Wikipedia's destiny

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
226 messages Options
12345678 ... 12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Guy Chapman aka JzG
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:22:11 -0700, you wrote:

>I don't really care about the subject of this article. The
>thing that is getting my particular dander up is simply the technical
>abuse of deletion as a way to "store" content we might eventually want
>back for a long period of time.

And the fact that it had previously been deleted within process
multiple times and re-created doesn't bother you?  Seems to me it was
a case of keep re-creating and keep having it AfDd until those who
wanted the article got what they wanted, regardless of previous
consensus.  But whatever.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny - Harry Reid

Guy Chapman aka JzG
In reply to this post by Fastfission
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:58:08 -0500, you wrote:

>The way to get around NOR problems in this case might be to suggest
>that we recommend that they create a webpage on their own webspace
>that says "I have been characterized in X source [wherever Wikipedia
>is getting the info] as having done Y. This is untrue, in reality I
>only did Z."

Honestly, I don't see that as necessary.  If someone wants to come to
the talk page and deny it, we can say they deny it.  If they can cite
reliable sources to support the denial, we can say the denial is
supported by reliable sources.  If they can prove it's all a figment
of someone's imagination, or a vendetta conducted by a rival or
whatever, we can just remove it.  I don't have a problem interacting
directly with biography subjects, as long as they are prepared to
accept that their Wikipedia portrait will, in the end, be of the
Oliver Cromwell school: warts and all.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny - Harry Reid

geni
The article has been unprotected for nearly 24 hours now and the world
hasn't ended.

--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny - Harry Reid

Guy Chapman aka JzG
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 10:03:34 +0000, you wrote:

>The article has been unprotected for nearly 24 hours now and the world
>hasn't ended.

I don't know how many contentious living person bios you've been
involved in.  My first was a guy who, according to his detractors,
"should be granted a dictionary of his own, so far has he stretched
the meaning of the English language", and "has trodden the tightrope
of confusing semantics with the balance of Blondel and the focus of a
train spotter" (taken verbatim from the article as they wrote it). Any
attempt to rephrase this in neutral terms was met with reversion
(apparently it is forbidden to change "book text, approved by lawyers"
even when released under GFDL), followed by personal attacks, and in
fairly short order the publishing of my personal details on the
website of the attackers, characterised as a hagiographer.

Not surprisingly the subject contacted the help desk and the article
was stubbed and locked by Jimbo.  It is now much more neutral, but
there is still a battle going on between the detractors and those who
have no evident vested interest.  The most recent spat in which I was
involved had them wanting to add some screed about a lecture the guy
gave which, apparently due to credible threats of disruption, was
seemingly subject to a decision by the hosts to discourage external
audience.  For some reason they think the venue (a college) and the
subject should be personally accountable to them for their failure to
be able to implement an effective protest.

I have grown wary of these things.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Joshua Griisser
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>I think I'm going to have to take a serious look at AfD, because if it
>is this far broken, there's something seriously seriously worse about it
>than I thought.


Well, uh, yeah, that's what I've been saying for a year ;-)

I suggest first going to and participating in [[WT:AFD]], outlining
the problems and asking for AFD regulars to come up with in-house
solutions.


- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Joshua Griisser
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:

>> Jimbo also deleted one of my stub articles, but it
>> seems that the community overruled against his
>> decission and for so far, decided to keep the article.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeremy_Rosenfeld

>This is absurd.  What an idiotic article.


I wouldn't say that. It's a decent attempt at a stub, with references,
on someone who originated an important idea.

That said, there's barely any 'there' there, so I've redirected it to
[[Wikipedia#History]], which summarises the stub in a single sentence
with a reference.


- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Peter Mackay
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of David Gerard
 

> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> >I think I'm going to have to take a serious look at AfD,
> because if it
> >is this far broken, there's something seriously seriously
> worse about
> >it than I thought.
>
>
> Well, uh, yeah, that's what I've been saying for a year ;-)

And not just once or twice, or as a mild aside, neither...

Peter (Skyring)


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

John Lee-5
In reply to this post by STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA
STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:

>Sure it can be expanded, now when Jimbo gave us
>another reply on the subject. ;)
>
>  
>
I could have sworn [[WP:V]] says something about not using primary
sources. :p

John
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Phil Boswell
In reply to this post by Mark
"Delirium" <[hidden email]> wrote in
message news:[hidden email]...
[snip]
> ...  The most I've seen in favor of
> deleting is something like 60-65%, which is nowhere near the consensus
> to delete typically required on AfD.

...whereas WP:DRV works on a simple majority system, so if you want an
article gone and that's the vote you got, you can simply delete it and wait
for it to pop upon WP:DRV whereupon your deletion is endorsed.

Somebody tell me I'm too cyncial, go on :-)
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA
In reply to this post by John Lee-5
I'm not aware of this and I don't understand the
meaning of not using "primary sources". It sounds
weird. A source is a source -- if it's legitimate,
then why forbid the use of it? Link please.

Note: I wasn't the one to add those sources to the
sub, but I think that whoever did it, did a good job.

