6 ms·

Can folks link to the best defense of deletionism they know? Here is an OK one I've found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LeilaniLad https://en.wikipedia.

Can folks link to the best defense of deletionism they know? Here is an OK one I've found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LeilaniLad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LeilaniLad To me personally, verifiability seems a vastly better criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. It's (a) a much less subjective standard than notability, (b) well-justified by the limitations of the medium (i.e., no original research), and (c) still prevents Wikipedia from being a "dumping ground" for everything on the internet. The only general argument for deletionism I've seen that survives is that the editor resources of Wikipedia will be stretched so thin that the checking of verifiability itself is imperiled. But (1) Wikipedia survived fine back when it had vastly fewer editors and random people were writing on a bajillion then-empty topics and (2) there are much better ways to handle this minor problem, e.g., pages are hidden from non-registered users until they reach a critical mass of contributing editors. Measured by pure prevalence, the dominant argument seems to be about status: that non-notable items just don't deserve to be in Wikipedia. It's very hard to argue against an emotional appeal like this.

StavrosK 10y ago
Is this one of those situations where someone uses a proxy metric for something that is itself easily measured? "We must protect verifiability, non-notable articles aren't easily verified, therefore non-notable articles should be banned"? Is there a name for this? I've been noticing (and being frustrated by) it a lot.
- luso_brazilian 10y ago
  It reminds me of the XY problem [1] that plagues both our field and any other field where one can devise a solution to a problem without formalism or thoroughly understanding what's being solved. > The XY problem is asking about your attempted solution rather than your actual problem. This leads to enormous amounts of wasted time and energy, both on the part of people asking for help, and on the part of those providing help. > - User wants to do X. > - User doesn't know how to do X, but thinks they can fumble their way to a solution if they can just manage to do Y. > - User doesn't know how to do Y either. > - User asks for help with Y. > - Others try to help user with Y, but are confused because Y seems like a strange problem to want to solve. > - After much interaction and wasted time, it finally becomes clear that the user really wants help with X, and that Y wasn't even a suitable solution for X. I'm sure that's not the name of the phenomenon you are asking but it is certainly a closely related one. [1] http://xyproblem.info/ http://xyproblem.info/
  - StavrosK 10y ago
    Yep, that is very closely related, just not exactly that. Mine goes something like: - We need to improve X, something that is easy to measure improvement in. - I've noticed that Y somewhat correlates with X. - Let's make an effort to improve Y!
- warkdarrior 10y ago
  > Is there a name for this? I've been noticing (and being frustrated by) it a lot. Laziness?
- pwdisswordfish 10y ago
  Can you tell me how do you 'easily measure' notability in a robust, non-gameable way? I'm not aware of any such measure existing. 'Substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources' seems the best possible at the moment.
- tptacek 10y ago
  I don't understand how this is a "proxy metric". I'll give you the shortest defense of deletionism I can write: There are two problems with non-notable articles in Wikipedia. The first is definitional. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source: a roadmap and synopsis of existing sources. Non-notable sources are by definition those for which existing reliable sources are absent. All such articles are, in a very simple sense, "original research". One of the most basic founding principles of Wikipedia, as old as NPOV, is "no original research". The second is pragmatic. Wikipedia is committed to minimizing error. Entropy exerts tremendous force on the project, which occupies extremely valuable Internet real estate. Every article on Wikipedia is in a sense a commitment by the Wikipedia community to mount a defense against bias, advertisement, promotion, vandalism, and basic inaccuracy. The notability requirement, which is at bottom based not on "fame" but on the quality of sources available for a topic, is an extremely reasonable boundary to put on the expectations Wikipedia can have of its unpaid editors to combat that entropy: to wit, that we will do so only when available sources make the job possible to do in the first place.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    (EDITED) > An encyclopedia is a tertiary source: a roadmap and synopsis of existing sources.Non-notable sources are by definition those for which existing reliable sources are absent. All such articles are, in a very simple sense, "original research". One of the most basic founding principles of Wikipedia, as old as NPOV, is "no original research".... we will do so only when available sources make the job possible to do in the first place. Why not just incorporate that into verifiability then? As I understand you, you're arguing that (1) non-notability generally implies un-verifiable, (2) Wikipedia info should be verifiable, and so (3) Wikipedia info should be notable. Isn't it easier to demonstrate objectively that an article contains unverifiable info than it's non-notable?
