4 ms·

I'm not sure why you think the Wikipedia policy is wrong. If there is no substantial third party coverage of a topic, why should Wikipedia cover it? A lot of

by lambda 14y ago

I'm not sure why you think the Wikipedia policy is wrong. If there is no substantial third party coverage of a topic, why should Wikipedia cover it? A lot of people seem to believe that since bits are cheap, we might as well keep around any page no matter how non-notable it is. But there is a cost to including articles beyond the storage cost. Articles need to be patrolled for vandalism, and fact checked based on material published elsewhere. If you let people just post anything they want, then people will start using it for spam, fluff pieces, random bullshit, and so on. Enough of that, and it will substantially tarnish Wikipedia's reputation as a useful and unbiased source of information. If a person or organization has never received press coverage, academic research, or other substantial information published on them outside of Wikipedia, why should they have a Wikipedia page? Should every Joe Blow who happened to be captain of the swim team in high school and who's now the local Rotary Club president have a Wikipedia page? Should every mom and pop pizza joint? Who gets to have the Wikipedia page for "Village Pizza"? The only reason for these small, not otherwise notable organizations to have a Wikipedia page is to increase their perceived notability; having a Wikipedia page indicates a certain amount of fame or notoriety. So in that case, allowing not otherwise notable organizations to have Wikipedia page would basically be a way for them to get free advertising. Especially in a case like this, when the whole page was edited by people who are, apparently, closely connected to the organization in question, and who would fight any negative information placed on the page.

ilamont 14y ago
If there is no substantial third party coverage of a topic, why should Wikipedia cover it? Because "substantial third-party coverage" is a flawed test for the importance of a subject. Press coverage tends toward the sensational, visual, beautiful, controversial, current, language-specific, and easily explained. If a topic doesn't meet those criteria, it probably won't be covered by the press -- unless the topic in question has some well-connected PR firm or publicist pushing for it. Another issue with press coverage is "established" media is contracting. There aren't as many editors assigning stories, or reporters crafting unbiased profiles of companies, organizations, topics and people. This has an significant, indirect impact on the types of topics that can be sourced according to Wikipedia's official rules. Meanwhile, the number of self-published, user-generated sources of expert opinion is exploding. I'm talking about blogs and places like Hacker News and Reddit. Someone with deep experience and understanding of a topic can share information, yet this information can't be used, according to Wikipedia's policies.
- dragonwriter 14y ago
  > Because "substantial third-party coverage" is a flawed test for the importance of a subject. Its not, really, for something that by-mission is a tertiary source. There's probably a different set of rules that ought to be in place for a publicly-contributed-to Wikijournal of Original Research (which, once it established itself as credible, could be a source cited in Wikipedia), but that's a different niche. Wikipedia does not intend to be all things to all people, it intends to be one thing and do it well. > Press coverage tends toward the sensational, visual, beautiful, controversial, current, language-specific, and easily explained. > Another issue with press coverage is "established" media is contracting. "Third-party" and "press" aren't the same thing. Wikipedia, by policy, prefers academic and peer-reviewed publications. News media publications are one of many other things that might be reliable sources in particular areas, but are not especially preferred. > Meanwhile, the number of self-published, user-generated sources of expert opinion is exploding. I'm talking about blogs and places like Hacker News and Reddit. Someone with deep experience and understanding of a topic can share information, yet this information can't be used, according to Wikipedia's policies. It actually can, per Wikipedia policy, if the author of the self-published source also has other work in the relevant field published in reliable, third-party publications.
- jholman 14y ago
  > Because "substantial third-party coverage" is a flawed test for the importance of a subject. So what? Importance of a subject is not what WP is trying to filter. Wikipedia wants to contain all the important knowledge, yes, but that's impossible to measure or agree on, so there is a set of criteria that act as a reasonable proxy, and you need to accept that the Wikipedia we've got is the one that has those filters. So it goes something like this: content in wikipedia should be "NPOV", it should not be original research (i.e. WP aims to be a tertiary source), and content should be "verifiable". These terms in turn need to be refined, defined, given guidelines, etc. (For example, nothing is truly NPOV, so we need a way to understand how to approximate it, and for example, not all verification is equal (and nothing is perfectly verifiable), so we need guidelines again.) And, as sibling comments have pointed out, there is NOT a preference for "press coverage" and "established media". It's one permitted alternative. > "expert opinion ... like Hacker News and Reddit" I assume that you were joking, or making some nuanced point that I missed, but just in case you weren't... Listen, they let ME write comments on Hacker News and Reddit, you know. They also let experts write at such places, it's true, but how will you know the difference? Yes, there's lots of expert opinion in the world, including e.g. some on HN, but so what? Citations aren't any good if they don't bring some kind of authority, and "some guy said so on HN" is not very convincing. There are certainly circumstances in which a comment on HN can qualify for WP:RELIABLESOURCES . There's lots of good reading at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About , but if you're trying to "get something done" today, it's too much to read at one sitting. You've gotta just accept that, but then again you shouldn't be trying to "get something done" on wikipedia in a given day.

