Yes, I do think it’s remarkable. That wouldn’t have bugged me in the least.
What bugs me is when there’s a mostly fact-based article, say one about Alexander the Great, and the article talks about how he was gay, without actually saying that there is some controversy over this subject.
I patrol new pages on Wikipedia. I tag pages to be deleted every single time I log on. But I don’t think I’m a dickhole. There are enormous numbers of pages created every hour by bored high school students that read something like:
After deleting twenty or thirty of these, I’ve occasionally tagged something for deletion that, if I’d taken the time to read it more closely, I would have realized was just a crappy entry for something legitimate. There’s a process people can use to appeal the deletion, or to ask for a deleted article to be resurrected, but I felt badly anyway, the times I’ve done it.
So if I was deleting stupid vandalism, got triggerhappy, and tagged your article because it looked a little like high-school vandals wrote it, I apologize. I really try not to do it, and all you need to do is message an administrator and explain why it should be brought back.
I once ran into a dispute once over The Lion King. A person had written that the movie was based on Hamlet. I amended this - I kept the part that said Disney has stated the movie was based on Hamlet but I added a line stating that there are many simularities between the movie and the Japanese TV series The Jungle Emperor and many people believe the movie was partially based on the series.
This turned into a controversy. I provided numerous cites (including one to The Straight Dope) to show that this was a common belief (I never claimed it was a proven fact). But the original author said that unless Disney admitted the series was an inspiration for the movie we could not include a rumor. I pointed out the Disney had obvious reasons to deny the fact, regardless of whether or not it was true, and should not be accepted as the sole authority on the subject.
The dispute went on in typical fashion. The two of us could not agree on the issue and posted back and forth trying to persuade the other. Meanwhile, nobody else seemed to be aware of the discussion (or maybe they were just too intelligent to care) so we never got a third person to break the tie.
I am afraid they were right, and you were wrong. Wiki is not the place for UL, even “possible but unconfirmed ULs”. (I admit there were quite a few similarities, but I chalk it up to coincidence myself)
I would have said “see Snopes for several interesting Urban Legends about this film”, and provided that link as a cite. I doubt if anyone could object to that.
There’s considerable evidence that 6,000,000 Jews were killed during the Holocaust. But a Nazi spokesman has stated, “I know nuffink!” In light of this Official Statement, we can only assume that connections between the unexplained disappearance of six million people and previously announced Nazi policies on this issue are coincidental.
But seriously, I never claimed that Disney rip-offed The Jungle Emperor. I stated that “many people believe they did” and “there are numerous coincidences between the two” - these are factual provable citable statements that were directly relevant to the subject being discussed. How could their inclusion not be justified? By only one principle - the belief that only “authorities” can produce “facts”. Some people accept the idea that truth is only produced by an official announcement.
You are so Godwined.
Or by the principle that it is good to be concise and not batter the reader over the head with endless detail. If I look up a Wikipedia article about The Lion King, it’s because I don’t know much about the film and wish to get an overview. Having to wade through reams of extraneous factoids, added apropos of nothing in particular by passing Lion King fans, works against that.
Incredibly, I wasn’t trotting out that particular joke. But common sense dictates that I not name posters I think “obnoxious,” save in the Pit.
[SIZE=1]Fabulous Creaturewas kind of a wanker, though. And way too self-referential for anyone’s taste. And he smelled funny./[size]
I hate people who know nothing about how encyclopedias are supposed to be written who suddenly get the idea they should go spend their time trying to edit one.
And from the comments Little Nemo is making here, it’s very clear that he shouldn’t be editing there. In fact, some of the conflicts he talks about sound like they might be ones where I was one of the people undoing his edits.
Like this comment: “without ever mentioning that one has a much better reputation than the other because that would be an opinion even if it’s shared by 99% of informed readers.” Then cite some freaking sources already, otherwise every bozo who shows up can just claim 99% of “informed” readers would agree with him. This is a pretty fundamental concept.
And, yes, The whole Lion King example given was clearly one where he was in the wrong. And Survivor and other televiosn shows shouldn;t be filled up with subtrivia… If something can’t meet the “who would care in ten years” rule, it doesn’t belong there.
That’s what articles should be split up appropriately so that a casual reader who, say, wants a plot summary can click on that link in the TOC.
As to the specific example, I agree with the view that “many people believe” type statements don’t have a really strong place in an article. Such information can be presented in a factual manner, along the lines of, well, how it’s done now in the Lion King article:
which seems to cover the point (albeit with an awkwardly-written first sentence) in a factual manner.
The article I was referring to was List of Disney theatrical animated features. At the time (although I see this is no longer true) each film had, along with its title and date, and entry on “Material Based On” in which a brief mention was made of the source material for the film. I figured information about what source material The Lion King was based legitimately belonged in an already established article about what source material The Lion King was based upon.
I can’t say I hate people who know nothing about how an encyclopedia should be written. But they do sometimes annoy me when I’m trying to work and they keep insisting on getting in the way.
The purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect and organize information. As much information as possible. It’s a big project; bigger than any one person could possibly handle. But some people are willing to work on a project like that because they know that other people are working alongside them and the result will be something better than any one individual could have made.
But some people have another vision; they want an encyclopedia they can read from cover to cover and then say afterwards, “I already knew all that. I’m so smart.” These people, by necessity, have to whittle down any encyclopedia to a size they can manage.
They keep reverting my correction to the article on Around The World In Eighty Days regarding the balloon that was used in the movie, but does not appear in the book. The article says it was a hot-air balloon, but it was actually a gas balloon (hydrogen or helium).
“Hot-air balloon” has become synonymous with “any balloon big enough to carry people”.
I try to fight this ignorance, but it won’t stay fought.
Here’s what bugs me:
Excessive use of the (citation needed) thingy. I’m convinced that people insert them to make the statement seem less credible.
Always linking dates. It’s always
And if one clicks on the date, they’re taken to a random collection of facts that have very little to do with each other. What a waste of time.
Ding, ding, ding ! Exactly why I don’t even really go there any longer, let alone contribute. I don’t know who those idiots are, but they seriously don’t know what they’re doing.
I assumed the “stupid links” like the date and year were to up the search results for Wiki no matter what is searched for. It makes marketing sense. I post to a work related board with my company’s webpage in my sig for that reason.
Here’s an interesting development: Wikipedia founder plans rival
That’s a fascinating alternative. I don’t know if this can overcome Wikipedia’s overwhelming first-mover advantage, but I’ll probably give it a try for a while.