in, say, Upper Egypt?
>
> I think the problem lies elsewhere. The trouble is: people or
> institutions being packaged to be what they are not. Or bloated claims
> about institutions or organisations or individuals.
>
> Rather than just delete entries for being un-notable, perhaps we need
> to find ways to ensure that what's written is both accurate and
> tallies with the reality. --FN
>
> On 08/01/07, Steve <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Maybe this is a rookie opinion, but I think that the AFD process tends
> to
> > attract people who are focused on keeping wikipedia "uncluttered" and
> > "relevant". They're always going to "err on the side of delete" and
> that's
> > that. You can present anything to the people at AFD, but its a systemic
> > habit. Those aren't just going to undo because of one person's polite
> > suggestion.
> >
> > While I happen to think deletionists could be restrained greatly without
> > loss to Wikipedia (since the articles they're deleting are hardly well
> > connected and widely viewed), I'm just one opinion. Over the years I've
> > noticed a kind of institutional insecurity grow in Wikipedia, over fears
> our
> > pedia is being perceived as full of unverified internet rabble.
> >
> > -S
> --
> FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please)
> http://fn.goa-india.org  http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com
> http://www.goa-india.org http://feeds.goa-india.org/index.php
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.... issues from the Third World

Subsume
In reply to this post by Andre Engels
My are these slopes slippery this time of year. And me without my sled.

-S

On 1/8/07, Andre Engels <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> That's a big hypothetical - if he had been born there, how much and what
> would he have written? Having somehting un-notable may not be a grave
> error,
> but having thousands of un-notable things clogs Wikipedia, makes
> fact-checking harder and opens the doors wide to usage of Wikipedia for
> advertisement.
>
>
_______________________________________________
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.... issues from the Third World

David Goodman
Yes, there is a very definite tendency for deletion of anything about
a non UK/US person or institution, or an academic, or a classical
musician, or someone or something not recent enough to have material
on Google. The reason given is always "notability not asserted" and
people are actually marking for deletion anything which does not
literally countain the word "notability" in the first paragraph. This
is worst in speedy, because there are only a few hours at most to
review tthe listed items, and there's an ongoing discussion on the
talk page of WP:CSD.

Ways to deal with it are well known, but I'm outlining it for clarity.
More people must to make the very considerable effort of reviewing at
least some of the deletions.  For speedys, they're at
[[Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion]]. Twice a day is not too
often.  Then there's  [[Category:Proposed deletion]] every few days is
enough, and similarly at AfD. You'll see me there-- I'm DGG.

AfD is the easy part, because if an article gets to AfD, there are
enough people watching to speak up, and enough time to improve the
article.

I'm not hopeful on structural change, because no structural change can
stand up to people wantonly ignoring the meaning of the rules.  But WP
is after all a cooperatively edited project, and individual people
joining in can make a difference.  To return to the original posting,
if a number of other people familiar with Indian material support
worthy articles, it will work.

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.

The other specific tactic some like-minded people are using is to
write the article on their user page, and invite comment individually
from people likely to be active in AfD.
Format does matter.

-- David Goodman





On 1/8/07, Steve <[hidden email]> wrote:

> My are these slopes slippery this time of year. And me without my sled.
>
> -S
>
> On 1/8/07, Andre Engels <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > That's a big hypothetical - if he had been born there, how much and what
> > would he have written? Having somehting un-notable may not be a grave
> > error,
> > but having thousands of un-notable things clogs Wikipedia, makes
> > fact-checking harder and opens the doors wide to usage of Wikipedia for
> > advertisement.
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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.... issues from the Third World

Subsume
Good. Thank you.

I'm outlining it for brevity:

1) Bookmark and check [[Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]] regularly.
Make it part of that hour or so per day when you're aimlessly clicking
around the internet.

2) Even though you shouldn't have to, source to the point of compensation.

3) Call for back-up. Deletionists routinely summon their cheerleaders when
things aren't going their way. Do the same.

4) Structural change -- fuggetaboutit.

-S

I am curious. About how many articles per day/week do you salvage from
speedy del, David?

