4 ms·

>what the hell happened in South Korean music this year Sadly most k-pop topics are maintained by fans, editing without registration or much regard for notabil

>what the hell happened in South Korean music this year Sadly most k-pop topics are maintained by fans, editing without registration or much regard for notability and quality standards. Compare with 2016 in American music: everything in the American version is wikilinked, while half the artists mentioned on the Korean list wouldn't meet WP:BAND, much less have any particular release included in a "list of notable events and releases".

swsieber 10y ago
I think it's perfectly fine though for Wikipedia to grow - I personally think the notability criteria is bad.
- resfirestar 10y ago
  In this case I'd hope everyone would agree that having "2016 in South Korean music" effectively being an exhaustive list (of pop releases, anyway) is not a positive thing, at least without significant changes to structure and formatting.
  - posterboy 10y ago
    That's Discog's job
- contingencies 10y ago
  I agree. Notability criteria are really bad. IMHO they should only be used super sparingly on occasion if a real problem is identified. The last 10 years has seen a huge amount of good content deleted, and more importantly new contributors put off Wikipedia because of policy thumping nutjobs.
  - mangodrunk 10y ago
    Why do you think it's so bad? I think it's a good thing that helps with the signal to noise ratio. Nothing in the Notability article [1] seems unreasonable to me, such as ensuring that the content is verifiable by reliable sources. It seems that Wikipedia is already too relaxed on this guideline. Do you have an example of a good article being removed for that? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
    - contingencies 10y ago
      signal to noise ratio This is frequently raised as a concern but I believe the reality is that, as a user, you're not going to be clicking on obscure-character-in-single-cartoon or random-person-who-has-done-little-of-public-significance unless you are actually searching for them in the first place, usually on an external search engine. Therefore, you are interested in either reading what is there or improving it. Why not let them be? There is ~no cost to Wikipedia in doing so. Anything with verifiable citations should be kept. The negative affect on frustrated early contributors resulting from content deletion (many quit) is far more important than the nominal quality enhancement, when considered in light of real usage.

swsieber 10y ago

I think it's perfectly fine though for Wikipedia to grow - I personally think the notability criteria is bad.

resfirestar 10y ago
In this case I'd hope everyone would agree that having "2016 in South Korean music" effectively being an exhaustive list (of pop releases, anyway) is not a positive thing, at least without significant changes to structure and formatting.
- posterboy 10y ago
  That's Discog's job
contingencies 10y ago
I agree. Notability criteria are really bad. IMHO they should only be used super sparingly on occasion if a real problem is identified. The last 10 years has seen a huge amount of good content deleted, and more importantly new contributors put off Wikipedia because of policy thumping nutjobs.
- mangodrunk 10y ago
  Why do you think it's so bad? I think it's a good thing that helps with the signal to noise ratio. Nothing in the Notability article [1] seems unreasonable to me, such as ensuring that the content is verifiable by reliable sources. It seems that Wikipedia is already too relaxed on this guideline. Do you have an example of a good article being removed for that? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
  - contingencies 10y ago
    signal to noise ratio This is frequently raised as a concern but I believe the reality is that, as a user, you're not going to be clicking on obscure-character-in-single-cartoon or random-person-who-has-done-little-of-public-significance unless you are actually searching for them in the first place, usually on an external search engine. Therefore, you are interested in either reading what is there or improving it. Why not let them be? There is ~no cost to Wikipedia in doing so. Anything with verifiable citations should be kept. The negative affect on frustrated early contributors resulting from content deletion (many quit) is far more important than the nominal quality enhancement, when considered in light of real usage.