[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.... Notability

David Gerard-2
On 10/01/07, Ian Tresman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 well as {{fact}}, {{unreferenced}} and {{npov}} - which I hold are
*very* important for the readers to see. Being honest about our
imperfections - which we are more painfully aware of than any outsider
could be - is part of our being useful to the reader.


- 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.... Notability

Ian Tresman
In reply to this post by Andre Engels

>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?

Sure, but no published source in which your grandparent is featured.


>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?

I think there is a difference between mentioning something trivially,
and an article featuring something. There could be featured chess
games, which is different from a mere mention.


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

Stirling Newberry
In reply to this post by Subsume
My counter examples are two I ran across while skimming random  
articles. One was an outright fraud and had been up for months, and  
had been reflexively linked into other articles on the same topic.  
The other consists of articles *plural* from RoTK that were linked  
into Chinese history and linked as China stubs.

There is a great deal of automatic linking in and clean up behavior  
which is harder to rip out in case of a bad article than even  
increasingly cumbersome process of deletion. The pedia's community is  
good at making articles look good. This is a feature. We should not  
abuse that trust by telling people that they can put anything in it  
they like.

Editor time is not free, and should not be spent simply because of  
meta-failure to deal with issues.



On Jan 10, 2007, at 8:51 AM, Steve wrote:

> On 1/10/07, Stirling Newberry <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 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.

_______________________________________________
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

Katie (keitei)
In reply to this post by Stan Shebs-2
On Jan 10, 2007, at 1:04, Stan Shebs wrote:
> Doesn't everybody else type into WP with book propped open
> in lap, or newspaper spread on floor?
>
> Stan

Guilty as charged... though I'd like to think Wikipedia would be much  
better if everybody did this, which negates über-geek feelings.

Keitei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keitei


_______________________________________________
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 Robert Brockway
Robert Brockway wrote:

>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.
>
Not geographic?  This could be a recognition that Hawaii is not a state
like the others.  A clear argument for Hawaiian independence. :-)

>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.
>
I agree.  Unfortunately the most zealous deletionists are not the ones
participating in this discussion; they're so busy dealing with backlog
that they don't have time to discuss improvements to the policy.  This
whole topic is a recurring theme that we never seem able to escape.  The
process does need review from the ground up followed by bold action.  A
very substantial portion of proposed deletions will probably need to
happen anyway; most inclusionists recognize that.  The ones that are
really controversial remain a minority.  Giving the benefit of any
doubt  to support a more detailed review of the article should  be the
first choice.  Tagging uncertain articles so that deletion proposals can
be brought immediately to the attention of any relevant WikiProject or
Study Group where Wikipedians interested in the subject area can review
it in the light of the current state of knowledge in that field would be
very helpful.

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

Derek Hodgson
In reply to this post by Katie (keitei)
FUCK YOU!  STOP SEND ME E-MAILS THAT I DON"T CARE ABOUT!

_______________________________________________
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

Dan Collins-2
Derek Hodgson wrote:
> FUCK YOU!  STOP SEND ME E-MAILS THAT I DON"T CARE ABOUT!
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
Then don't subscribe to the list? You might also read [[WP:NPA]],
[[WP:CIVIL]], [[WP:AGF]], and [[WP:DICK]], as they are the most
important things ever written.

ST47

--
GnuPG key ID is 0x84189146 on subkeys.pgp.net


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

signature.asc (906 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Michael Billington
In reply to this post by J.L.W.S. The Special One
On 1/10/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 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.



That's why deletion sorting is so useful, we get those familiar with the
field to give their opinion. The more wikiprojects we can get involved the
better :)

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

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

>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.
>
What makes notability a bad criterion is its high degree of
subjectivity.  It is so broad that it cannot stand alone.  What I
objected to in my previous message was the temptation to generalize.from
obvious cases to more difficult ones.

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

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Ian Tresman
Ian Tresman wrote:

>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 don't see this as a problem.  The person questioning the notability
would tag it in the subject where he thinks it belongs, which could be a
high level subject.  After that it's up to the project members to
determine if it belongs in a sub-category.

>I think an article subject is notable if someone has noted it in a
>reliable source(s).
>
How well do you know what the reliable sources are when you are outside
of your fields of interest?

>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.
>
That is a potential downside, but at least the debate is then between
those who have some familiarity with the subject.

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

Ian Tresman

>How well do you know what the reliable sources are when you are outside
>of your fields of interest?

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.