On 1/8/07, David Goodman <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Yes, there is a very definite tendency for deletion of anything about
> a non UK/US person or institution, or an academic, or a classical
> musician, or someone or something not recent enough to have material
> on Google. The reason given is always "notability not asserted" and
> people are actually marking for deletion anything which does not
> literally countain the word "notability" in the first paragraph. This
> is worst in speedy, because there are only a few hours at most to
> review tthe listed items, and there's an ongoing discussion on the
> talk page of WP:CSD.
>
> Ways to deal with it are well known, but I'm outlining it for clarity.
> More people must to make the very considerable effort of reviewing at
> least some of the deletions.  For speedys, they're at
> [[Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion]]. Twice a day is not too
> often.  Then there's  [[Category:Proposed deletion]] every few days is
> enough, and similarly at AfD. You'll see me there-- I'm DGG.
>
> AfD is the easy part, because if an article gets to AfD, there are
> enough people watching to speak up, and enough time to improve the
> article.
>
> I'm not hopeful on structural change, because no structural change can
> stand up to people wantonly ignoring the meaning of the rules.  But WP
> is after all a cooperatively edited project, and individual people
> joining in can make a difference.  To return to the original posting,
> if a number of other people familiar with Indian material support
> worthy articles, it will work.
>
> 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.
>
> The other specific tactic some like-minded people are using is to
> write the article on their user page, and invite comment individually
> from people likely to be active in AfD.
> Format does matter.
>
> -- David Goodman
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1/8/07, Steve <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > My are these slopes slippery this time of year. And me without my sled.
> >
> > -S
> >
> > On 1/8/07, Andre Engels <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > That's a big hypothetical - if he had been born there, how much and
> what
> > > would he have written? Having somehting un-notable may not be a grave
> > > error,
> > > but having thousands of un-notable things clogs Wikipedia, makes
> > > fact-checking harder and opens the doors wide to usage of Wikipedia
> for
> > > advertisement.
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

David Monniaux-2

>>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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Lars Aronsson
In reply to this post by Frederick Noronha [फ़रेदरिक नोरोनया] فريدريك نورونيا
Frederick Noronha wrote:

> Maybe we should use some discernment, instead of the mechanical rule
> of 'number of links' on Google or where-ever.

The question if a topic is notable enough to deserve an entry, can
only be answered with "yes" or "no", and this is pretty much
"mechanical", so you cannot really escape the mechanics.

However, the number of Google hits is not the only mechanical
input. There are many categories of topics where you can derive a
good "mechanical reason" to write an article.  For cities, you can
claim that each city with more than, say, 50,000 inhabitants
deserves an article.  The first step would then be to create a
list of the largest/biggest/heaviest objects of the category.

As for cities in India, there are 35 listed that have more than
one million inhabitants on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_plus_cities_in_India
but there are only some 400 cities listed on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_India

I don't know if any population limit was set for that list, but I
think you could easily expand that list to 2000 cities or so, and
start to write articles for each one of them.  Then for each city,
you could list the two or three most famous people that come from
that city, and write articles about them.  And so on.  All along
that chain you would then have a number that proves why this topic
is notable, so you won't have to rely on the Google hit count.  
With time, your articles will define the Google hit count.

This kind of reasoning is not limited to the English Wikipedia or
the cities of India, but can be used in the Ukrainian Wikipedia
for Hungarian composers with more than 3 symphonies or whatever.  
I don't know if 50,000 inhabitants or 3 symphonies are good limits
for notability, but if you can make such a claim and back it up,
then people should be less likely to attack you.  At least they
will understand that you are not totally clueless or naked.

There are two Swedish proverbs.  One says "you shouldn't judge
people by the clothes they wear" (man ska inte döma hunden efter
håren).  The other one says "you will get judged by the clothes
you wear" (som man är klädd så blir man hädd).  Go figure.


--
  Lars Aronsson ([hidden email])
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

_______________________________________________
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.... issues from the Third World

Robert Brockway
In reply to this post by J.L.W.S. The Special One
On Mon, 8 Jan 2007, J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:

> While working on articles about Singaporean movies, I've encountered a
> similar problem: difficulty finding references due to systemic bias.
>
> Some seem to have the impression that Singaporean = non-notable. I've
> seen articles on many Singaporean topics, which no Singaporean would
> contest the notability of, get nominated for deletion, under the claim
> of non-notability.
>
> That Wikipedia suffers from systemic bias is not surprising.

