2 ms·

Wikipedia editors need to fix that. The notability criteria are skewed, tending to think that every minor person in the pop culture is notable, but regularly du

by not2b 5y ago

Wikipedia editors need to fix that. The notability criteria are skewed, tending to think that every minor person in the pop culture is notable, but regularly dumping scientists and local elected officials (the latter is a problem when they run for higher office and people can't find information about them). They could relax the standard for deletion and it wouldn't hurt anything. If some editors think someone is prominent and others don't, leave the article in place, even if the "not prominent" side has a majority. If the article doesn't meet standards, tag it as a stub or with the "multiple issues" tag.

jhgb 5y ago
> The notability criteria are skewed, tending to think that every minor person in the pop culture is notable I think that's more a reflection of current society, of which people who create Wikipedia are recruited. If you want something more isolated from the whims of common folks, you still have Encyclopedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Donna-Strickland https://www.britannica.com/biography/Donna-Strickland Except, oops, the oldest article in EB about Strickland is from mid-2019: https://web.archive.org/web/20190601000000*/https://www.britannica.com/biography/Donna-Strickland https://web.archive.org/web/20190601000000*/https://www.brit... Hey, Wikipedia included her in late 2018 -- half a year before Britannica! I mean, you may be disappointed that someone didn't pick her for inclusion in Wikipedia before her Nobel award but then I have to ask what do you think about Britannica if you consider Wikipedia to be the one in need of a overhaul? Britannica is supposed to be written by subject experts, right? Not by us poor folks in our free time. Why didn't they include her years ago? > They could relax the standard for deletion and it wouldn't hurt anything. Then you're one of the inclusionists. It's a perfectly valid stance that some other editors will disagree with.
emmelaich 5y ago
Not only people in pop culture, but fictional people in pop culture! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daenerys_Targaryen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daenerys_Targaryen

by not2b 5y ago

jhgb 5y ago

> The notability criteria are skewed, tending to think that every minor person in the pop culture is notable I think that's more a reflection of current society, of which people who create Wikipedia are recruited. If you want something more isolated from the whims of common folks, you still have Encyclopedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Donna-Strickland https://www.britannica.com/biography/Donna-Strickland Except, oops, the oldest article in EB about Strickland is from mid-2019: https://web.archive.org/web/20190601000000*/https://www.britannica.com/biography/Donna-Strickland https://web.archive.org/web/20190601000000*/https://www.brit... Hey, Wikipedia included her in late 2018 -- half a year before Britannica! I mean, you may be disappointed that someone didn't pick her for inclusion in Wikipedia before her Nobel award but then I have to ask what do you think about Britannica if you consider Wikipedia to be the one in need of a overhaul? Britannica is supposed to be written by subject experts, right? Not by us poor folks in our free time. Why didn't they include her years ago? > They could relax the standard for deletion and it wouldn't hurt anything. Then you're one of the inclusionists. It's a perfectly valid stance that some other editors will disagree with.

emmelaich 5y ago

Not only people in pop culture, but fictional people in pop culture! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daenerys_Targaryen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daenerys_Targaryen