[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 ThirdWorld

Subsume
To me the issue of notability has always been a bloated one. I'll even go so
far as to say that Wikipedia's quality wouldn't change substantially if we
could rewind history and expunge notability as an issue ever.

The primary fear is that WP will become "cluttered". However, articles that
are objectively not-notable will have very little connectivity with any
other articles. Therefore, non-notable articles will only exist within
small, obscure pockets.

It's akin to the logic Google uses to determine the weight of a site with
its PageRank system, which gives notable weight to sites linked to.

Let's suppose for fun that the burden of notability shifted from article
creation to inter-article linkage. So, I could create an article about
myself. But when I attempted to inject it into [[Philadelphia]], I'd have to
prove that my article was substantially relevant to anyone interested in the
subject of Philadelphia. If the decision to link to me was made by philly
watchers/readers, I'd venture to guess you're already talking a more diverse
and subject-intelligent crowd than the regulars at AfD. Of course, these
kinds of edits are routine--they are reverted just as routinely.

So, even in the extreme case that all articles were acceptable, my vanity
page would be nothing more than a desolate, unconnected article that nobody
would ever find accept by [[Special:Random]]. Of course, the slippery slope
folks will tell you that if this were allowed to happen the WP servers would
blow up and Larry Sanger's fork would rule the world, and eventually fund a
robot army, resurrect Dracula-Hitler-Tyrannosaurus, and end humanity.

-S

On 1/9/07, Frederick Noronha <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> For someone like me, the strength of the Wikipedia lies mainly in the
> fact that it has space also for my village of 8000 to be written about
> for a global audience (in a factual manner, of course). If things that
> are important to me are going to be seen as "peripheral" (just because
> they lack size or not being visible enough in cyberspace), then in
> what way is it different from the mainstream... that has kept me out
> in the cold for so long, anyway?
>
>
_______________________________________________
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 Stan Shebs-2
Oh, well the conversation was reaching so much consensus I guess I had to
invent some conflict. =)

-S

On 1/10/07, Stan Shebs <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Steve wrote:
> > There's no reason to pit pedia and library against one another, and
> simply
> > because the possibility exists that you can find said newspaper
> subscription
> > in a library doesn't create a reason against duplicating that
> information in
> > pedia. There are interested parties outside Londoners and Bostonians.
> >
> I think you mistake my meaning - I was saying that books and newspapers
> are an excellent, if unfashionable :-) , source of information worth
> adding to WP. Doesn't everybody else type into WP with book propped open
> in lap, or newspaper spread on floor?
>
> Stan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Walter van Kalken
In reply to this post by Stan Shebs-2
Stan Shebs wrote:

>Steve wrote:
>  
>
>>There's no reason to pit pedia and library against one another, and simply
>>because the possibility exists that you can find said newspaper subscription
>>in a library doesn't create a reason against duplicating that information in
>>pedia. There are interested parties outside Londoners and Bostonians.
>>  
>>    
>>
>I think you mistake my meaning - I was saying that books and newspapers
>are an excellent, if unfashionable :-) , source of information worth
>adding to WP. Doesn't everybody else type into WP with book propped open
>in lap, or newspaper spread on floor?
>
>  
>
I wish this were true ...... by (insert your deity here) I wish. This
was true of myself when I was still writing articles. I even went out
and bought more books on the subjects I was writing about to compare the
facts. But then you all of a sudden have to defend yourself against some
kiddie who only reads websites and found this one site on the net who
refutes your claims and because he cannot read books it is impossible to
convince him, even though you can quote 10 books as a source and he only
one derelict website the other kiddies will side with him because it is
on the web so it must be the truth.

This is one of the reasons why I lost faith in community processes. The
masses can so many times be convinced of a wrong thing it is
unbelievable. Just because the masses say something or believe something
it isn't always the truth you see. On wikipedia what the masses think is
the truth is the truth.