I'm afraid I've seen this also.  Non-US articles appear much more likely
to come up for AfD.

But it's not just geographic.  The Maui Cluster Scheduler actually came up
for deletion with a result of "no concensus".  This is a piece of software
that is an integral component of high performance clusters the world over.
One voter apparently wanted it deleted because it was not useful for his
home PC.  At the very best this is parochial.

I'm glad this topic has come up for discussion.  IMHO the entire deletion
process (including speedy deletion) needs to come up for review.  It's too
easy for articles to come up for AfD.

It was interesting to sit in a Greater Toronto Area Linux User Group
meeting recently and hear people list many (IMHO) reasonable articles that
had been deleted.  This was a spontaneous discussion.  I bet if so many
people in Toronto are concerned about the deletion process that we aren't
alone.

Rob

--
Robert Brockway B.Sc.        Phone:          +1-905-821-2327
Senior Technical Consultant  Urgent Support: +1-416-669-3073
OpenTrend Solutions Ltd      Email:          [hidden email]
                              Web:            www.opentrend.net

_______________________________________________
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.... issues from the Third World

Walter van Kalken
The whole problem with the deletion process. Not just on the English
wikipedia, is that people who do not know anything about the subject get
to judge. So many times you will see reasonings like ... I do not know
about it so it isn't notable ... . I know it is impossible, but ideally
only people with knowledge about the subjectarea(s) that the articles
topic would fall under would be the ones who should judge these things.
Not everybody. But unfortunately this will never be the case.

Waerth


>I'm afraid I've seen this also.  Non-US articles appear much more likely
>to come up for AfD.
>
>But it's not just geographic.  The Maui Cluster Scheduler actually came up
>for deletion with a result of "no concensus".  This is a piece of software
>that is an integral component of high performance clusters the world over.
>One voter apparently wanted it deleted because it was not useful for his
>home PC.  At the very best this is parochial.
>
>I'm glad this topic has come up for discussion.  IMHO the entire deletion
>process (including speedy deletion) needs to come up for review.  It's too
>easy for articles to come up for AfD.
>
>It was interesting to sit in a Greater Toronto Area Linux User Group
>meeting recently and hear people list many (IMHO) reasonable articles that
>had been deleted.  This was a spontaneous discussion.  I bet if so many
>people in Toronto are concerned about the deletion process that we aren't
>alone.
>
>Rob
>
>  
>

_______________________________________________
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.... issues from the Third World

Andre Engels
In reply to this post by Lars Aronsson
2007/1/9, Lars Aronsson <[hidden email]>:
>
> Frederick Noronha wrote:
>
> > Maybe we should use some discernment, instead of the mechanical rule
> > of 'number of links' on Google or where-ever.
>
> The question if a topic is notable enough to deserve an entry, can
> only be answered with "yes" or "no", and this is pretty much
> "mechanical", so you cannot really escape the mechanics.


Do I understand correctly that you are saying that yes/no questions can only
be answered mechanically? I strongly disagree. Of course you can escape the
mechanics, doing it mechanically might make things somewhat easier, but
surely Wikipedia editors are able to judge non-quantified arguments on their
merits.

This kind of reasoning is not limited to the English Wikipedia or
> the cities of India, but can be used in the Ukrainian Wikipedia
> for Hungarian composers with more than 3 symphonies or whatever.
> I don't know if 50,000 inhabitants or 3 symphonies are good limits
> for notability, but if you can make such a claim and back it up,
> then people should be less likely to attack you.  At least they
> will understand that you are not totally clueless or naked.


I guess I should not go into the examples, but in this case my opinion is
that 50,000 would be too high a limit,  I myself would be thinking of 2,000
or 5,000. 3 symphonies sounds like a bad limit because notability of a
classical composer in my opinion should not be judged by their output, but
by the question how often and by whom their work is played.


