5 ms·

Currently the entries for Hacker News, Jessica Livingston, and Trevor Blackwell are all flagged as insufficiently notable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_

by pg 17y ago

Currently the entries for Hacker News, Jessica Livingston, and Trevor Blackwell are all flagged as insufficiently notable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_News http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_News http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Livingston http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Livingston http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Blackwell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Blackwell Trevor's entry is a particularly interesting case of the pathology. Originally his bio talked about how he'd made the first dynamically balancing biped robot. That set off a firestorm about priority. One nutter got so mad that for a while Trevor's bio read as if the most significant thing about him was that he'd falsely claimed to have made the first dynamically balancing biped. Eventually the Wikipedians solved the problem by deletion, so now his bio simply says he's some guy who builds robots. Which of course wouldn't be notable, if that's all he was.

LargeWu 17y ago
I'm inclined to agree that they are not "generally notable" The entire HN entry is 4 sentences long. All of the footnotes are sourced from either blogs or YC itself. If HN must be included in Wikipedia, it's probably more appropriate as a mention in the YC page. The individuals are in the same boat. All the references about Trevor are either from his own site or his company site. The footnotes for Jessica are largely sourced from blogs and videos. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of general information. The fact that they are involved with YC or have a company that builds robots is not inherently notable or of general interest.
- rottencupcakes 17y ago
  So, the question remains, how is the fact that those articles are on wikipedia harming you in any way? Even before this article came up, I've searched for and read those articles, and found them helpful. It provides a succinct overview of the individuals, with links if you want to pursue futher. What difference does it make where the links are sourced from? And who determines what 'general interest' is? It's of general interest to me!
  - joez 17y ago
    There is the possibility of analysis paralysis. In the extreme case where everyone had a Wiki page, an individual's name might return 100+ different results. I would have to say I am in the inclusionists camp though. If someone took the time to create an article for some obscure topic, then they find it worthy enough to share meaning that most likely someone else out there would also be interested in the topic.
    - tptacek 17y ago
      Spend some time patrolling AfD, and I bet you will lose that opinion quickly. You may not become a deletionist, but you will stop believing topics are worthwhile simply because "someone took the time to create an article". The sheer volume of dross people pump into WP every day is staggering.
  - halo 17y ago
    If there's no reliable sources, what happens when somebody adds lies (whether intentionally or not)?
  - biohacker42 17y ago
    Well you see paper is expensive and shelf space is even more expensive. How does this matter to wikipedia you ask? Well imagine a website trying very hard to be like a book, I don't mean the ideas therein, I mean the physical limitations - Wikipedia!
  - LargeWu 17y ago
    Well, Wikipedia determines this by setting their notability guidelines. At the end of the day, it's up to each individual community to determine what is and is not appropriate. It wouldn't hurt you if somebody started posting celebrity gossip articles on HN, but HN would probably downvote them into oblivion because it has decided those types of articles are not relevant to this community. I can say with a high degree of certainty that you would not object to this practice. With Wikipedia it's the same principle.
    - 17y ago
ErrantX 17y ago
Bio's of people have always been contentious on Wikipedia - especially in the realms of what is or is not notable. I think the current accepted theory is that you ask the question: if I googled their name could I get all of the information I want from one pre-existing (non WP) link. If the answer is yes then in most cases there is no need for the article.
- rms 17y ago
  What if it takes 2 or 3 places to get all the information? Or 300 places that aren't the mainstream media? My problem with the current notability theory is that it isn't flexible enough for what should. For now, deletionists versus inclusionists isn't going to end, but the current notability policy could explicitly allow for the inclusion of articles with no mainstream media sources. For example, I think every professor that has ever had an article published in Nature should have their own Wikipedia page. More professors than just that, but I don't think there is any argument against a scientist that is extremely respected in his field, even if no one in the mainstream media has decided he is worth mentioning left. It is bad to depend on the mainstream media for what is notable because Wikipedia is already beyond that. I used the SFGate to establish notability on an article. Techcrunch has a better Alexa rank than the SF Gate, but Techcrunch doesn't count for some reason.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    > What if it takes 2 or 3 places to get all the information? Or 300 places that aren't the mainstream media? Exactly. In that case a Wikipedia article would be appropriate (I thought that was clear in my post, sorry) In the example of Jessica Livingston this page: http://ycombinator.com/people.html http://ycombinator.com/people.html provides all of the information found on wikipedia.
rms 17y ago
I flipped Hacker News back, notability is already established by the included references, as per Wikipedia rules. I've already had this argument on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia pages tend to unravel if you don't check them continuously. For Trevor and Jessica: shouldn't any of the feature length magazine articles that name them as founders of Y Combinator be enough to establish notability?
- rms 17y ago
  I fixed the articles of Trevor and Jessica.
GavinB 17y ago
Web reach should be enough to trigger notability. Any website in the top 100,000 in terms of traffic for a year is important enough to merit Wikipedia attention. Notability should be determined by how useful the knowledge is, not whether or not the mainstream press bothers to pay attention. The level of notability should be set by Wikipedia's ability to reliably incorporate information, not by some arbitrary standard. As the number and expertise of editors increases, the notability standard should decrease. The goal of wikipedia is the "sum of human knowledge," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_speech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_speech) not to "the sum of human knowledge that has been covered in the mainstream press."
- rms 17y ago
  I had the Alexa rankings for Hacker News in there the last time I edited it, but a Wikipedia editor has deleted that reference in his or her infinite wisdom.
  - GavinB 17y ago
    Sadly, I was talking more about the wikipedia I would like to see than about the wikipedia that currently exists. Personally, number of people using something is a lot more meaningful to me than number of journalists writing about it. Of course, as a very occasional anonymous editor, I suppose I don't have much right to complain.
tptacek 17y ago
The rules for notability are straightforward. Subjects are notable "by dint of being written about". The notability tag is very easy to dispel: provide references to credible reliable sources. They clearly exist for Blackwell. The misconception you're fostering here is that the {{Notability}} tag is somehow a black mark on the article. It isn't. The entire encyclopedia is under constant construction. The tags are there to direct the attention of editors. Your complaint is particularly misleading because the Blackwell article is, in fact, badly sourced; it has "External links", but its "References" all point to Blackwell's own sites. The {{Notability}} tag is correct, not because Blackwell isn't notable (he again clearly is), but because the article doesn't properly establish why. The rest of your critique may or may not be valid (I have misgivings about WP, too), but the main thrust of your comment here is bogus, and you should acknowledge that.
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  I don't think your argument holds up here, though. As I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, there are already Wikipedia policies in place which cover verifiability of information and citations to reliable sources (in fact, these criteria form part of one of Wikipedia's "Five Pillars"). And there are already perfectly useful procedures in place for dealing with articles which fail these criteria: there are tags for indicating that particular articles, sections or individual statements are in need of citation, and there's a process for evaluating sources referenced by articles. Given this, the notability guideline seems at best to duplicate matters already covered by full-fledged policies. And in real-world situations, its main function seems to be turning Wikipedia into a popularity contest -- prove that your topic has enough Google juice, and it stays!
  - tptacek 17y ago
    If your whole argument is that {{Notability}} should instead be {{refimprove}} (or whatever that tag was), then, fine, but I think my point holds.
    - ubernostrum 17y ago
      My argument is really that the notability guideline in general serves no constructive purpose on Wikipedia; everything useful that it purports to do is covered by other policies or guidelines, which leaves only the non-useful things it does, like cause flamewars.
uhgtyrfgv 17y ago
physicsforums.com the largest science question and answer site, a partner of Scientific American and sited as a source for a number of wiki entries has been repeatedly rejected as not significant enough. It seems wiki won't let you create an article about another web site.

