Fuck Wikipedia and its deletion fiends

The BBQ Pit
21

[QUOTE=gaffa]
Some Wikipedia policies are just dumb. I’ve contributed a considerable amount to an article on a singer with a four octave range. This is the sort of thing that is tossed around quite freely, to the point that people have claimed that Mariah Carey has a “seven octave range”. So I actually verified the singers highest and lowest recorded notes by verifying the frequency of each note. Now I’m arguing the inclusion of this information with the sort of Wiki-Lawyer type who delights in pointing out that this is verboten “original research”. Apparently the cause of an encyclopedia is better suited by external, unverified sources rather than proof of facts.
[/QUOTE]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias aren’t primary sources. Having primary-source information in it, even if it’s true and relevant, goes against the purpose of the site. It would be useful for all gas stations to sell groceries, but that’s not the purpose of a gas station.

Wikipedia has a very basic set of rules which they repeat over and over again on almost every “help” page. If you think the rules should be changed, lobby to have the rules changed, but until then, you’re breaking them. You’re free to start your own site where people publish their own research.

22

[QUOTE=shigyu]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias aren’t primary sources. Having primary-source information in it, even if it’s true and relevant, goes against the purpose of the site. It would be useful for all gas stations to sell groceries, but that’s not the purpose of a gas station.

Wikipedia has a very basic set of rules which they repeat over and over again on almost every “help” page. If you think the rules should be changed, lobby to have the rules changed, but until then, you’re breaking them. You’re free to start your own site where people publish their own research.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for completely ignoring the content of my post. You’re a shining example of a Wikipedia editor.

23

[QUOTE=gaffa]
Thanks for completely ignoring the content of my post. You’re a shining example of a Wikipedia editor.
[/QUOTE]

Your post was about the dumb policy, his was explaining the “dumb policy”. How was that ignoring your post? Because he disagreed with your conclusion?

You did the research and you know you’re reliable, but I don’t. I’d rather read that “Scientific American” did a study of octave ranges of popular singers or something than “Yeah so I analyzed it with my computer and they’re wrong”.

24

Little Nemo, whaddya know. I got an answer!

[QUOTE=The Same Wikipedia Admin]
Ah yes, the “List of people by name” … I’m still annoyed about that deletion myself (I voted against it). I miss my LoPBN. It was hopelessly unmaintainable, with hundreds of new biographies added to the wiki every day, but that wasn’t a good enough reason to delete it when they didn’t have anything better to replace it with. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/List of people by name - Wikipedia from May 07, if you’re curious about the arguments that were made.

Search is your best bet for finding people, although a Google site search such as Google Search will generally get you better results (and catch more misspellings) than the internal search. (Side note: Suggestion for Firefox users: add a bookmark for Google Search (note the %s at the end), right click on the bookmark to go to properties and add a Keyword (such as “wp”), and then you can search Wikipedia any time using Google by typing “wp whatever” into your Firefox address bar. See http://lifehacker.com/software/geek-to-live/geek-to-live-fifteen-firefox-quick-searches-129658.php for more details.)

You can use All pages with prefix - Wikipedia to find “all page titles starting with <letters>”, if you know the first name. (Half of why LoPBN was useful, though, is that it indexed by last name.) There are also some tools and starting points at Category:People - Wikipedia or Portal:Biography - Wikipedia , but again while the contents of individual categories are alphabetized by last name, there’s no category for “people whose last name starts with Mc” – you have to drill down to, say, Category:Composers and then look in the Ms.

The LoPBN lists were largely the work of one dedicated individual who worked on them every day, with sporadic help from others (including myself) and, as I said, was always woefully behind – but it was better than nothing, better than it had any right to be, really (like the rest of WP). It was never even close to 95% complete – my guess is 20% in the early days, and probably slipping further behind as WP grew abruptly in 2006. At the time of its deletion, it was estimated that there were 400,000 biography articles in the wiki, and the list was probably a tenth that size.

There is an extension called Semantic MediaWiki that could be installed in the future, which will make it much easier for WP to automatically generate lists of people, sorted as desired, as well as to find the intersections of categories – say, Category:Left-handed people and Category:African Americans and Category:Politicians. See http://semantic-mediawiki.org/ for more. More research needs to be done on how much server load the SMW extension would add, though – Wikipedia’s traffic just keeps rising and the hardware/cache infrastructure is struggling to keep up as it is (285,000 page views per minute as of 4 months ago, the most recent stats I can find).