by lambda 14y ago

ilamont 14y ago

If there is no substantial third party coverage of a topic, why should Wikipedia cover it? Because "substantial third-party coverage" is a flawed test for the importance of a subject. Press coverage tends toward the sensational, visual, beautiful, controversial, current, language-specific, and easily explained. If a topic doesn't meet those criteria, it probably won't be covered by the press -- unless the topic in question has some well-connected PR firm or publicist pushing for it. Another issue with press coverage is "established" media is contracting. There aren't as many editors assigning stories, or reporters crafting unbiased profiles of companies, organizations, topics and people. This has an significant, indirect impact on the types of topics that can be sourced according to Wikipedia's official rules. Meanwhile, the number of self-published, user-generated sources of expert opinion is exploding. I'm talking about blogs and places like Hacker News and Reddit. Someone with deep experience and understanding of a topic can share information, yet this information can't be used, according to Wikipedia's policies.

dragonwriter 14y ago
> Because "substantial third-party coverage" is a flawed test for the importance of a subject. Its not, really, for something that by-mission is a tertiary source. There's probably a different set of rules that ought to be in place for a publicly-contributed-to Wikijournal of Original Research (which, once it established itself as credible, could be a source cited in Wikipedia), but that's a different niche. Wikipedia does not intend to be all things to all people, it intends to be one thing and do it well. > Press coverage tends toward the sensational, visual, beautiful, controversial, current, language-specific, and easily explained. > Another issue with press coverage is "established" media is contracting. "Third-party" and "press" aren't the same thing. Wikipedia, by policy, prefers academic and peer-reviewed publications. News media publications are one of many other things that might be reliable sources in particular areas, but are not especially preferred. > Meanwhile, the number of self-published, user-generated sources of expert opinion is exploding. I'm talking about blogs and places like Hacker News and Reddit. Someone with deep experience and understanding of a topic can share information, yet this information can't be used, according to Wikipedia's policies. It actually can, per Wikipedia policy, if the author of the self-published source also has other work in the relevant field published in reliable, third-party publications.
jholman 14y ago
> Because "substantial third-party coverage" is a flawed test for the importance of a subject. So what? Importance of a subject is not what WP is trying to filter. Wikipedia wants to contain all the important knowledge, yes, but that's impossible to measure or agree on, so there is a set of criteria that act as a reasonable proxy, and you need to accept that the Wikipedia we've got is the one that has those filters. So it goes something like this: content in wikipedia should be "NPOV", it should not be original research (i.e. WP aims to be a tertiary source), and content should be "verifiable". These terms in turn need to be refined, defined, given guidelines, etc. (For example, nothing is truly NPOV, so we need a way to understand how to approximate it, and for example, not all verification is equal (and nothing is perfectly verifiable), so we need guidelines again.) And, as sibling comments have pointed out, there is NOT a preference for "press coverage" and "established media". It's one permitted alternative. > "expert opinion ... like Hacker News and Reddit" I assume that you were joking, or making some nuanced point that I missed, but just in case you weren't... Listen, they let ME write comments on Hacker News and Reddit, you know. They also let experts write at such places, it's true, but how will you know the difference? Yes, there's lots of expert opinion in the world, including e.g. some on HN, but so what? Citations aren't any good if they don't bring some kind of authority, and "some guy said so on HN" is not very convincing. There are certainly circumstances in which a comment on HN can qualify for WP:RELIABLESOURCES . There's lots of good reading at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About , but if you're trying to "get something done" today, it's too much to read at one sitting. You've gotta just accept that, but then again you shouldn't be trying to "get something done" on wikipedia in a given day.