by pg 17y ago

LargeWu 17y ago

I'm inclined to agree that they are not "generally notable" The entire HN entry is 4 sentences long. All of the footnotes are sourced from either blogs or YC itself. If HN must be included in Wikipedia, it's probably more appropriate as a mention in the YC page. The individuals are in the same boat. All the references about Trevor are either from his own site or his company site. The footnotes for Jessica are largely sourced from blogs and videos. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of general information. The fact that they are involved with YC or have a company that builds robots is not inherently notable or of general interest.

rottencupcakes 17y ago
So, the question remains, how is the fact that those articles are on wikipedia harming you in any way? Even before this article came up, I've searched for and read those articles, and found them helpful. It provides a succinct overview of the individuals, with links if you want to pursue futher. What difference does it make where the links are sourced from? And who determines what 'general interest' is? It's of general interest to me!
- joez 17y ago
  There is the possibility of analysis paralysis. In the extreme case where everyone had a Wiki page, an individual's name might return 100+ different results. I would have to say I am in the inclusionists camp though. If someone took the time to create an article for some obscure topic, then they find it worthy enough to share meaning that most likely someone else out there would also be interested in the topic.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    Spend some time patrolling AfD, and I bet you will lose that opinion quickly. You may not become a deletionist, but you will stop believing topics are worthwhile simply because "someone took the time to create an article". The sheer volume of dross people pump into WP every day is staggering.
- halo 17y ago
  If there's no reliable sources, what happens when somebody adds lies (whether intentionally or not)?
- biohacker42 17y ago
  Well you see paper is expensive and shelf space is even more expensive. How does this matter to wikipedia you ask? Well imagine a website trying very hard to be like a book, I don't mean the ideas therein, I mean the physical limitations - Wikipedia!
- LargeWu 17y ago
  Well, Wikipedia determines this by setting their notability guidelines. At the end of the day, it's up to each individual community to determine what is and is not appropriate. It wouldn't hurt you if somebody started posting celebrity gossip articles on HN, but HN would probably downvote them into oblivion because it has decided those types of articles are not relevant to this community. I can say with a high degree of certainty that you would not object to this practice. With Wikipedia it's the same principle.
  - 17y ago