--- John Lee <[hidden email]> wrote:

> STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
>
> >Sure it can be expanded, now when Jimbo gave us
> >another reply on the subject. ;)
> >
> >  
> >
> I could have sworn [[WP:V]] says something about not
> using primary
> sources. :p
>
> John
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Steve Bennett-4
In reply to this post by Mark
On 2/23/06, Delirium <[hidden email]> wrote:

> A crappy version a long time ago that didn't read anything close to an
> encyclopedia article was AfD'd.  A new version, more neutral, was
> created, and it was AfD'd *unsuccessfully* something like 5 times,
> interspersed with some sysops occasionally speedying it and it being
> unspeedied.

Yet another confusion of content and subject. If the subject is un
Wikipiedia-like, then it doesn't matter whether the old version was
"crappy" or not.

> Every vote on the article in question (i.e. not the very early one) has
> come out somewhere near a deadlock.  The most I've seen in favor of
> deleting is something like 60-65%, which is nowhere near the consensus
> to delete typically required on AfD.

Were these votes on the basis of content or subject?

Sorry to keep on harping on, but it's a pretty important question, and
most of these arguments seem to completely blur the line.

Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

John Lee-5
In reply to this post by STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA
STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:

>I'm not aware of this and I don't understand the
>meaning of not using "primary sources". It sounds
>weird. A source is a source -- if it's legitimate,
>then why forbid the use of it? Link please.
>
>Note: I wasn't the one to add those sources to the
>sub, but I think that whoever did it, did a good job.
>  
>
 From [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]:

    * A primary source <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source>
      provides direct evidence for a certain state of affairs. This may
      mean that the source observes a state of affairs directly, or that
      they observe indirect evidence of it. In other words, a primary
      source is a source very close to the original state of affairs you
      are writing about. An example of primary-source material would be
      a photograph of a car accident taken by an eye witness, or a
      report from that eye witness. A trial transcript is also
      primary-source material. Wikipedia articles may rely on primary
      sources /so long as what they say has been published by a credible
      publication/. For example, a trial transcript has been published
      by the court. *We may not use primary sources whose information
      has not been made available by a credible publication.* See
      Wikipedia:No original research
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research>.


John

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA
--- John Lee <[hidden email]> wrote:

> STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
>
> >I'm not aware of this and I don't understand the
> >meaning of not using "primary sources". It sounds
> >weird. A source is a source -- if it's legitimate,
> >then why forbid the use of it? Link please.
> >
> >Note: I wasn't the one to add those sources to the
> >sub, but I think that whoever did it, did a good
> job.
> >  
> >
>  From [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]:
>
>     * A primary source
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source>
>       provides direct evidence for a certain state
> of affairs. This may
>       mean that the source observes a state of
> affairs directly, or that
>       they observe indirect evidence of it. In other
> words, a primary
>       source is a source very close to the original
> state of affairs you
>       are writing about. An example of
> primary-source material would be
>       a photograph of a car accident taken by an eye
> witness, or a
>       report from that eye witness. A trial
> transcript is also
>       primary-source material. Wikipedia articles
> may rely on primary
>       sources /so long as what they say has been
> published by a credible
>       publication/. For example, a trial transcript
> has been published
>       by the court. *We may not use primary sources
> whose information
>       has not been made available by a credible
> publication.* See
>       Wikipedia:No original research
>      
>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research>.
>
>
> John

That sounds tricky. Well, for starters, this wasn't
original research, because I didn't ask Jimbo for
anything -- thus I made no direct attempt to find out
anything from him. Secondly, the way I interpret it, a
third-party could use this discussion as a source (as
they have already done in the past) and add it to the
article. However, I also read this:

"Wikipedia articles may rely on primary sources /so
long as what they say has been published by a credible
publication."

I would dare to say that Jimbo writing on this mailing
list is credible enough. :p It's obvious that this
rule was applied so that editors don't adopt sources
that are not credible enough, or may violate the law
of privacy, or whatever. Since we're not covering
anything of private nature, this shouldn't be a
problem. I could be wrong, tho.

>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Mark
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-4
Steve Bennett wrote:

>>Every vote on the article in question (i.e. not the very early one) has
>>come out somewhere near a deadlock.  The most I've seen in favor of
>>deleting is something like 60-65%, which is nowhere near the consensus
>>to delete typically required on AfD.
>>    
>>
>
>Were these votes on the basis of content or subject?
>
>Sorry to keep on harping on, but it's a pretty important question, and
>most of these arguments seem to completely blur the line.
>  
>
Since most people don't explicitly give their reasoning in their votes,
it's hard to say.  I would assert that most of the original "delete"
votes were based on content, not subject, which is why once the content
improved, the percentage of "delete" votes dwindled.

But this, among other reasons, is why we need to get rid of AfD and DRV
in the first place.  "Non-notability" is often a red herring used by
people to delete articles with which they have an ideological disagreement.