--
Andre Engels, [hidden email]
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
_______________________________________________
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.... issues from the Third World

Matthew Brown-5
In reply to this post by Lars Aronsson
On 1/8/07, Lars Aronsson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Frederick Noronha wrote:
>
> > Maybe we should use some discernment, instead of the mechanical rule
> > of 'number of links' on Google or where-ever.
>
> The question if a topic is notable enough to deserve an entry, can
> only be answered with "yes" or "no", and this is pretty much
> "mechanical", so you cannot really escape the mechanics.

I think the idea that one could come up with a formula, a machine into
which one could put an subject and turn the handle and get a 'yes' or
'no' answer, to rule on inclusion in Wikipedia is fundamentally
wrong-headed.  It reflects a certain 'computer-science' way of
thinking that I feel is flawed - as someone said, expecting to be able
to fix social problems in software is a loser's game.

To some, I feel, such a definitive process would be desirable since
they think it would solve the rancor over inclusion - even if it made
some less-than-perfect decisions, they like the speed and finality and
definitiveness of such.  I think it would only increase the rancor.
There is disagreement about inclusion not because we've not yet
perfected the formula, but because there is deep-seated division on
what we're trying to do and what should be included.  Furthermore,
inclusion doesn't seem suited to binary logic - it's a problem in
which the answers do include definitive 'yes' and 'no' regions but a
substantial fuzzy zone of 'maybe'.

Answering that 'maybe' is the hard part.  Myself, I feel that the
deciding factor, once verifiability is out of the way (and answered
positively) is simply whether anyone is interested/able to make a
worthwhile article out of it.  In practice, well-written, substantial
articles rarely get deleted no matter what the subject.

-Matt

_______________________________________________
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.... issues from the Third World

J.L.W.S. The Special One
If I wanted to write an article on, say, a chess site, but was not
sure whether it was notable, is there a place to post a request for
others to check whether its notable? If not, perhaps I could propose
such a place be created?

I agree that two problems with AFD need to be dealt with:
1) Systemic bias. Articles on American topics are less likely to be
nominated than, say, articles on Singaporean topics. In addition,
certain topics are more likely to be nominated than others.
2) Anti-elitism. If Wikipedia's article on Xiaxue were to be nominated
for deletion, the views of Singaporeans, and those familiar with the
blogosphere, should carry more weight. However, this isn't the case.

On 1/9/07, Matthew Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 1/8/07, Lars Aronsson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Frederick Noronha wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe we should use some discernment, instead of the mechanical rule
> > > of 'number of links' on Google or where-ever.
> >
> > The question if a topic is notable enough to deserve an entry, can
> > only be answered with "yes" or "no", and this is pretty much
> > "mechanical", so you cannot really escape the mechanics.
>
> I think the idea that one could come up with a formula, a machine into
> which one could put an subject and turn the handle and get a 'yes' or
> 'no' answer, to rule on inclusion in Wikipedia is fundamentally
> wrong-headed.  It reflects a certain 'computer-science' way of
> thinking that I feel is flawed - as someone said, expecting to be able
> to fix social problems in software is a loser's game.
>
> To some, I feel, such a definitive process would be desirable since
> they think it would solve the rancor over inclusion - even if it made
> some less-than-perfect decisions, they like the speed and finality and
> definitiveness of such.  I think it would only increase the rancor.
> There is disagreement about inclusion not because we've not yet
> perfected the formula, but because there is deep-seated division on
> what we're trying to do and what should be included.  Furthermore,
> inclusion doesn't seem suited to binary logic - it's a problem in
> which the answers do include definitive 'yes' and 'no' regions but a
> substantial fuzzy zone of 'maybe'.
>
> Answering that 'maybe' is the hard part.  Myself, I feel that the
> deciding factor, once verifiability is out of the way (and answered
> positively) is simply whether anyone is interested/able to make a
> worthwhile article out of it.  In practice, well-written, substantial
> articles rarely get deleted no matter what the subject.
>
> -Matt
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


--
Written with passion,
J.L.W.S. The Special One

_______________________________________________
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.... issues from the Third World

Lars Aronsson
In reply to this post by Andre Engels
Andre Engels wrote:

> Do I understand correctly that you are saying that yes/no
> questions can only be answered mechanically?