ErrantX 17y ago

Bio's of people have always been contentious on Wikipedia - especially in the realms of what is or is not notable. I think the current accepted theory is that you ask the question: if I googled their name could I get all of the information I want from one pre-existing (non WP) link. If the answer is yes then in most cases there is no need for the article.

rms 17y ago
What if it takes 2 or 3 places to get all the information? Or 300 places that aren't the mainstream media? My problem with the current notability theory is that it isn't flexible enough for what should. For now, deletionists versus inclusionists isn't going to end, but the current notability policy could explicitly allow for the inclusion of articles with no mainstream media sources. For example, I think every professor that has ever had an article published in Nature should have their own Wikipedia page. More professors than just that, but I don't think there is any argument against a scientist that is extremely respected in his field, even if no one in the mainstream media has decided he is worth mentioning left. It is bad to depend on the mainstream media for what is notable because Wikipedia is already beyond that. I used the SFGate to establish notability on an article. Techcrunch has a better Alexa rank than the SF Gate, but Techcrunch doesn't count for some reason.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  > What if it takes 2 or 3 places to get all the information? Or 300 places that aren't the mainstream media? Exactly. In that case a Wikipedia article would be appropriate (I thought that was clear in my post, sorry) In the example of Jessica Livingston this page: http://ycombinator.com/people.html http://ycombinator.com/people.html provides all of the information found on wikipedia.

rms 17y ago

I flipped Hacker News back, notability is already established by the included references, as per Wikipedia rules. I've already had this argument on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia pages tend to unravel if you don't check them continuously. For Trevor and Jessica: shouldn't any of the feature length magazine articles that name them as founders of Y Combinator be enough to establish notability?

rms 17y ago
I fixed the articles of Trevor and Jessica.

GavinB 17y ago

Web reach should be enough to trigger notability. Any website in the top 100,000 in terms of traffic for a year is important enough to merit Wikipedia attention. Notability should be determined by how useful the knowledge is, not whether or not the mainstream press bothers to pay attention. The level of notability should be set by Wikipedia's ability to reliably incorporate information, not by some arbitrary standard. As the number and expertise of editors increases, the notability standard should decrease. The goal of wikipedia is the "sum of human knowledge," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_speech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_speech) not to "the sum of human knowledge that has been covered in the mainstream press."

rms 17y ago
I had the Alexa rankings for Hacker News in there the last time I edited it, but a Wikipedia editor has deleted that reference in his or her infinite wisdom.
- GavinB 17y ago
  Sadly, I was talking more about the wikipedia I would like to see than about the wikipedia that currently exists. Personally, number of people using something is a lot more meaningful to me than number of journalists writing about it. Of course, as a very occasional anonymous editor, I suppose I don't have much right to complain.

tptacek 17y ago

The rules for notability are straightforward. Subjects are notable "by dint of being written about". The notability tag is very easy to dispel: provide references to credible reliable sources. They clearly exist for Blackwell. The misconception you're fostering here is that the {{Notability}} tag is somehow a black mark on the article. It isn't. The entire encyclopedia is under constant construction. The tags are there to direct the attention of editors. Your complaint is particularly misleading because the Blackwell article is, in fact, badly sourced; it has "External links", but its "References" all point to Blackwell's own sites. The {{Notability}} tag is correct, not because Blackwell isn't notable (he again clearly is), but because the article doesn't properly establish why. The rest of your critique may or may not be valid (I have misgivings about WP, too), but the main thrust of your comment here is bogus, and you should acknowledge that.

ubernostrum 17y ago
I don't think your argument holds up here, though. As I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, there are already Wikipedia policies in place which cover verifiability of information and citations to reliable sources (in fact, these criteria form part of one of Wikipedia's "Five Pillars"). And there are already perfectly useful procedures in place for dealing with articles which fail these criteria: there are tags for indicating that particular articles, sections or individual statements are in need of citation, and there's a process for evaluating sources referenced by articles. Given this, the notability guideline seems at best to duplicate matters already covered by full-fledged policies. And in real-world situations, its main function seems to be turning Wikipedia into a popularity contest -- prove that your topic has enough Google juice, and it stays!
- tptacek 17y ago
  If your whole argument is that {{Notability}} should instead be {{refimprove}} (or whatever that tag was), then, fine, but I think my point holds.
  - ubernostrum 17y ago
    My argument is really that the notability guideline in general serves no constructive purpose on Wikipedia; everything useful that it purports to do is covered by other policies or guidelines, which leaves only the non-useful things it does, like cause flamewars.

uhgtyrfgv 17y ago

physicsforums.com the largest science question and answer site, a partner of Scientific American and sited as a source for a number of wiki entries has been repeatedly rejected as not significant enough. It seems wiki won't let you create an article about another web site.