-Mark

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

John Lee-5
Delirium wrote:

>Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>  
>
>>>Every vote on the article in question (i.e. not the very early one) has
>>>come out somewhere near a deadlock.  The most I've seen in favor of
>>>deleting is something like 60-65%, which is nowhere near the consensus
>>>to delete typically required on AfD.
>>>  
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Were these votes on the basis of content or subject?
>>
>>Sorry to keep on harping on, but it's a pretty important question, and
>>most of these arguments seem to completely blur the line.
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>Since most people don't explicitly give their reasoning in their votes,
>it's hard to say.  I would assert that most of the original "delete"
>votes were based on content, not subject, which is why once the content
>improved, the percentage of "delete" votes dwindled.
>
>But this, among other reasons, is why we need to get rid of AfD and DRV
>in the first place.  "Non-notability" is often a red herring used by
>people to delete articles with which they have an ideological disagreement.
>
>-Mark
>
>  
>
Often? Please. Nobody denies it's abused. But "often"? Even David Gerard
confesses that 95% of the stuff on AfD is crap that needs to go, and
it's difficult (to say the least) to justify deletion of articles (such
as those on garage bands) without appealing to the concept (if not the
phrase) of non-notability.

John
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Joshua Griisser
John Lee wrote:

>Often? Please. Nobody denies it's abused. But "often"?


My main problem is "Nominate for deletion based on my own ignorance."
followed by several "I agree, delete based on my own ignorance."


>Even David Gerard
>confesses that 95% of the stuff on AfD is crap that needs to go, and
>it's difficult (to say the least) to justify deletion of articles (such
>as those on garage bands) without appealing to the concept (if not the
>phrase) of non-notability.


I have nothing against deleting the truly non-notable, and perusing
the ancient scrolls reveals that Jimbo has said pretty much the same
thing.

The problem is it's horribly subjective. Check [[WP:WEB]]'s recent
edit history and the attempts of arbitrary notability bar partisans to
make it policy by assertion, despite strong opposition.


- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

John Lee-5
David Gerard wrote:

>John Lee wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Often? Please. Nobody denies it's abused. But "often"?
>>    
>>
>
>
>My main problem is "Nominate for deletion based on my own ignorance."
>followed by several "I agree, delete based on my own ignorance."
>  
>
If people refused to AfD anything they didn't know anything about (who
can really say they know anything about my local garage band?), we would
be deleting a lot less crap, if less good articles. It's all a question
of trading off false positives for false negatives. I have rarely seen
an ignorance-based debate that didn't end up getting closed as a keep,
or being overturned by DRV.

>>Even David Gerard
>>confesses that 95% of the stuff on AfD is crap that needs to go, and
>>it's difficult (to say the least) to justify deletion of articles (such
>>as those on garage bands) without appealing to the concept (if not the
>>phrase) of non-notability.
>>    
>>
>
>
>I have nothing against deleting the truly non-notable, and perusing
>the ancient scrolls reveals that Jimbo has said pretty much the same
>thing.
>
>The problem is it's horribly subjective. Check [[WP:WEB]]'s recent
>edit history and the attempts of arbitrary notability bar partisans to
>make it policy by assertion, despite strong opposition.
>  
>
Well, these problems have been here forever. They're not about to go
away any time soon.

John
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Jimmy Wales
In reply to this post by Travis Mason-Bushman
Travis Mason-Bushman wrote:
 > A compromise was proposed that I - and a few others - could have
lived with

> - a protected redirect to a short paragraph on [[Internet phenomenon]] or
> [[List of YTMND fads]], which simply states he was some guy who got
> convicted of a minor sex crime and had his picture turned into an Internet
> meme.
>
> No, that was not good enough for the article's proponents - we had to have
> his complete life story (such as it is) and picture for all to see. The
> proposal was rejected.
>
> So, now we have nothing for a year.
Well, it still may be appropriate to do whatever would have been done,
had the AfD been respected in the first place.


--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Jimmy Wales
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-4
Steve Bennett wrote:

> I see we have still made little progress in deciding why exactly we
> want to have rules on notability, or what notability means in the
> Wikipedia context. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I do note that
> many others seem to have very different views on why certain subjects
> should or should not feature in Wikipedia.
>
> For what it's worth, I feel we should begin by posing ourselves the
> question: How likely is it that someone will come to Wikipedia looking
> for information on this topic. On Peppers, I would say "fairly
> likely".
That is certainly one question we should ask.

Another question is: does human dignity matter at all?


--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Jimmy Wales
In reply to this post by Bryan Derksen
Bryan Derksen wrote:
> I don't have any particular investment in the article (I think I voted
> in an AfD on it), but what you just wrote here seems to me to be similar
> to saying "there is no legitimate reason for an article on Mr. Peppers
> other than the legitimate reason there's an article on him." It may not
> be _nice_ to make fun of someone based on their appearance, but if it's
> happening enough it becomes a valid subject for an article IMO. As
> someone else pointed out there's an article on Ghyslain Raza as another
> example of fame through mockery making a person notable.

Yes to all that.  But there's a bit of a curious circularity now that
we've become very very big and very very powerful.  *If* something has
become notable enough *outside wikipedia* then yes, we can and should
have an article about it.   But we should be very extreme in our caution
that a Wikipedia entry not be used to *drive* the very notability upon
which the entry is supposed to *depend*.


--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
12345678 ... 12