No, I wasn't referring to *how* we answer the question.  But the
*answer* is itself a "mechanic" yes or no. You either have the
article, or you don't.  This is not a fuzzy thing that can be
discussed in terms of feelings or "quality", the existence of the
article is only a quantity: 0 (doesn't exist) or 1 (does exist).
The question needs an answer, we cannot leave it undecided,
because we cannot "maybe" have an article. Since I'm an
inclusionist rather than a deletionist, I'm looking for ways to
formulate successful arguments for keeping articles, and since the
answer needs to be mechanic, it can be helpful to use mechanic
reasoning, such as the population of a city.  Anyway, that would
be better than using the Google hit count.  You could try to use
other (less mechanical) arguments for keeping an article, but I
think it would typically be more difficult.

> I guess I should not go into the examples, but in this case my opinion is
> that 50,000 would be too high a limit,  I myself would be thinking of 2,000
> or 5,000.

Absolutely.  Perhaps for the U.S. and parts of Germany we are
approaching full coverage of all places with 5,000 people.  But
for India I doubt if we have covered all cities with 50,000.  
Nothing stops the limit from being set at 500 too.  But a lower
limit could be questioned a lot more easily than a higher one.
Then again, some places with 50,000 people are less notable than
some very small places.  But if you can point to the fact that a
place has 50,000 inhabitants (or was the birth places for a
president), then it is a lot easier to defend its notability.

The notability issue is related to another question that I have:

In linguistics, it is known that some words appear more often than
others, and useful statistics can be based on a large corpus of
text.  If we have a dictionary of 80,000 words, we can check it
against a corpus of text to see if those are the 80,000 most
commonly occurring words or if the dictionary is missing some
frequent words that it should contain.  I wish we could apply the
same kind of statistics to encyclopedias as well.  If we have a
large corpus of text, how much of its meaning is explained by
Wikipedia?  Which concepts are more common than others, and is
Wikipedia missing some of them?  We can do word frequency
statistics, but how can we count the concepts that occurr in a
text?



--
  Lars Aronsson ([hidden email])
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

_______________________________________________
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.... issues from the Third World

Marco Chiesa
In reply to this post by J.L.W.S. The Special One
I can speak a bit about what we have tried to do on it.wikipedia. I
guess a few things are being done on en.wikipedia as well, but since
this is not the en.wikipedia ml, other projects may be interested as
well. We managed to set some criteria for notability, although not for
everything (e.g. a sportsman must have played for a first league team or
something like that); however we do allow some flexibility so at the end
of the day we still have to discuss, sometimes quite fiercely. We have
some kind of bias towards Italy, because our community is much less
international than other communities. At the same time, we have also
less pressure with "foreign" topics of not so clear notability, mainly
because not many people learn Italian as a second language. If we can,
we try to contact the communities where it is likely to find someone who
knows, I understand this is more difficult for en.wikipedia if the doubt
is about a topic related to a Third World English-speaking country.
About googlehits, they are useful, but we generally say "Google is not
the Bible" (you can substitute with any book that contains rvealed
truth). This is particularly true for Third World topics (or possibly
even topics that come from a different language with a different script).

Marco (Cruccone)

J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:

>If I wanted to write an article on, say, a chess site, but was not
>sure whether it was notable, is there a place to post a request for
>others to check whether its notable? If not, perhaps I could propose
>such a place be created?
>
>I agree that two problems with AFD need to be dealt with:
>1) Systemic bias. Articles on American topics are less likely to be
>nominated than, say, articles on Singaporean topics. In addition,
>certain topics are more likely to be nominated than others.
>2) Anti-elitism. If Wikipedia's article on Xiaxue were to be nominated
>for deletion, the views of Singaporeans, and those familiar with the
>blogosphere, should carry more weight. However, this isn't the case.
>
>  
>


_______________________________________________
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.... issues from the Third World