Waerth
_______________________________________________
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

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

>My wager is that en.wikipedia.org would be far, far more
>representative of India than, say hi.wikipedia.org Sad but true. And
>there are reasons for that.
>
>Have you seen the way Indians interact with themselves? If meeting
>outside the North Indian belt, there's a good chance they  (we?) would
>be taking to each other in English. There are just so much diversity
>here, that like it or not, English often serves as a link language.
>
>Added to this, many of the Wikipedia contributors would be
>college/university-educated types, often more comfortable to express
>ideas in English than, say, in an Indian language. I've made hundreds
>of edits in English
>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fredericknoronha]
>but am litterally struggling to get a Konkani Wikipedia going (Konkani
>is India's smallest "national" languages, with between 1.5 to 5
>million speakers, depending whose estimates one accepts).
>
Getting a Wikipedia developed in some languages can be difficult until
you can build a critical mass of contributors.  Sometimes the results
are surprising.  One would expect that the central role of Hindi would
result in it having the biggest Wikipedia in an Indian language, but at
this point Telugu with its 26,132 articles has more than twice as many
as second place Bengali.  Manipuri, Marathi and Tamil also have more
articles than Hindi.  The growth can be unpredictable.

Your observations are perfectly sensible, and I would understand if many
Indians were more resistant to learning Hindi than English.  Although
there are parallels I think that the issues of systemic biases are
qualitatively different than those about the growth of smaller
languages.  It would be extremely difficult for us foreigners to learn
enough of any Indian language to the point where we could write articles
in that language, but it is within our grasp to research the notability
of many topics about India.

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.... issues from the ThirdWorld

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

> I've been reading some of your meassages or votes for entry deletion, and
> I'm getting more and more sad.
> You are trying to have a 'clean' worthfull encyclopaedia with assurance
> there is no meaningless article in it.
> It could be understood in case of written, printed book which looks great in
> the bookshelf (I like books anyway).


I agree with all of this, but the people doing it aren't reading here.
You'd need to get into discussing it on [[:en:WT:AFD]] to reach the
people on en:wp who are working this way.


- 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 Walter van Kalken
If you don't believe in community processes, why do you still
participate at all with Wikipedia?

Mark

On 10/01/07, Walter van Kalken <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Stan Shebs wrote:
>
> >Steve wrote:
> >
> >
> >>There's no reason to pit pedia and library against one another, and simply
> >>because the possibility exists that you can find said newspaper subscription
> >>in a library doesn't create a reason against duplicating that information in
> >>pedia. There are interested parties outside Londoners and Bostonians.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >I think you mistake my meaning - I was saying that books and newspapers
> >are an excellent, if unfashionable :-) , source of information worth
> >adding to WP. Doesn't everybody else type into WP with book propped open
> >in lap, or newspaper spread on floor?
> >
> >
> >
> I wish this were true ...... by (insert your deity here) I wish. This
> was true of myself when I was still writing articles. I even went out
> and bought more books on the subjects I was writing about to compare the
> facts. But then you all of a sudden have to defend yourself against some
> kiddie who only reads websites and found this one site on the net who
> refutes your claims and because he cannot read books it is impossible to
> convince him, even though you can quote 10 books as a source and he only
> one derelict website the other kiddies will side with him because it is
> on the web so it must be the truth.
>
> This is one of the reasons why I lost faith in community processes. The
> masses can so many times be convinced of a wrong thing it is
> unbelievable. Just because the masses say something or believe something
> it isn't always the truth you see. On wikipedia what the masses think is
> the truth is the truth.
>
> Waerth
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Walter van Kalken
Have you seen me contributing at all on articles on any wikipedia? I
only participate in discussions in the futile hope to be able to change
the minds of the masses.

Waerth

>If you don't believe in community processes, why do you still
>participate at all with Wikipedia?
>
>Mark
>
>On 10/01/07, Walter van Kalken <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>
>>Stan Shebs wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Steve wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>There's no reason to pit pedia and library against one another, and simply
>>>>because the possibility exists that you can find said newspaper subscription
>>>>in a library doesn't create a reason against duplicating that information in
>>>>pedia. There are interested parties outside Londoners and Bostonians.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>I think you mistake my meaning - I was saying that books and newspapers
>>>are an excellent, if unfashionable :-) , source of information worth
>>>adding to WP. Doesn't everybody else type into WP with book propped open
>>>in lap, or newspaper spread on floor?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I wish this were true ...... by (insert your deity here) I wish. This
>>was true of myself when I was still writing articles. I even went out
>>and bought more books on the subjects I was writing about to compare the
>>facts. But then you all of a sudden have to defend yourself against some
>>kiddie who only reads websites and found this one site on the net who
>>refutes your claims and because he cannot read books it is impossible to
>>convince him, even though you can quote 10 books as a source and he only
>>one derelict website the other kiddies will side with him because it is
>>on the web so it must be the truth.
>>
>>This is one of the reasons why I lost faith in community processes. The
>>masses can so many times be convinced of a wrong thing it is
>>unbelievable. Just because the masses say something or believe something
>>it isn't always the truth you see. On wikipedia what the masses think is
>>the truth is the truth.
>>
>>Waerth
>>_______________________________________________
>>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

