4 ms·

I see what you're saying, but in practice, not really? It would be weird for wikipedia to host, for example, every minecraft crafting recipe.

binary132 2y ago
why?
- Retr0id 2y ago
  I was going to say "it would be like documenting every chess opening move", but I looked it up and the article exists, so I guess I've just argued against myself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_openings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_openings
  - RheingoldRiver 2y ago
    In disambiguation issues alone, it would be a nightmare if wikipedia hosted niche-topic content within the same namespacing as everything else. What would be good is not wikipedia being more lax, it's WMF providing the same service that Miraheze does; and here, I think, is where the conflict of interest really gets in the way
  - nextaccountic 2y ago
    This is a list of notable chess moves though, not an exhaustive list of all possible chess moves
  - slyall 2y ago
    Every single one of those chess openings has multiple books written about it. The most popular openings have hundreds of books about them. Not to mention courses, articles, blog posts, discussion and youtube videos
    - makeitdouble 2y ago
      If we're going by volume written about, minecraft isn't lacking any. Try to find more about red stone or mining techniques. The main difference would be history, the split between books and online resources, and how the older generation sees it.
      - Retr0id 2y ago
        Circling back to my original point, wherever we draw the line on notability and inclusion vs exclusion, there are going to be people on either side unhappy about the location of the line. It's probably easier for all parties to let the Minecraft community draw their own line on their own wiki(s) (which is exactly what happens).
        makeitdouble 2y ago
        "No solution will make everybody happy" is kinda of a poor argument though, as it will always be true whatever happens. In the end it comes down to who the service is for, and the younger generation probably doesn't see it as theirs. I get the feeling Wikipedia will slowly become culturally irrelevant and end up in the same place as the encyclopedias, as an established and mostly frozen dataset that we'll want to keep running but won't look at 99% of the time
- ang_cire 2y ago
  The same reason I would not fault a print encyclopedia publisher for not including video game strategy guides?
  - mcny 2y ago
    This is an ongoing debate between inclusionists and deletionists and it is far from settled even though the deletionists would have you believe the war is over. See also https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletionism https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletionism
    - ang_cire 2y ago
      I mean, no matter where you fall philosophically, Wikipedia does take resources to host, including storage costs, and they're always strapped for cash. If they could be assured of never needing to reduce pages to not run out of money, I would have no logical objection to having a page for everything, but as someone who's donated quite a bit to them, they are most assuredly not in that position. If the day comes that their hosting costs match or exceed their available funds, I'd much rather know that what is there is all the most important information, and not a glut of random pages that no one ever looks at.
  - sdenton4 2y ago
    Limited page count?
    - ang_cire 2y ago
      Essentially, yes. Space and scope/mission creep.
thih9 2y ago
Why would that be weird? Personally I would find it convenient. There would be some issues, e.g. I wouldn't want to see Minecraft recipes when I'm searching for "obsidian". But these seem solvable; niche articles could be flagged and downranked, or they could live in a satellite wiki project, or something else. I remember seeing niche articles like this and enjoying it.
- Waterluvian 2y ago
  It's not really about what you would find convenient. It's about what Wikimedia wants to spend its limited resources on. It has decided it wants to spend its resources on something it believes to be a reasonable subset of general knowledge and information. Where to draw that line is highly subjective, but they have to try to find a good balance.
  - lmm 2y ago
    Wikimedia spends the vast majority of its resources on stuff that has a lot less to do with traditional-Wikipedia than a Fandom competitor would.
  - audiodude 2y ago
    The Wikimedia Foundation has not decided this, the community of editors has, through years of debate and eventual consensus.
- JoshTriplett 2y ago
  I am very much on the side of inclusion, but at some point, the number of users who have the ability to check the added information becomes sufficiently small that the articles become nearly impossible to maintain and fact-check. I can understand drawing a notability line somewhere. If, for instance, Wikipedia allowed articles on every human being, whether well-known or not, they'd likely have a larger problem than they already do with people creating attack articles against other people over extremely local disputes/feuds. With more notable people, they can look for other sources to confirm or deny information about those people.

binary132 2y ago

why?