Anyway, regular editors at Wikipedia can be just as frustrated about deletions as readers looking for info. If anyone is really motivated to do anything about it, they’ll need to get involved in the wiki – start editing, get to know the basic guidelines such as Wikipedia:Five pillars - Wikipedia and then start participating in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion - Wikipedia where deletion discussions take place.
[/QUOTE]

And with that, I think I’m done pestering the admin - I’ll nag them to get their own account here. :wink:

25

[QUOTE=gaffa]
Thanks for completely ignoring the content of my post. You’re a shining example of a Wikipedia editor.
[/QUOTE]

I completely ignored the content of your post? So my post just coincidentally refuted what you were saying?

26

I find the “notability” requirements to be capricious and subjective. Some articles are deleted solely on the basis of the personal whims of deletion goons who hang out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and review every nominated article for “notability” based solely on the argument, “I never heard of that before”.

What is the point of deleting non-notable articles, anyway? It is a virtual encyclopedia; it cannot become cluttered, because no one sees articles they aren’t searching for. What I find notable and interesting may not fit your standard; should it be deleted for that reason alone?

I think the deletion policy is exercised needlessly and far too often.

27

[QUOTE=shigyu]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias aren’t primary sources. Having primary-source information in it, even if it’s true and relevant, goes against the purpose of the site. It would be useful for all gas stations to sell groceries, but that’s not the purpose of a gas station.

Wikipedia has a very basic set of rules which they repeat over and over again on almost every “help” page. If you think the rules should be changed, lobby to have the rules changed, but until then, you’re breaking them. You’re free to start your own site where people publish their own research.
[/QUOTE]

What is the limit of cites out of wonder? Is it anything that looks reasonable? I.E. said I did some hard-hitting original research, could I, say, create a geocities page with all this stuff dumped there and then cite my own page to get around the rule? Or would that citation be considered non-reputable and deleted?

28

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
I find the “notability” requirements to be capricious and subjective. Some articles are deleted solely on the basis of the personal whims of deletion goons who hang out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and review every nominated article for “notability” based solely on the argument, “I never heard of that before”.
[/QUOTE]
Then they’re breaking the rules. Wikipedia has exactly one rule defining notability: “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable” -Wikipedia:Notability. If an admin deletes an article that meets this standard, it should be contested. It’s a wiki; if people are breaking the rules, do something about it.

“Interesting” has nothing to do with it. The rule above is fairly objective. If there are multiple reliable sources with information on the subject, it is considered notable and will not be deleted. If there aren’t any, then it doesn’t belong on the site.

This is really just an extension of the “verifiability” requirement. If a fact does not have a source, it will be removed.* It follows, naturally, that an article consisting entirely of unsourced facts will be removed, since there’s nothing left.

“Cluttering” isn’t the issue. It’s not about quality, it’s about quantity. Infinitely many articles are allowed, but they need to be good articles. Wikipedia has defined five criteria that the site revolves around: “Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with external sources, and neutrally presented, with external sources cited.” The site has been founded on those five points since day one.

Wikipedia detractors should know that there are many similar sites with their own goals; you can go to one of those. For example, one group didn’t like the neutrality requirement, so they did away with that and started Conservapedia. If you and SisterCoyote don’t like the “external sources” requirement, start your own site. But don’t act like Wikipedia editors are being unfair or irrational; the purpose of Wikipedia is spelled out simply and clearly.

  • It’s an uphill battle to enforce this, of course, and the majority of articles have at least some unsourced statements “pending” a citation. But in theory all unsourced statements will be removed in the long run.
29

It is remarkable how important and far-reaching the Tafts are in Oho and US history. Carry on.

30

[QUOTE=Paul in Saudi]
It is remarkable how important and far-reaching the Tafts are in Oho and US history. Carry on.
[/QUOTE]

And all English families—Brad Pitt and Barack Obama are supposedly related!

31

Wow. That’s some sad reading. They really did go for the “it’s incomplete” reason.* I wonder how long it will be until somebody nominates the entire Wikipedia for deletion. I fear the termites will win in the end.

*Actually, as with most calls for deletion, the majority of delete votes said they agreed with deletion for whatever the reasons were. I’m sure if I proposed deleting an article because it contained vowels, I’d get a bunch of people to back me on it. If you go to the deletion pages, you’ll see people who vote yes to every single deletion proposal.

There was one interesting vote however. One guy said the index should be deleted because it was original research. I’ll admit nobody was able to provide an offsite cite to prove him wrong.

32

Is anyone else at all bothered by the removals of Trivia sections? I used to love reading the Trivia sections; I thought it was one of the neatest parts of Wikipedia. Now they’re either being deleted or they have the “scare message” that the trivia should be incorporated into the article. So then when you do that, someone trims it out because the article is “too long” or something. Oh well…

33

[QUOTE=Jragon]
What is the limit of cites out of wonder? Is it anything that looks reasonable? I.E. said I did some hard-hitting original research, could I, say, create a geocities page with all this stuff dumped there and then cite my own page to get around the rule? Or would that citation be considered non-reputable and deleted?
[/QUOTE]

Well, there’s two halves to the requirement. The objective half is that an external citation is required (gaffa broke this rule, hence the immediate, uncontestable removal).