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

>I agree... What would be worse is if the "systemic bias" follows the
>traditional fault lines, which we have been so concerned about for so
>long. After all, the New Media and its bottoms-up approach was meant
>to make things "different". That's why we have so much faith in it,
>and would like to invest our volunteer efforts here. Maybe, it is time
>we recognised this problem and began to deal with it: how do
>initiatives like the Wikipedia deal with non-English, non-visible,
>largely non-digitised and oral societies (which have wealth of their
>own, but not in a traditionally 'recognisable' sense)?
>
There's a kind of village mentality at play.  I think it would be
reasonable to guess that there are people living in the small rural
villages of India who would be frightened to have anything to do with
big cities.  They are happy with their simple lives.  It is nearly
impossible to get them to think in bigger terms.

The New Media are indeed bottom-up (not bottoms-up ;-) ), and should
make things different ... in theory.  An effective bottom-up approach
requires an ability to see a bigger picture, and recognizing that there
are other villages far away that you will never see but where life is
just as important as in your own village.  Seeing this involves looking
away from one's comfort zone, and risking the possibility that you may
encounter other ideas that will turn your world upside down.  It forces
you to reconsider the paradigms that your ambient top-down culture has
worked so hard to inculcate in you while you were a child.

The city has many villages.  The net has many villages.  It's just that
unlike the rural village it's not as clearly defined.  But the small
village mentality is still there.

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.... issues from the Third World

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Subsume
Steve 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.
>
Congenital neat-freaks!  An interesting study would be to try to
correlate the level of neatness around one's computer workspace with
one's place on the deletionis/inclusionist spectrum. :-)

>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.
>
This kind of sclerosis strikes me as common in the growth of
institutions.  Sometimes I wonder whether we have enough excape velocity
to escape that cycle.  Someone starts with a great idea, and has access
to enough resources to get it off the ground.  When it succeeds more
than he ever would have dreamed it takes on a life of its own.  More and
more people become involved at a point further removed in time from the
original idea.  They can see the project as an excellent one, and their
instinct is to protect it.  This kind of smothering risks suffocating
the baby.

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.... issues from theThirdWorld

Marek Najmajer
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On 10/01/07 David Gerard answered to Marek Najmajer:
> I agree with all of this, but the people doing it aren't reading here.
> You'd need to get into discussing it on [[:en:WT:AFD]] to reach the
> people on en:wp who are working this way.

Thank you very much.
I hope you didn't take it to your heart.
I'm happy I'm not alone.
Thank you for pointing where the proper addressee of my 'Declaration of
Wikipedicity' is hidden.

Marek



> On 09/01/07, Marek Najmajer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I've been reading some of your meassages or votes for entry deletion, and
>> I'm getting more and more sad.
>> You are trying to have a 'clean' worthfull encyclopaedia with assurance
>> there is no meaningless article in it.
>> It could be understood in case of written, printed book which looks great
>> in
>> the bookshelf (I like books anyway).
>


_______________________________________________
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

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Frederick Noronha [फ़रेदरिक नोरोनया] فريدريك نورونيا
Frederick Noronha 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?
>
Quick!  Without looking at any references, how many Egyptian authors can
you name?

>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.
>
In other words marketting.  For the institutions selling these ideas, or
packaging content with software, the per unit cost of a package goes
down as more packages are sold.  There is no profit in a package that
only a small number of people around the world will even consider buying
at a price which they feel is right.  The real costs of the package
would make pricing on a cost recovery basis unreasonably high.