Retr0id 2y ago
I was going to say "it would be like documenting every chess opening move", but I looked it up and the article exists, so I guess I've just argued against myself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_openings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_openings
- RheingoldRiver 2y ago
  In disambiguation issues alone, it would be a nightmare if wikipedia hosted niche-topic content within the same namespacing as everything else. What would be good is not wikipedia being more lax, it's WMF providing the same service that Miraheze does; and here, I think, is where the conflict of interest really gets in the way
- nextaccountic 2y ago
  This is a list of notable chess moves though, not an exhaustive list of all possible chess moves
- slyall 2y ago
  Every single one of those chess openings has multiple books written about it. The most popular openings have hundreds of books about them. Not to mention courses, articles, blog posts, discussion and youtube videos
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    If we're going by volume written about, minecraft isn't lacking any. Try to find more about red stone or mining techniques. The main difference would be history, the split between books and online resources, and how the older generation sees it.
    - Retr0id 2y ago
      Circling back to my original point, wherever we draw the line on notability and inclusion vs exclusion, there are going to be people on either side unhappy about the location of the line. It's probably easier for all parties to let the Minecraft community draw their own line on their own wiki(s) (which is exactly what happens).
      - makeitdouble 2y ago
        "No solution will make everybody happy" is kinda of a poor argument though, as it will always be true whatever happens. In the end it comes down to who the service is for, and the younger generation probably doesn't see it as theirs. I get the feeling Wikipedia will slowly become culturally irrelevant and end up in the same place as the encyclopedias, as an established and mostly frozen dataset that we'll want to keep running but won't look at 99% of the time
ang_cire 2y ago
The same reason I would not fault a print encyclopedia publisher for not including video game strategy guides?
- mcny 2y ago
  This is an ongoing debate between inclusionists and deletionists and it is far from settled even though the deletionists would have you believe the war is over. See also https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletionism https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletionism
  - ang_cire 2y ago
    I mean, no matter where you fall philosophically, Wikipedia does take resources to host, including storage costs, and they're always strapped for cash. If they could be assured of never needing to reduce pages to not run out of money, I would have no logical objection to having a page for everything, but as someone who's donated quite a bit to them, they are most assuredly not in that position. If the day comes that their hosting costs match or exceed their available funds, I'd much rather know that what is there is all the most important information, and not a glut of random pages that no one ever looks at.
- sdenton4 2y ago
  Limited page count?
  - ang_cire 2y ago
    Essentially, yes. Space and scope/mission creep.

thih9 2y ago

Why would that be weird? Personally I would find it convenient. There would be some issues, e.g. I wouldn't want to see Minecraft recipes when I'm searching for "obsidian". But these seem solvable; niche articles could be flagged and downranked, or they could live in a satellite wiki project, or something else. I remember seeing niche articles like this and enjoying it.

Waterluvian 2y ago
It's not really about what you would find convenient. It's about what Wikimedia wants to spend its limited resources on. It has decided it wants to spend its resources on something it believes to be a reasonable subset of general knowledge and information. Where to draw that line is highly subjective, but they have to try to find a good balance.
- lmm 2y ago
  Wikimedia spends the vast majority of its resources on stuff that has a lot less to do with traditional-Wikipedia than a Fandom competitor would.
- audiodude 2y ago
  The Wikimedia Foundation has not decided this, the community of editors has, through years of debate and eventual consensus.
JoshTriplett 2y ago
I am very much on the side of inclusion, but at some point, the number of users who have the ability to check the added information becomes sufficiently small that the articles become nearly impossible to maintain and fact-check. I can understand drawing a notability line somewhere. If, for instance, Wikipedia allowed articles on every human being, whether well-known or not, they'd likely have a larger problem than they already do with people creating attack articles against other people over extremely local disputes/feuds. With more notable people, they can look for other sources to confirm or deny information about those people.