The subjective half is that it must be reliable. This, like all subjective debates on Wikipedia, comes down simply to majority consensus. For example, if gaffa published the research on the singer on a geocities page, it would almost certainly be allowed as a reference and added to the article since there’s nothing outrageous about it (and sounded well thought-out the way gaffa described it). But it would depend on the other editors’ agreement. If someone thought gaffa was full of crap, they’d start a debate on the article’s “talk” page and take a straw poll to see whether it was an acceptable conclusion.

If you started a competing geocities page with nothing more than “OPRAH WINFREY IS A TRANSEXUAL” in bold letters, editors would probably not accept it as a reference.

34

[QUOTE=shigyu]
It’s not about quality, it’s about quantity.
[/QUOTE]

:smack:

35

[QUOTE=Una Persson]
Is anyone else at all bothered by the removals of Trivia sections? I used to love reading the Trivia sections; I thought it was one of the neatest parts of Wikipedia. Now they’re either being deleted or they have the “scare message” that the trivia should be incorporated into the article. So then when you do that, someone trims it out because the article is “too long” or something. Oh well…
[/QUOTE]

I agree, I also dislike how “references in popular culture” are considered trivia sections, they have their own flavour that really polish the article and add to it in a way that can’t be accomplished by integrating it into the body oftentimes.

36

[QUOTE=Una Persson]
Is anyone else at all bothered by the removals of Trivia sections? I used to love reading the Trivia sections; I thought it was one of the neatest parts of Wikipedia. Now they’re either being deleted or they have the “scare message” that the trivia should be incorporated into the article. So then when you do that, someone trims it out because the article is “too long” or something. Oh well…
[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. I don’t see the value in removing information as a style decision.

37

[QUOTE=Una Persson]
Is anyone else at all bothered by the removals of Trivia sections? I used to love reading the Trivia sections; I thought it was one of the neatest parts of Wikipedia. Now they’re either being deleted or they have the “scare message” that the trivia should be incorporated into the article. So then when you do that, someone trims it out because the article is “too long” or something. Oh well…
[/QUOTE]

I’ve been involved in some pretty heated discussions about whether or not firearm appearances in movies should be noted in a WP article. I say they should be- within reason (for example, a WWII film is obviously going to have people with Lee-Enfields, M1 Garands, and K98 Mausers, so there’s no need to mention them in the relevant rifle’s article).

Trivia is very interesting, and one of the things I used to love finding in Wikipedia. The current crusade to rid articles of them is regrettable, IMHO, and I hope they reverse the policy eventually.

38

Exactly. The termites just want to delete things - reasons are not important. A few years back, the termites went into a tizzy about list pages. They decided that list pages were somehow wrong. They didn’t actually violate any established rules, but they offended the termites just by existing. So the termites invented a new rule that list pages weren’t allowed and started a crusade to delete them. The admins caved in and created the category system as an alternative.

To nobody’s surprise, within six months the termites were complaining about the categories and claiming they should be deleted.

39

This discussion has been had here a few times previously. The problem with “trivia” and “in popular culture” sections and articles is that they routinely grow out of control from editors adding every time a thing is seen or mentioned in a movie or TV show. It doesn’t add anything encyclopedic to put that Chandler said “doorknob” on Friends or whatever.

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Exactly. The termites just want to delete things - reasons are not important. A few years back, the termites went into a tizzy about list pages. They decided that list pages were somehow wrong. They didn’t actually violate any established rules, but they offended the termites just by existing. So the termites invented a new rule that list pages weren’t allowed and started a crusade to delete them.
[/quote]

There are 446,819 list articles on Wikipedia at the moment. There is no rule against list articles.

Can you possibly link to the discussion in which it was advocated that all categories be deleted?

40

[QUOTE=Otto]
This discussion has been had here a few times previously. The problem with “trivia” and “in popular culture” sections and articles is that they routinely grow out of control from editors adding every time a thing is seen or mentioned in a movie or TV show. It doesn’t add anything encyclopedic to put that Chandler said “doorknob” on Friends or whatever.
[/QUOTE]

And that gets out of hand, I agree. But wouldn’t a better solution be to have editors use discretion when putting up and equal discretion when taking out points (“this is a little too unimpressive, sorry”) rather than doing away with the sections altogether? When you have an encyclopedia with the potential number of editors equal to the number of people that have access to the internet it’s not really nescessary to cut corners to avoid complications like unimpressive bullet points when the editors can duke it out.