>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
>
Notability has bean a contentios issue ever sincee I became involved.  
During that time I've seen both No Original Research and Verifiability
developed as ways of dealing with the notability problem.  Neither
solution has succeeded as well as might have been anticipated at the time.

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.... issues from the Third World

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Andre Engels
Andre Engels wrote:

>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.
>
If Frederick's comments are hypothetical, this response is speculative.  
We have yet to deal with fact checking to any apprecable degree, and
advertising is a completely differnt issue from notability.

>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?
>
Again, this is a straw man argument.  It makes a statement about
something that many will find unacceptable and tries to apply the same
argument to more uncertain situations.

The vandal fighters are doing an important job, but sometimes they seem
to get so overrun by the backlog and the size of the task that they just
forget to reflect on articles that require it.

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.... issues from the ThirdWorld

Stirling Newberry
In reply to this post by Subsume
This would move the battle from one place to hundreds of places. In  
general, spreading a problem over more articles is less good than  
having one central place to discuss whether the article should be  
included in the main space. More over, it would burden article  
authors even more in attempting to maintain articles. This is a  
general habit of of the pedia where arguments at the meta level are  
dumped on editors because the meta level gets tired of the argument.  
Editor time is undervalued as it is, spending it to avoid meta-level  
arguments is a sign of failure at the meta-level.

Notability is, in fact, a two way protection. It protects the quality  
of the pedia, and it protects the people below the threshold of  
notability from being attacked in a wikipedia article, and having  
that vault to the top of a google search. Since people have been  
denied employment based on google searches, it would not take very  
long for this to cause a problem.

Finally, one can generate an amazingly large body of objects which  
cite only each other, and which look like information. In my "random  
article" edit swaths, a significant fraction have been "Romance of  
the Three Kingdom" references, which have exploded in popularity  
because of a computer game based on RoTK. There are hundreds of  
locations, characters and events mentioned in RoTK. Many of them are  
documentable historical people, while others are referenced only in  
RoTK. One article I edited read as if the events mentioned were factual.

Now take some long running roleplaying campaign. There are long  
running role playing campaigns that have been going for more than  
thirty years. They have thousands of locations, thousands of  
characters, and histories that stretch back thousands of years. It is  
all verifiable, because such campaigns often have web sites, or  
codifications of history. Now get one person from the campaign  
willing to put all of this information on wikipedia - it isn't that  
strenuous to write a python script that will take articles from fan  
source and dump them into wikipedia.

Wikipedia is ultimately for readers. The question on any article  
should be "would any reasonable person want to look this up?" For  
small towns, even very small ones, the answer is "yes". For fancruft  
which has reached out into the general culture, even if in minor  
ways, the answer is yes. For self-contained, self-referential worlds,  
the answer is no.

In an encyclopedia that is still lacking articles, or has only bare  
stubs, on some of the most influential thinkers in their fields,  
opening the flood gates to people typing in their high school  
roleplaying campaign is a poor idea.




On Jan 10, 2007, at 1:06 AM, Steve wrote:

> To me the issue of notability has always been a bloated one. I'll  
> even go so
> far as to say that Wikipedia's quality wouldn't change  
> substantially if we
> could rewind history and expunge notability as an issue ever.
>
> The primary fear is that WP will become "cluttered". However,  
> articles that
> are objectively not-notable will have very little connectivity with  
> any
> other articles. Therefore, non-notable articles will only exist within
> small, obscure pockets.
>
> It's akin to the logic Google uses to determine the weight of a  
> site with
> its PageRank system, which gives notable weight to sites linked to.
>
> Let's suppose for fun that the burden of notability shifted from  
> article
> creation to inter-article linkage. So, I could create an article about
> myself. But when I attempted to inject it into [[Philadelphia]],  
> I'd have to
> prove that my article was substantially relevant to anyone  
> interested in the
> subject of Philadelphia. If the decision to link to me was made by  
> philly
> watchers/readers, I'd venture to guess you're already talking a  
> more diverse
> and subject-intelligent crowd than the regulars at AfD. Of course,  
> these
> kinds of edits are routine--they are reverted just as routinely.


_______________________________________________
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 Ray Saintonge
2007/1/10, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]>

>
>
> >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?
> >
> Again, this is a straw man argument.  It makes a statement about
> something that many will find unacceptable and tries to apply the same
> argument to more uncertain situations.