    - tptacek 10y ago
      I don't understand the question. That's what the standard in fact is.
      - 10y ago
- resfirestar 10y ago
  It's not a "proxy metric", it's the only possible metric for inclusion in an encyclopedia as I understand encyclopedias. I saw the example of a mildly popular band somewhere else on the thread, so I'll run with that. What can an encyclopedia say about a band that has a website and a Spotify page, but isn't big enough to attract attention from the press or music critics? We can certainly say that they are a band, anyone can see that. We can say they have 10,000 plays on Spotify, and list their current members. Maybe we can dig up a newspaper article saying that they performed someplace. But beyond that, what is there? They've probably got a biography on their website, but it's in no way verifiable, and the only person required to believe it is the guy putting it on the Wikipedia page. Everyone after that will read it on Wikipedia and assume it's 95% likely to be true. And so on. We're left with barebones facts that are of no help to anyone looking for reliable information about the band. All of this applies equally well to little-known authors, random Indian corporations, and your cat. If all we have to go on is a couple of primary sources and maybe a passing mention in the press, what is there to say without giving undeserved credence to the primary sources? When notability is assessed, don't think "is this topic something that will be googled by someone looking for more information?" Think about the role of Wikipedia and what we can offer by providing an overview and references to secondary sources. The notability guidelines are about ensuring that there is a baseline of quality facts that we can provide to readers. But really, I'm just rewriting the ideas of the consensus based notability guideline, which is much better written and specific: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    > We're left with barebones facts that are of no help to anyone looking for reliable information about the band. The fact that the band exists and has a newspaper article about it is helpful. Otherwise it's article will be very short. So what? > All of this applies equally well to little-known authors, random Indian corporations, and your cat. Yes to the first two. (My cat has zero verifiable information about it.) They will have very tiny stub articles. So what? > If all we have to go on is a couple of primary sources and maybe a passing mention in the press, what is there to say without giving undeserved credence to the primary sources? So don't say anything else. I really, really don't understand what's motivating your position. I'm trying! > But really, I'm just rewriting the ideas of the consensus based notability guideline, which is much better written and specific: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability That page is almost exclusively about defining notability (which, because of the intrinsic vagueness, necessarily takes a long time and is mostly unsuccessful). The only part that's directly about the reasons for the requirement is this subsection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Why_we_have_these_requirements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Why_we_ha... And the only argument it brings up that I didn't address is this: "We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view." This, again, is something that can easily be addressed by just requiring verifiability to include coverage by multiple sources. (Even in highly notable articles, there are a large number of facts that are only verified through a single source; this isn't a reason to delete the fact.)
pwdisswordfish 10y ago
Wikipedia's Verifiability policy: > In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. The general notability guideline: > If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. The latter is little more than a restatement of the former, so I don't get the point about it being more 'subjective'.
- cortesoft 10y ago
  It is probably the 'significant coverage' part of the second bit that makes it more subjective. The subjective part of verifiability is whether a source is reliable, while notability has two subjective parts; whether it has verifiable sources AND whether there are enough of those verifiable sources.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    The "significant coverage" clause prevents sprawling articles about non-notable subjects based on the technicality that the subject's name once occurred in a regional newspaper article; for instance, by being quoted by a local sports reporter at a softball game. If you think this is a contrived example, I'd exhort you to spend some quality time on Wikipedia's AfD page watching the debates.
    - jessriedel 10y ago
      > The "significant coverage" clause prevents sprawling articles about non-notable subjects based on the technicality that the subject's name once occurred in a regional newspaper article; for instance, by being quoted by a local sports reporter at a softball game. Why not just cut any material that's not actually verifiable?
      - tptacek 10y ago
        That's basically what they do. When you're done cutting out the non-verifiable stuff in those articles, you're left with an article that says "Bob Flendersonhaver was probably the name of a person who once stood beside a softball field outside Cedar Rapids, Iowa".

