Wikipedia experts: question on non-notability

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

OK, I'm definitely no expert, and my contributions are largely limited to small cosmetic changes, but one of my contributions was recently deleted. Here's the deal:

Under the entry for gofer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gofer), I added a line that showed an early citation of the word (from the 1960s "Outer Limits" episode "Second Chance." Someone deleted that line noting that it was a "non-notable use."

OK, I'm not going to just add it back since it might fall short of Wiki's standards. As I've said, I'm not being an expert on their rules. But I wouldn't mind some info on the "non-notability" of the inclusion. I understand the idea of non-notability where it applies to the entire entry.

[Crocodiles And Boulevards]

It would be helpful, then, if you provided the line you are asking us to judge for notability.

[Indistinguishable]

Here you go:

An earlier reference using the word in the sense of "lackey" was in the Outer Limits episode Second Chance.
Pretty much exactly what the OP said.

[wolf_meister]

Earl
I have always been a huge fan of the original "Outer Limits" show. I don't remember the "gofer" reference in that episode. If nothing else, I'd like to know how it was used, who said it, etc. "Second Chance" starred Simon Oakland and Don Gordon right?
Perhaps wikipedia wanted more of an explanation such as the one given for the "Muppets" show.

[Kamino Neko]

I can't speak for all contributers, but I would say that it's non-notable unless it predates the earliest known usage, in which case the original air-date should also be included.

[Edit - reading the article, the Muppets reference, which is still there, also seems to fall foul on non-notability, but it's not a good article in general.]

[Otto]

I wouldn't have removed the line for notability reasons. Depending on how it was presented, I might have tagged it (and the Muppets information) as a trivia section, which are "strongly discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines." If there are references in reliable sources that discuss the use of the word in the episode that would go a long way toward securing its place in the article but in general I am no fan of "in this one episode of this one TV show this one guy sad 'foo'" because in the vast majority of instances lists within articles and articles composed of such references are pretty worthless from an encyclopedic standpoint.

[wolf_meister]

A Wikipedia section that isn't frowned upon is "Popular Culture References".
Perhaps, the Muppets and The Outer Limits reference could be put into such a section.
Earl
What is that quote anyway?

[Otto]

A Wikipedia section that isn't frowned upon is "Popular Culture References".
Like hell it's not. There is a big contingent of editors, myself included, who hate the things. Excuses for anyone who spots somebody making any reference to a thing to run to their computers and breathlessly add it to the ever-bloating section, until it eventually gets spun off into its own craptacular article because the serious editors who are trying to contain the wretched thing gets sick of battling the editors who insist on having it there. That's exactly the sort of thing I was talking about in my post above.

[wolf_meister]

Hi Otto,

Well, I thought you were referring specifically to Trivia sections in Wikipedia. LOL
Gee, I guess not.

I added a popular culture reference to the article on the Colosseum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloseum).
My contribution? The conclusion of the film Twenty Million Miles To Earth takes place at the Colosseum.
To me it seems that the Wikipedia concept is quite a paradigm shift in encyclopedia authoring. So, if some people feel that certain facts belong in an article, shouldn't that also be taken into consideration? Wikipedia is available to the world and edited by that world so you really can't expect everyone's concept to fall in line with your own, right?

Okay, I really didn't reply just to start an argument. I just thought I'd offer my views on it.

[Skald the Rhymer]

wolf_meister, I'm not as vehement as Otton is on the subject, because I've give up editing Wikipedia, but I understand his point. As I see it, the problem with "Refereces in Pop Culture" sections is that they expand completely out of proportion to their importance, and in so doing detract from the thrust of the article. The sections grow and grow as various persons add pseudo-info that do nothing but distract from the thrust of the article. It's an argument for the utility of scarcity in organzing info.

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

I can't speak for all contributers, but I would say that it's non-notable unless it predates the earliest known usage, in which case the original air-date should also be included.

[Edit - reading the article, the Muppets reference, which is still there, also seems to fall foul on non-notability, but it's not a good article in general.]

I agree with both points. My contribution, whether valid or not, did predate the Muppets reference by about 10 years. The article doesn't indicate any other published usage.

Earl
What is that quote anyway?