Yes. And what's wrong with that? Either we have *some* notability criterium,
or we have *none*. If we have none, then what criterium are you going to use
to remove articles like the above? If we have some, then apparently you DO
agree with me that 'notability' is a good criterium, and what we disagree on
is the *level* of notability that is required. Which is a wholely different
ballgame.



--
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.... Notability

Ian Tresman
Notability means different things to different people. What I find
notable, someone else won't and vice versa.

What's important, it that the article is written well.

Wikipedia's strength is that it has more articles than any other
encyclopedia. It also has "Good article status" and "Featured article
status" to further indicate quality.

As long as someone finds a subject notable, I'm not going to disagree
with them, and as long as it conforms to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, then
that should be fine with everyone.

Regards,

Ian Tresman
   33 Reginald Street, Derby  DE23 8FR
   Tel: 01332 265566. email: [hidden email]
   Fax: 0870 167 1951. http://www.tresman.co.uk/ian/ 


_______________________________________________
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

James Hare
Indeed.

Singaporean Pop Idol. Notable to Mailer Diablo. Unimportant to me.

Perhaps people who judge notability should have a background in that field?

On 1/10/07, Ian Tresman <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Notability means different things to different people. What I find
> notable, someone else won't and vice versa.
>
> What's important, it that the article is written well.
>
> Wikipedia's strength is that it has more articles than any other
> encyclopedia. It also has "Good article status" and "Featured article
> status" to further indicate quality.
>
> As long as someone finds a subject notable, I'm not going to disagree
> with them, and as long as it conforms to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, then
> that should be fine with everyone.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ian Tresman
>    33 Reginald Street, Derby  DE23 8FR
>    Tel: 01332 265566. email: [hidden email]
>    Fax: 0870 167 1951. http://www.tresman.co.uk/ian/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

J.L.W.S. The Special One
I agree that notability should be judged by those familiar with the field.

If an article on Jeremy Silman were to be nominated for deletion, we
should ask several chess players to determine whether he's notable.

If an article on Xiaxue were to be nominated for deletion, we should
ask Singaporeans, and those familiar with the blogosphere, whether
she's notable.

On 1/10/07, James Hare <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Indeed.
>
> Singaporean Pop Idol. Notable to Mailer Diablo. Unimportant to me.
>
> Perhaps people who judge notability should have a background in that field?
>
> On 1/10/07, Ian Tresman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Notability means different things to different people. What I find
> > notable, someone else won't and vice versa.
> >
> > What's important, it that the article is written well.
> >
> > Wikipedia's strength is that it has more articles than any other
> > encyclopedia. It also has "Good article status" and "Featured article
> > status" to further indicate quality.
> >
> > As long as someone finds a subject notable, I'm not going to disagree
> > with them, and as long as it conforms to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, then
> > that should be fine with everyone.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Ian Tresman
> >    33 Reginald Street, Derby  DE23 8FR
> >    Tel: 01332 265566. email: [hidden email]
> >    Fax: 0870 167 1951. http://www.tresman.co.uk/ian/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>


--
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.... Notability

Ian Tresman
At 12:16 10/01/2007, you wrote:
>I agree that notability should be judged by those familiar with the field.

The only problem here, is that fields have sub-fields, and sub-fields
have specialists.

I think an article subject is notable if someone has noted it in a
reliable source(s).

There is a danger of peers in a field assessing a controversial
subject as non-notable for the wrong reasons, ie. confusing
notability with importances.

We have articles on obscure chemical compounds, obscure villages in
obscure countries, and obscure ideas in obscure publications.

Thank goodness that www.google.com doesn't have a "notability"
criteria, or most of its pages would disappear.

Regards,

Ian Tresman
   


_______________________________________________
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 ThirdWorld

Subsume
In reply to this post by Stirling Newberry
On 1/10/07, Stirling Newberry <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> This would move the battle from one place to hundreds of places. In
> general, spreading a problem over more articles is less good than
> having one central place to discuss whether the article should be
> included in the main space. More over, it would burden article
> authors even more in attempting to maintain articles. This is a
> general habit of of the pedia where arguments at the meta level are
> dumped on editors because the meta level gets tired of the argument.
> Editor time is undervalued as it is, spending it to avoid meta-level
> arguments is a sign of failure at the meta-level.