StavrosK 10y ago

Is this one of those situations where someone uses a proxy metric for something that is itself easily measured? "We must protect verifiability, non-notable articles aren't easily verified, therefore non-notable articles should be banned"? Is there a name for this? I've been noticing (and being frustrated by) it a lot.

luso_brazilian 10y ago
It reminds me of the XY problem [1] that plagues both our field and any other field where one can devise a solution to a problem without formalism or thoroughly understanding what's being solved. > The XY problem is asking about your attempted solution rather than your actual problem. This leads to enormous amounts of wasted time and energy, both on the part of people asking for help, and on the part of those providing help. > - User wants to do X. > - User doesn't know how to do X, but thinks they can fumble their way to a solution if they can just manage to do Y. > - User doesn't know how to do Y either. > - User asks for help with Y. > - Others try to help user with Y, but are confused because Y seems like a strange problem to want to solve. > - After much interaction and wasted time, it finally becomes clear that the user really wants help with X, and that Y wasn't even a suitable solution for X. I'm sure that's not the name of the phenomenon you are asking but it is certainly a closely related one. [1] http://xyproblem.info/ http://xyproblem.info/
- StavrosK 10y ago
  Yep, that is very closely related, just not exactly that. Mine goes something like: - We need to improve X, something that is easy to measure improvement in. - I've noticed that Y somewhat correlates with X. - Let's make an effort to improve Y!
warkdarrior 10y ago
> Is there a name for this? I've been noticing (and being frustrated by) it a lot. Laziness?
pwdisswordfish 10y ago
Can you tell me how do you 'easily measure' notability in a robust, non-gameable way? I'm not aware of any such measure existing. 'Substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources' seems the best possible at the moment.
tptacek 10y ago
I don't understand how this is a "proxy metric". I'll give you the shortest defense of deletionism I can write: There are two problems with non-notable articles in Wikipedia. The first is definitional. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source: a roadmap and synopsis of existing sources. Non-notable sources are by definition those for which existing reliable sources are absent. All such articles are, in a very simple sense, "original research". One of the most basic founding principles of Wikipedia, as old as NPOV, is "no original research". The second is pragmatic. Wikipedia is committed to minimizing error. Entropy exerts tremendous force on the project, which occupies extremely valuable Internet real estate. Every article on Wikipedia is in a sense a commitment by the Wikipedia community to mount a defense against bias, advertisement, promotion, vandalism, and basic inaccuracy. The notability requirement, which is at bottom based not on "fame" but on the quality of sources available for a topic, is an extremely reasonable boundary to put on the expectations Wikipedia can have of its unpaid editors to combat that entropy: to wit, that we will do so only when available sources make the job possible to do in the first place.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  (EDITED) > An encyclopedia is a tertiary source: a roadmap and synopsis of existing sources.Non-notable sources are by definition those for which existing reliable sources are absent. All such articles are, in a very simple sense, "original research". One of the most basic founding principles of Wikipedia, as old as NPOV, is "no original research".... we will do so only when available sources make the job possible to do in the first place. Why not just incorporate that into verifiability then? As I understand you, you're arguing that (1) non-notability generally implies un-verifiable, (2) Wikipedia info should be verifiable, and so (3) Wikipedia info should be notable. Isn't it easier to demonstrate objectively that an article contains unverifiable info than it's non-notable?
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I don't understand the question. That's what the standard in fact is.
    - 10y ago
resfirestar 10y ago
It's not a "proxy metric", it's the only possible metric for inclusion in an encyclopedia as I understand encyclopedias. I saw the example of a mildly popular band somewhere else on the thread, so I'll run with that. What can an encyclopedia say about a band that has a website and a Spotify page, but isn't big enough to attract attention from the press or music critics? We can certainly say that they are a band, anyone can see that. We can say they have 10,000 plays on Spotify, and list their current members. Maybe we can dig up a newspaper article saying that they performed someplace. But beyond that, what is there? They've probably got a biography on their website, but it's in no way verifiable, and the only person required to believe it is the guy putting it on the Wikipedia page. Everyone after that will read it on Wikipedia and assume it's 95% likely to be true. And so on. We're left with barebones facts that are of no help to anyone looking for reliable information about the band. All of this applies equally well to little-known authors, random Indian corporations, and your cat. If all we have to go on is a couple of primary sources and maybe a passing mention in the press, what is there to say without giving undeserved credence to the primary sources? When notability is assessed, don't think "is this topic something that will be googled by someone looking for more information?" Think about the role of Wikipedia and what we can offer by providing an overview and references to secondary sources. The notability guidelines are about ensuring that there is a baseline of quality facts that we can provide to readers. But really, I'm just rewriting the ideas of the consensus based notability guideline, which is much better written and specific: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
- jessriedel 10y ago
  > We're left with barebones facts that are of no help to anyone looking for reliable information about the band. The fact that the band exists and has a newspaper article about it is helpful. Otherwise it's article will be very short. So what? > All of this applies equally well to little-known authors, random Indian corporations, and your cat. Yes to the first two. (My cat has zero verifiable information about it.) They will have very tiny stub articles. So what? > If all we have to go on is a couple of primary sources and maybe a passing mention in the press, what is there to say without giving undeserved credence to the primary sources? So don't say anything else. I really, really don't understand what's motivating your position. I'm trying! > But really, I'm just rewriting the ideas of the consensus based notability guideline, which is much better written and specific: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability That page is almost exclusively about defining notability (which, because of the intrinsic vagueness, necessarily takes a long time and is mostly unsuccessful). The only part that's directly about the reasons for the requirement is this subsection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Why_we_have_these_requirements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Why_we_ha... And the only argument it brings up that I didn't address is this: "We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view." This, again, is something that can easily be addressed by just requiring verifiability to include coverage by multiple sources. (Even in highly notable articles, there are a large number of facts that are only verified through a single source; this isn't a reason to delete the fact.)

pwdisswordfish 10y ago

Wikipedia's Verifiability policy: > In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. The general notability guideline: > If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. The latter is little more than a restatement of the former, so I don't get the point about it being more 'subjective'.

cortesoft 10y ago
It is probably the 'significant coverage' part of the second bit that makes it more subjective. The subjective part of verifiability is whether a source is reliable, while notability has two subjective parts; whether it has verifiable sources AND whether there are enough of those verifiable sources.
- tptacek 10y ago
  The "significant coverage" clause prevents sprawling articles about non-notable subjects based on the technicality that the subject's name once occurred in a regional newspaper article; for instance, by being quoted by a local sports reporter at a softball game. If you think this is a contrived example, I'd exhort you to spend some quality time on Wikipedia's AfD page watching the debates.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    > The "significant coverage" clause prevents sprawling articles about non-notable subjects based on the technicality that the subject's name once occurred in a regional newspaper article; for instance, by being quoted by a local sports reporter at a softball game. Why not just cut any material that's not actually verifiable?
    - tptacek 10y ago
      That's basically what they do. When you're done cutting out the non-verifiable stuff in those articles, you're left with an article that says "Bob Flendersonhaver was probably the name of a person who once stood beside a softball field outside Cedar Rapids, Iowa".