6 ms·

It wouldn't be entirely unfair to say that Wikipedia's policies are designed to keep people like Mr. Gioia off the site and out of the decision making process.

by powera 4y ago

It wouldn't be entirely unfair to say that Wikipedia's policies are designed to keep people like Mr. Gioia off the site and out of the decision making process. Considering that he doesn't want to learn what Wikipedia's policies are, or why they exist (and his calling people who disagree with him "trolls"), I am inclined to think that is a good thing.

leereeves 4y ago
> It wouldn't be entirely unfair to say that Wikipedia's policies are designed to keep people like Mr. Gioia off the site and out of the decision making process. Why? Who is he and what has he done that might make Wikipedia dislike him?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- pklausler 4y ago
  Ted Gioia is a prolific author on jazz musicology and history; I have several of his books and find them to be informative and entertaining.
chipotle_coyote 4y ago
Getting huffy about Mr. Gioia's choice of language doesn't really engage with the substance of his complaint. Is there a stated Wikipedia policy that composers must have an entry in the Grove Dictionary of Music to be considered notable? I bet there isn't. If Gioia is correct in saying that Wikipedia editors are insisting on that, then those Wikipedia editors are applying an arbitrary standard. They are, in a word, trolling. And I am inclined to think calling them out is a good thing.
- powera 4y ago
  He's not correct. One editor of six in the deletion discussion mentioned that they had checked multiple sources (including Grove) and Faulconer wasn't in them.
atoav 4y ago
Sorry, but I think that composer is relevant. So this is not about knowing policy, it is about disagreement.
- powera 4y ago
  One of the reasons for the policies is so questions such as "should this person have an article" don't devolve into popularity polls.
  - _aavaa_ 4y ago
    I'm sorry, but "is this musician notable" literally is a popularity contest.
    - cinntaile 4y ago
      I was about to post this.
    - powera 4y ago
      Two different objections. First, while the most written-about musicians are also generally the most popular, there isn't a strict correlation. Second, there is a vast difference between a decision-process of "if the sources provided show that this person is popular, they are notable" and "if three of the four Wikipedia editors surveyed like this person's music, they are notable".
      - _aavaa_ 4y ago
        1. You are both correct and incorrect. The most well written about musicians are the most popular by definition within the group of people who write about musicians. A) This does not mean that those musicians are popular within some sizeable portion of the general population. B) The preferences of the people writing about musicians (that wikipedia will accept as a source) are not guaranteed to be representative of the population at large, in fact I'd wager that essentially guaranteed to be not true at different points in time and for different genres. Wikipedia is choosing to conflate the popularity of an artist amongst the writing group and the popularity in the broader public. And when the two groups disagree, they are choosing to go with those who write rather than with the broader public. 2. This isn't about "the sources provided shot that he's popular", it's do we acknowledge that their contribution is defined as popular. Dragon Ball Z is/was an incredibly popular and influential anime. I guess all it takes now is for someone at WIRED who loved Dragon Ball Z to publish an article or two about them and they suddenly become notable.
jtbayly 4y ago
Wow. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be a public resource. I wasn't aware certain people were supposed to stay off the site.
- dwringer 4y ago
  I once tried to edit an article about a scientist who had developed a bit of surrounding controversy over his studies in parapsychology. Having no real knowledge of the debate, I didn't add or remove any information; I just felt the introduction had been written in an overtly non-neutral way by a past editor. So, I removed a couple of words like "hoax" and trimmed one or two sentences so that they didn't come off as a character assassination (they had contained unsourced editorializations). Specifics aside, the article had explicitly violated Wikipedia's policies on using NPOV language. My edits were reverted within 24 hours, and the talk page was updated with an admonition to my IP address (I'd posted without logging in) claiming I'd been implicated in "unsavory" activities that could be found by Googling the IP (it was a dynamic IP, but of course I tried and found nothing) and making vague threats that I should not attempt such edits again. That's the last time I edited anything on Wikipedia.
  - jtbayly 4y ago
    That's editing. I mean, I can understand that certain people might not be great at editing. But I'm shocked that they would say there are people they don't even want on the site.
    - dwringer 4y ago
      I can't tell if you're suggesting that my edits were simply bad, and typically I would accept that is a possibility; but, even then, it was the fact that I was threatened essentially with being swatted. There was no feedback on the edits that I made. Just unfounded assertions that my IP address was involved in something "unsavory" and that I would face severe consequences if I continued such edits. It made me feel very unwelcome and I assume many other people have the same experience on Wikipedia. I realize the futility of trying to convince you that my edits were warranted, I guess. The article has since been updated, however, and the non-neutral tone that I'd tried to fix has been removed, so apparently somebody else ultimately did succeed.
tgv 4y ago
If the policy is “you must feature in Grove’s”, Wikipedia becomes even more derivative than it already is.
- erik_seaberg 4y ago
  As it was always intended be. Secondary sources only, no original research.
fcatalan 4y ago
It would be about 99% unfair. In my experience Wikipedia style moderation setups are a magnet for small minded petty martinets. Of course rules and some criteria are needed, but soon those people run over any shred of common sense while wielding them.