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.... Notability

David Goodman
I see the following problems.
1. At the beginning of WP decisions were made to have some categories
of things notable: subway and train stations, villages in the US and
Canada, individual numbered highways etc., and to have very low bars
for characters in computer games, high schools, porn stars, and so on.
These are so much the part of WP that they cannot be removed, and it
sounds & is absurd to have very different and enormously higher
standards for college professors, classical musicians, etc.  Similarly
there are very low bar to entries for individual books, etc, except
there are less people working to fill in these categories.

2. What is personally notable to different people is very different. I
would be well served by an encyclopedia eliminating quite a number of
things. And similarly for each of you, except they'd be different.
2a. Thus, WP like any general encyclopedia will have areas that will
not seem significant to an individual. An example mentioned is
chemical compounds. When WP was started, there was no free source
giving the information. Now there is PubChem, but the chemists intend
the WP coverage to be both wider and deeper and more understandable,
and I think they are succeeding. The same is true of individual plant
and animal species. (I was initially skeptical of both, but looking at
good recent examples convinced me otherwise. Details for a separate
discussion, because I'm on the projects in these areas.)

3. there are attempts to set objective standards, but they tend to be
inflexible, and sometimes the very opposite of common sense.  For
these, see the detailed subpages of WP:N.  But the general guidelines
of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, are actually subject to very wide differences
of interpretation, especially NPOV.
3a.  But let's start a separate discussion of each.

4. It is now the case, btw, that many people are no longer anonymous.
 I used an acronym at first, and I have enough edits that would need
changing that I'm stuck with it, but I'm about to put my true name on
the user page. (it's DGG)

5. For Ian: the initial decision was made to accept to accept all
broadcasting towers as notable. Do you agree?
5a. This decision was one of the few reversed, and all but the true
landmarks are being removed through AfD.
5b. Several people have said that all high school teachers should be
notable, and all individual elementary schools, and all bus stops.
5c. I've seen it said that every individual person on earth should
have  an article about them.
5d. Noted in a reliable source is not sufficient: everyone living in
the US in 1930 and before is listed in the published parts of the US
Census, a very reliable source. Similarly for every book and pamphlet
and magazine article ever published (& the number is similar as well).
The price of every stock on the market for every weekday is listed in
reliable sources. The time each train stops at each station is listed
in reliable sources. Every individual automobile ever registered is
listed in reliable sources. Every individual piece of property every
sold is listed in reliable sources.

6. Things worth including in an article but not worth a separate
article. The current  practice seems to make a redirect from their
names  if they have names, or to include them in a list. There are
also things redirected to Wiktionary or Wikisource

7. Many things which one would think included sufficiently in the web
are much better handled in Wiki, because the web results are mainly
totally unreliable blogs.

8. So, in short, there is a dilemma between having flexible standards
set in general words that can be interpreted strictly or narrowly
depending upon individual prejudice, and and having fixed standards
that include or exclude arbitrarily, which may well not accord with
common sense.
8a.There was a long discussion of whether to include Bush's
forthcoming speech. The discussion was still going on when he gave the
speech, which clearly was notable, & put an end to the discussion.

--David Goodman

PS: consider the shades of meaning between: notable, noteworthy,
important, significant, useful

_______________________________________________
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
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge
Metafailures.

Metafailure type I.
 the way to avoid junk is screening before inclusion. It has been
considered, but rejected because of time required. Possibly this
should be re-examined, because we may be spending equal time in
removing them afterwards.

Metafailure type II,
The way to get articles for areas not adequately covered is to form
organized Projects.  There are projects for India, for Islam, etc; if
a project doesn't have enough members, recruit more. If it's not doing
enough, make suggestions there. (These projects can also serve to
scree deletions in their subjects.)

DGG
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 Ian Tresman
Ian Tresman wrote:

>>How well do you know what the reliable sources are when you are outside
>>of your fields of interest?
>>    
>>
>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.

Any rule that purports to describe common sense is well worth ignoring.

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

Gerard Meijssen-3
Ray Saintonge schreef:

> Ian Tresman wrote:
>
>  
>>> How well do you know what the reliable sources are when you are outside
>>> of your fields of interest?
>>>    
>>>
>>>      
>> 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.
>
> Any rule that purports to describe common sense is well worth ignoring.
>
> Ec
Ray,
One of my favourite proverbs: "There ain't no such thing as common sense
as common sense ain't common".
Thanks,
    GerardM

_______________________________________________
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
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge

> >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.

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 Third World

Confusing Manifestation
In reply to this post by David Goodman
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Ian Tresman
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
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 Confusing Manifestation
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

M. Williamson
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
123456