OK, the setup: Football jock Buddy Lyman has a lackey named Tommy. Toward the beginning of the episode, Buddy is seen procuring three soft drinks (one for him, one for Buddy, and one for Buddy's gal) from a vending machine, then walking away. He is later seen at a Carousel where Buddy and date have been riding, holding an empty drink bottle, and being handed two other empties, Buddy telling him to throw them away. Buddy also hands him some money, telling him to buy them some more rides. So the alpha male/lackey relationship is established in the early scenes. Later, there is a confrontation between the two. Here is the quote. (http://s98.photobucket.com/albums/l269/hosmackah/gofer/?action=view&current=MVI_1957.flv)

[Crocodiles And Boulevards]

wolf_meister, I'm not as vehement as Otton is on the subject, because I've give up editing Wikipedia, but I understand his point. As I see it, the problem with "Refereces in Pop Culture" sections is that they expand completely out of proportion to their importance, and in so doing detract from the thrust of the article. The sections grow and grow as various persons add pseudo-info that do nothing but distract from the thrust of the article. It's an argument for the utility of scarcity in organzing info.

I'm always sad when they remove the trivia sections, though. The trivia sections always seem to be at the end of the articles, so they don't detract from the information you need at all. In fact, I've gone to Wikipedia several times specifically to find cultural references that I can't recall.

It seems to me that since there isn't a page limit, beyond tightening the informational aspects of the article, the rest ought to be given some leniency so long as the writing checks out and is accurate.

[Indistinguishable]

The problem with the trivia sections isn't so much a space thing as an organization and cleanliness thing, I would say. A random grabbag of unrelated facts do not a proper article make. They should be worked into the main article if possible; otherwise, they probably belong somewhere else.

[Crocodiles And Boulevards]

The problem with the trivia sections isn't so much a space thing as an organization and cleanliness thing, I would say. A random grabbag of unrelated facts do not a proper article make. They should be worked into the main article if possible; otherwise, they probably belong somewhere else.

Where else?

[samclem]

Where else? ON the cutting room floor.

[Roland Orzabal]

I'm always sad when they remove the trivia sections, though. The trivia sections always seem to be at the end of the articles, so they don't detract from the information you need at all. In fact, I've gone to Wikipedia several times specifically to find cultural references that I can't recall.The problem with adding trivia sections to the ends of Wikipedia articles is that if you don't understand the Wiki tubes can be filled, and if they are filled, the article gets delayed by anyone who puts into Wikipedia articles enormous amounts of material...enormous amounts of material. Just the other day, a Wikipedia was sent to me by my friend at 10 o'clock in the morning and I just got it today. Why?

Trivia sections.

The anti-trivia sentiment goes hand-in-hand with the removal of various pop culture entries as something I've long since given up arguing with Wikipedians about. Apparently people don't come to Wikipedia for information like that, despite the fact that you do, the fact that posing a trivia question about X on the internet will often as not be answered with a link to en/wiki/X, and the fact that Wiki is nothing but a giant random information repository anyway (it isn't, and will never be without abandoning its core concept, a serious reference source). More information, even when accurately cited and organized so as to be unobtrusive -- even if you put it in a separate article, where if nobody cares about that information they never have to see it or acknowledge its existence -- is bad; accept it and move on.

ETA: I neither write nor edit wikipedia articles that frequently, but I've had no end of arguments with Wiki editors about this. Their point is generally that the information is only tangentially relevant, or the result of a current fad that will fade, or something along those lines. My rebuttal has been, and remains, "so?"

[Otto]

Where else?
There are pop culture and trivia wikis out there that would probably be thrilled to have the material.

Apparently people don't come to Wikipedia for information like that, despite the fact that you do, the fact that posing a trivia question about X on the internet will often as not be answered with a link to en/wiki/X, and the fact that Wiki is nothing but a giant random information repository anyway (it isn't, and will never be without abandoning its core concept, a serious reference source).

Not to be argumentative about it but "somebody might look for it" really isn't a strong rationale. Somebody might come looking for any of the articles or bits of information that get deleted off of Wikipedia. The article or information still needs to meet the relevant policies and guidelines. One of those guidelines is that trivia sections are to be avoided. The information should be sourced and integrated into the article or it should be deleted.