Michael Billington
In reply to this post by Lars Aronsson
On 1/9/07, Lars Aronsson <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Andre Engels wrote:
> > I guess I should not go into the examples, but in this case my opinion
> is
> > that 50,000 would be too high a limit,  I myself would be thinking of
> 2,000
> > or 5,000.
>
> Absolutely.  Perhaps for the U.S. and parts of Germany we are
> approaching full coverage of all places with 5,000 people.  But
> for India I doubt if we have covered all cities with 50,000.
> Nothing stops the limit from being set at 500 too.  But a lower
> limit could be questioned a lot more easily than a higher one.
> Then again, some places with 50,000 people are less notable than
> some very small places.  But if you can point to the fact that a
> place has 50,000 inhabitants (or was the birth places for a
> president), then it is a lot easier to defend its notability.
>

On one side we have western places. For instance, Wikipedia has an article
about my town, political division and local member of parliament. My town
and surrounding ones (all of which have wiki articles) have a population of
1,500 or so. Rambot has written articles about towns 1/10th of the size of
mine.

However, whilst lists of Australian, German or US (and more) topics are
mostly blue links, there are lists populated almost entirely by red links,
such as [[List of Sudanese singers]]. Unfortunately, very few or no reliable
sources will probably be found to warrant articles about these singers (at
least not on the internet), and the only way to get coverage of a large
portion of them would be through original research (which we can't do
obviously), or to find print sources. So does anyone on this mailing list
happen to have access to archives for a Sudanese newspaper? It would be nice
if we could get more things like [[WP:AWNB]] for smaller countries, so we
can find people more local* who may very well be able to walk to a library
to find sources and add articles. That could work wonders for coverage :-)

*And I may be a bit too ambitious in assuming we have editors from just
about every country

Michael Billington
_______________________________________________
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.... issues from the Third World

J.L.W.S. The Special One
Requiring verifiability creates systemic bias. To be more accurate, it
enforces the systemic bias of existing references.

On 1/9/07, Michael Billington <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 1/9/07, Lars Aronsson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Andre Engels wrote:
> > > I guess I should not go into the examples, but in this case my opinion
> > is
> > > that 50,000 would be too high a limit,  I myself would be thinking of
> > 2,000
> > > or 5,000.
> >
> > Absolutely.  Perhaps for the U.S. and parts of Germany we are
> > approaching full coverage of all places with 5,000 people.  But
> > for India I doubt if we have covered all cities with 50,000.
> > Nothing stops the limit from being set at 500 too.  But a lower
> > limit could be questioned a lot more easily than a higher one.
> > Then again, some places with 50,000 people are less notable than
> > some very small places.  But if you can point to the fact that a
> > place has 50,000 inhabitants (or was the birth places for a
> > president), then it is a lot easier to defend its notability.
> >
>
> On one side we have western places. For instance, Wikipedia has an article
> about my town, political division and local member of parliament. My town
> and surrounding ones (all of which have wiki articles) have a population of
> 1,500 or so. Rambot has written articles about towns 1/10th of the size of
> mine.
>
> However, whilst lists of Australian, German or US (and more) topics are
> mostly blue links, there are lists populated almost entirely by red links,
> such as [[List of Sudanese singers]]. Unfortunately, very few or no reliable
> sources will probably be found to warrant articles about these singers (at
> least not on the internet), and the only way to get coverage of a large
> portion of them would be through original research (which we can't do
> obviously), or to find print sources. So does anyone on this mailing list
> happen to have access to archives for a Sudanese newspaper? It would be nice
> if we could get more things like [[WP:AWNB]] for smaller countries, so we
> can find people more local* who may very well be able to walk to a library
> to find sources and add articles. That could work wonders for coverage :-)
>
> *And I may be a bit too ambitious in assuming we have editors from just
> about every country
>
> Michael Billington
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


--
Written with passion,
J.L.W.S. The Special One

_______________________________________________
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.... issues from the Third World

James Hare
Aye, but verifiability also allows for third-party peer review.