1) I don't see how article maintenance would be slightly changed. People
would revert irrelevant additions. How is this different from what happens
today? If you're saying that for some reason the load would spike, I'd
definitely be interested to hear your reasoning.

2) Its "dumped" on them because they are more likely to be somewhat
sufficiently self-informed on the topic. Not because editors upstairs are
'tired' of it. Oh contraire, AfD wouldn't let that 'burden' go without a
fight!

Notability is, in fact, a two way protection. It protects the quality
> of the pedia, and it protects the people below the threshold of
> notability from being attacked in a wikipedia article, and having
> that vault to the top of a google search. Since people have been
> denied employment based on google searches, it would not take very
> long for this to cause a problem.
>

You've taken my 'extreme argument' case as a literal proposition. Tisk tisk.
All I meant to illustrate was that the 'notability' issue, even taken to its
extreme (All articles are notable) produces very few problems. At present,
notability is held as sacred and its defenders fierce.

-S

On Jan 10, 2007, at 1:06 AM, Steve wrote:

>
> > To me the issue of notability has always been a bloated one. I'll
> > even go so
> > far as to say that Wikipedia's quality wouldn't change
> > substantially if we
> > could rewind history and expunge notability as an issue ever.
> >
> > The primary fear is that WP will become "cluttered". However,
> > articles that
> > are objectively not-notable will have very little connectivity with
> > any
> > other articles. Therefore, non-notable articles will only exist within
> > small, obscure pockets.
> >
> > It's akin to the logic Google uses to determine the weight of a
> > site with
> > its PageRank system, which gives notable weight to sites linked to.
> >
> > Let's suppose for fun that the burden of notability shifted from
> > article
> > creation to inter-article linkage. So, I could create an article about
> > myself. But when I attempted to inject it into [[Philadelphia]],
> > I'd have to
> > prove that my article was substantially relevant to anyone
> > interested in the
> > subject of Philadelphia. If the decision to link to me was made by
> > philly
> > watchers/readers, I'd venture to guess you're already talking a
> > more diverse
> > and subject-intelligent crowd than the regulars at AfD. Of course,
> > these
> > kinds of edits are routine--they are reverted just as routinely.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Andre Engels
In reply to this post by Ian Tresman
2007/1/10, Ian Tresman <[hidden email]>:

>
> At 12:16 10/01/2007, you wrote:
> >I agree that notability should be judged by those familiar with the
> field.
>
> The only problem here, is that fields have sub-fields, and sub-fields
> have specialists.
>
> I think an article subject is notable if someone has noted it in a
> reliable source(s).


I tend to disagree. I have reliable sources giving the date of birth and
death of my great-(x many) grandparents, as well as a few other facts of
their lifes. Does that make them notable? I think the internet archive is a
reliable source on the content of webpages. Does that mean every webpage on
the internet archive is notable enough to get an article on Wikipedia? Every
separate game of chess that has its notation published? Lab rat #2687?

There is a danger of peers in a field assessing a controversial
> subject as non-notable for the wrong reasons, ie. confusing
> notability with importances.


I think that's not confusion, I think 'notability' is indeed very close to
'importance' in its meaning. At worst, one can say that 'important' is too
high a level of notability to draw the line.

We have articles on obscure chemical compounds, obscure villages in
> obscure countries, and obscure ideas in obscure publications.


I have nothing against the first two (and no country is obscure, in my
opinion), although we should be more than a database, so there should be
more than generalities about the chemical compound. The last is exactly the
kind of thing I would like to see removed from Wikipedia. Just because
someone has written something sometime does not mean it should be in
Wikipedia. If their ideas have been influential, that's another story. But
then there should be non-obscure publications discussing them as well.

Thank goodness that www.google.com doesn't have a "notability"
> criteria, or most of its pages would disappear.
>

That depends on the type of notability criterium that has been used, and its
level. Also, we are not here to replace Google. Google tries to index
everything. I don't think that's our task. Our task is writing an
encyclopedia.

--
Andre Engels, [hidden email]
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

123456