[Indistinguishable]

There are pop culture and trivia wikis out there that would probably be thrilled to have the material.
Oh, no, I wouldn't put it this way. Wikipedia is, among other things, a pop culture wiki; it'd be a shame for them to remove all their well-organized, well-written articles on your-favorite-television-series-here. It's just that even information about pop culture needs to be well-integrated and organized; if I started an article called "A bunch of random facts" and then pasted in a bulleted list of, well, random facts, you can bet I'd be asked to either find ways to actually integrate those facts into relevant articles or get rid of them. The same principle applies to trivia sections, I would say.

The thing is that they often turn into laundry lists of "Person/movie/show/whatever X mentioned this topic once at time Y", which just bloats without end or real purpose, like other long, pointless Wikipedia lists (in a slightly different vein, "List of three letter abbreviations" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_TLAs) is particularly amusingly useless)

[Otto]

Oh, no, I wouldn't put it this way. Wikipedia is, among other things, a pop culture wiki; it'd be a shame for them to remove all their well-organized, well-written articles on your-favorite-television-series-here. It's just that even information about pop culture needs to be well-integrated and organized; if I started an article called "A bunch of random facts" and then pasted in a bulleted list of, well, random facts, you can bet I'd be asked to either find ways to actually integrate those facts into relevant articles or get rid of them. The same principle applies to trivia sections, I would say.
I'm not suggesting removing all pop culture content from Wikipedia. Most of what I contribute is pop culture material (films, TV shows, performers of various stripes). I've gotten about a dozen such articles up to "Good article" status and one to "Featured article" status. There are even some "...in popular culture" articles themselves that are in pretty good shape, like Champagne in popular culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champagne_in_popular_culture). It's decently sourced and doesn't attempt to list every time someone proposes a toast. You and I are basically saying the same thing here. Well-written and sourced articles, even on pop culture topics, good. More-or-less random collections of every time a thing is mentioned in any context or medium, bad.

[samclem]

And, bad would be a listing of every time the word "cheeseburger" is mentioned in pop-culture. Don't get me started.

[Bryan Ekers]

You mean it's not ... fun (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=437446)... any more?

[jackdavinci]

It's not notable because there's nothing special about the use of the concept in that episode. It was special in the Muppet episode because it was a pun and a character. As far as earliest usage is concerned, "wikipedia is not original research" so editors shouldn't be guessing about earliest usage - they should only mention it if it has been determined by an outside source; also, "wikipedia is a not a dictionary" - the article should really be about the concept and history of gofers as a thing, and not the history of the word itself, except as it would contribute to the understanding of the thing itself.

That said I sympathize; there have been times where I'd prefer certain trivia or pop culture references were left in. Certainly the former - the latter obviously has the potential to get out of control and become irrelevant.

As far as "wikipedia is edited by everyone - shouldn't my desire to have the information there count?" Yes of course, but for wikipedia to have some sense of consistency, certain global policies have been developed. I don't agree with all of them either, but the proper way to confront that is not to ignore the policy, but to discuss changes to the policy on the policy page.

As far as original research and pop culture references and word origins, wiki's sister projects have places for all of these (wikia and wiktionary for example).

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

Well, thanks! I think that pretty much covers it.

[jackdavinci]

You can also go to the history tab and find out who made the change... if you ask politely on their talk page for a more thorough explanation of their edit, and if they aren't simply a deletion nazi, they will often help you out.

[wolf_meister]

jackdavinci
As far as "wikipedia is edited by everyone - shouldn't my desire to have the information there count?"
Yes that was my alleged "argument" in a previous posting.
Now, I can see how things could get out of hand with people citing any kind of popular culture reference such as the World Wrestling Federation, Monster Truck Rallies, Arena Football, porn movies, etc.

It is a judgment call, and a tough one at that. For example, in an article about William Shakespeare, people would probably consider a reference to Richard Burton being more relevant and acceptable as opposed to citing Carrot Top.

Still, those references can make the article interesting. Again, with Shakespeare, it might be interesting to note that the Beatles song "I Am The Walrus" has quotes from King Lear in its conclusion.