On 1/9/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Requiring verifiability creates systemic bias. To be more accurate, it
> enforces the systemic bias of existing references.
>
> On 1/9/07, Michael Billington <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 1/9/07, Lars Aronsson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Andre Engels wrote:
> > > > I guess I should not go into the examples, but in this case my
> opinion
> > > is
> > > > that 50,000 would be too high a limit,  I myself would be thinking
> of
> > > 2,000
> > > > or 5,000.
> > >
> > > Absolutely.  Perhaps for the U.S. and parts of Germany we are
> > > approaching full coverage of all places with 5,000 people.  But
> > > for India I doubt if we have covered all cities with 50,000.
> > > Nothing stops the limit from being set at 500 too.  But a lower
> > > limit could be questioned a lot more easily than a higher one.
> > > Then again, some places with 50,000 people are less notable than
> > > some very small places.  But if you can point to the fact that a
> > > place has 50,000 inhabitants (or was the birth places for a
> > > president), then it is a lot easier to defend its notability.
> > >
> >
> > On one side we have western places. For instance, Wikipedia has an
> article
> > about my town, political division and local member of parliament. My
> town
> > and surrounding ones (all of which have wiki articles) have a population
> of
> > 1,500 or so. Rambot has written articles about towns 1/10th of the size
> of
> > mine.
> >
> > However, whilst lists of Australian, German or US (and more) topics are
> > mostly blue links, there are lists populated almost entirely by red
> links,
> > such as [[List of Sudanese singers]]. Unfortunately, very few or no
> reliable
> > sources will probably be found to warrant articles about these singers
> (at
> > least not on the internet), and the only way to get coverage of a large
> > portion of them would be through original research (which we can't do
> > obviously), or to find print sources. So does anyone on this mailing
> list
> > happen to have access to archives for a Sudanese newspaper? It would be
> nice
> > if we could get more things like [[WP:AWNB]] for smaller countries, so
> we
> > can find people more local* who may very well be able to walk to a
> library
> > to find sources and add articles. That could work wonders for coverage
> :-)
> >
> > *And I may be a bit too ambitious in assuming we have editors from just
> > about every country
> >
> > Michael Billington
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Written with passion,
> J.L.W.S. The Special One
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.... issues from the Third World

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Michael Billington
On 09/01/07, Michael Billington <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On one side we have western places. For instance, Wikipedia has an article
> about my town, political division and local member of parliament. My town
> and surrounding ones (all of which have wiki articles) have a population of
> 1,500 or so. Rambot has written articles about towns 1/10th of the size of
> mine.


Rambot has written articles about towns with zero inhabitants.

This is not a bad thing - it's not like completeness of coverage costs
us paper, and we can claim to cover EVERY settlement known to the US
Census.


> *And I may be a bit too ambitious in assuming we have editors from just
> about every country


One of the reasons for the popularity of en:wp (still 54% of all
wikipedia.org traffic) is its breadth. Far too often, I have trouble
convincing non-English-native-speakers that their native language
Wikipedia is worth their close attention. en:wp's ridiculous breadth
seems to add perceptible value in practice.


- d.

_______________________________________________
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.... issues from the Third World

M. Williamson
In reply to this post by J.L.W.S. The Special One
This is true. However, is there a workable solution to that?

I remember when people didn't worry too much about references on
Wikipedia. Sure, you were supposed to have them, but as long as you
had a nice article, nobody cared.

Well, what if I know the truth, but it is not written anywhere? What
if I interview 100 people to make sure they agree, and they do? What
if it is common knowledge in my village, which nobody will challenge?

The answer: it will be labeled "unverifiable" or "non-notable" and deleted.

Wikipedia's current message to the world: If it's never been written
about, or been mentioned in a sound recording or a film, it's not
important.

Well:

1) Not all cultures have writing.
2) Among those cultures which DO have writing, they each place
different importance values on it. In my daily life, I am using it
constantly. My desk is littered with books with their titles written
on them, products with their labels. If I go driving, some of the
signs will have writing on them, there are billboards, signs for
businesses, all of them using writing. But in some cultures, writing
may not be used so extensively. Maybe it is usually just used for
poetry, or just for writing letters to people who are far away. The
concept of mass communication is foreign to most cultures still, and
if you don't need mass communication, writing is hardly necessary,
except to write a letter to someone who is not present.
3) Among the population of the Earth, a very, very large portion live
in societies that are not highly literate or which don't place a high
importance on writing. Most societies don't record every aspect of
life the way we do. Yes, there are newspapers in India (although to
the best of my knowledge there are no newspapers in Igbo or Aymara or
Afar), there are books in Nepal, but if you look it up, the sheer
volume of materials published in the First World per-capita far, far,
far, far exceeds that of anywhere else.