by powera 4y ago

leereeves 4y ago

> It wouldn't be entirely unfair to say that Wikipedia's policies are designed to keep people like Mr. Gioia off the site and out of the decision making process. Why? Who is he and what has he done that might make Wikipedia dislike him?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
pklausler 4y ago
Ted Gioia is a prolific author on jazz musicology and history; I have several of his books and find them to be informative and entertaining.

chipotle_coyote 4y ago

Getting huffy about Mr. Gioia's choice of language doesn't really engage with the substance of his complaint. Is there a stated Wikipedia policy that composers must have an entry in the Grove Dictionary of Music to be considered notable? I bet there isn't. If Gioia is correct in saying that Wikipedia editors are insisting on that, then those Wikipedia editors are applying an arbitrary standard. They are, in a word, trolling. And I am inclined to think calling them out is a good thing.

powera 4y ago
He's not correct. One editor of six in the deletion discussion mentioned that they had checked multiple sources (including Grove) and Faulconer wasn't in them.

atoav 4y ago

Sorry, but I think that composer is relevant. So this is not about knowing policy, it is about disagreement.

powera 4y ago
One of the reasons for the policies is so questions such as "should this person have an article" don't devolve into popularity polls.
- _aavaa_ 4y ago
  I'm sorry, but "is this musician notable" literally is a popularity contest.
  - cinntaile 4y ago
    I was about to post this.
  - powera 4y ago
    Two different objections. First, while the most written-about musicians are also generally the most popular, there isn't a strict correlation. Second, there is a vast difference between a decision-process of "if the sources provided show that this person is popular, they are notable" and "if three of the four Wikipedia editors surveyed like this person's music, they are notable".
    - _aavaa_ 4y ago
      1. You are both correct and incorrect. The most well written about musicians are the most popular by definition within the group of people who write about musicians. A) This does not mean that those musicians are popular within some sizeable portion of the general population. B) The preferences of the people writing about musicians (that wikipedia will accept as a source) are not guaranteed to be representative of the population at large, in fact I'd wager that essentially guaranteed to be not true at different points in time and for different genres. Wikipedia is choosing to conflate the popularity of an artist amongst the writing group and the popularity in the broader public. And when the two groups disagree, they are choosing to go with those who write rather than with the broader public. 2. This isn't about "the sources provided shot that he's popular", it's do we acknowledge that their contribution is defined as popular. Dragon Ball Z is/was an incredibly popular and influential anime. I guess all it takes now is for someone at WIRED who loved Dragon Ball Z to publish an article or two about them and they suddenly become notable.

jtbayly 4y ago

Wow. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be a public resource. I wasn't aware certain people were supposed to stay off the site.

dwringer 4y ago
I once tried to edit an article about a scientist who had developed a bit of surrounding controversy over his studies in parapsychology. Having no real knowledge of the debate, I didn't add or remove any information; I just felt the introduction had been written in an overtly non-neutral way by a past editor. So, I removed a couple of words like "hoax" and trimmed one or two sentences so that they didn't come off as a character assassination (they had contained unsourced editorializations). Specifics aside, the article had explicitly violated Wikipedia's policies on using NPOV language. My edits were reverted within 24 hours, and the talk page was updated with an admonition to my IP address (I'd posted without logging in) claiming I'd been implicated in "unsavory" activities that could be found by Googling the IP (it was a dynamic IP, but of course I tried and found nothing) and making vague threats that I should not attempt such edits again. That's the last time I edited anything on Wikipedia.
- jtbayly 4y ago
  That's editing. I mean, I can understand that certain people might not be great at editing. But I'm shocked that they would say there are people they don't even want on the site.
  - dwringer 4y ago
    I can't tell if you're suggesting that my edits were simply bad, and typically I would accept that is a possibility; but, even then, it was the fact that I was threatened essentially with being swatted. There was no feedback on the edits that I made. Just unfounded assertions that my IP address was involved in something "unsavory" and that I would face severe consequences if I continued such edits. It made me feel very unwelcome and I assume many other people have the same experience on Wikipedia. I realize the futility of trying to convince you that my edits were warranted, I guess. The article has since been updated, however, and the non-neutral tone that I'd tried to fix has been removed, so apparently somebody else ultimately did succeed.

tgv 4y ago

If the policy is “you must feature in Grove’s”, Wikipedia becomes even more derivative than it already is.

erik_seaberg 4y ago
As it was always intended be. Secondary sources only, no original research.

fcatalan 4y ago

It would be about 99% unfair. In my experience Wikipedia style moderation setups are a magnet for small minded petty martinets. Of course rules and some criteria are needed, but soon those people run over any shred of common sense while wielding them.