Here, if someone sees an insect doing something strange, they write a
paper or a book about it, and if they don't, somebody else will! But
in most countries, this is not the case. Books cost money to make.
People in developing countries often don't have this money. There are
no or (comparatively) few publishers there, and those that do exist
cannot afford to put out the sheer volume of books put out by
publishers here because the demand tends to be much lower (especially
for non-fiction books). They do not have Amazon.com or massive
real-life bookstores, so "specialty" books would not sell because they
would have no way to reach their intended audience!

And they say, that the internet will change all this. Well, in these
societies, although internet access is on the rise, it is still very,
very, low. Even if you do have internet access, it takes a somewhat
higher degree of computer literacy to be able to _publish_ on the
internet. What? You want to put your knowledge on Wikipedia? Go ahead!

...

Sorry, your knowledge is not referenced. It has been deleted. You know
nothing that is worth anything.

We are telling the developing world that they do not matter and that
they are stupid.

Mark

On 09/01/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Requiring verifiability creates systemic bias. To be more accurate, it
> enforces the systemic bias of existing references.
>
> On 1/9/07, Michael Billington <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 1/9/07, Lars Aronsson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Andre Engels wrote:
> > > > I guess I should not go into the examples, but in this case my opinion
> > > is
> > > > that 50,000 would be too high a limit,  I myself would be thinking of
> > > 2,000
> > > > or 5,000.
> > >
> > > Absolutely.  Perhaps for the U.S. and parts of Germany we are
> > > approaching full coverage of all places with 5,000 people.  But
> > > for India I doubt if we have covered all cities with 50,000.
> > > Nothing stops the limit from being set at 500 too.  But a lower
> > > limit could be questioned a lot more easily than a higher one.
> > > Then again, some places with 50,000 people are less notable than
> > > some very small places.  But if you can point to the fact that a
> > > place has 50,000 inhabitants (or was the birth places for a
> > > president), then it is a lot easier to defend its notability.
> > >
> >
> > On one side we have western places. For instance, Wikipedia has an article
> > about my town, political division and local member of parliament. My town
> > and surrounding ones (all of which have wiki articles) have a population of
> > 1,500 or so. Rambot has written articles about towns 1/10th of the size of
> > mine.
> >
> > However, whilst lists of Australian, German or US (and more) topics are
> > mostly blue links, there are lists populated almost entirely by red links,
> > such as [[List of Sudanese singers]]. Unfortunately, very few or no reliable
> > sources will probably be found to warrant articles about these singers (at
> > least not on the internet), and the only way to get coverage of a large
> > portion of them would be through original research (which we can't do
> > obviously), or to find print sources. So does anyone on this mailing list
> > happen to have access to archives for a Sudanese newspaper? It would be nice
> > if we could get more things like [[WP:AWNB]] for smaller countries, so we
> > can find people more local* who may very well be able to walk to a library
> > to find sources and add articles. That could work wonders for coverage :-)
> >
> > *And I may be a bit too ambitious in assuming we have editors from just
> > about every country
> >
> > Michael Billington
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Written with passion,
> J.L.W.S. The Special One
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

pekka.gronow
Mark Williamson wrote:

Well, what if I know the truth, but it is not written anywhere? What
if I interview 100 people to make sure they agree, and they do? What
if it is common knowledge in my village, which nobody will challenge?

The answer: it will be labeled "unverifiable" or "non-notable" and
deleted.

NOT NECESSARILY. If an article is based on oral sources, you could at
least make a note that "the information is based on interviews with 100
people, made in the village of X between dates y and z. Copies of
interviews are deposited at m." Then we'd know what is the factual basis,
and the article could be useful as such.

Pekka Gronow
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

123456