4 ms·

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

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.
- potatolicious 17y ago
  Not the same though - in HN the rest of the community would be affected by celeb gossip links because we'd have to look at them on the main page. But who really cares if these pages exist on Wikipedia? It's not as if you have to even see that they exist, much less actively ignore them.
  - tokenadult 17y ago
    But who really cares if these pages exist on Wikipedia? Would it affect the speed of serving up the more desired pages? My heart is with the inclusionists, but would Wikipedia be as easy and as fun to use if its database size were much larger for the same budget?
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  Except the notability guideline is at odds with the stated goal of Wikipedia -- to collect and provide the totality of human knowledge, for free. Far better would be to do away with the notability guideline entirely. The purpose it allegedly serves is in keeping unverifiable (as in, cannot be confirmed by reference to reliable sources) information out of Wikipedia, but Wikipedia already has two full-blown and actively-used policies regarding that matter. All that's left for notability, then, is to turn Wikipedia articles into popularity contests, something that's definitely at odds with its stated goals.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    You might be right, but I think you confused Wikipedia's goal with Google's. I looked (casually) and did not find anything on Wikipedia that said its goal was "to collect and provide the totality of human knowledge, for free." There's a whole huge article on Wikipedia that contradicts this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ISNOT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ISNOT
rms 17y ago
tptacek in 3, 2, 1...
- tptacek 17y ago
  You're mean.
  - rms 17y ago
    Sometimes my timing is impeccable.

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.

potatolicious 17y ago
Not the same though - in HN the rest of the community would be affected by celeb gossip links because we'd have to look at them on the main page. But who really cares if these pages exist on Wikipedia? It's not as if you have to even see that they exist, much less actively ignore them.
- tokenadult 17y ago
  But who really cares if these pages exist on Wikipedia? Would it affect the speed of serving up the more desired pages? My heart is with the inclusionists, but would Wikipedia be as easy and as fun to use if its database size were much larger for the same budget?
ubernostrum 17y ago
Except the notability guideline is at odds with the stated goal of Wikipedia -- to collect and provide the totality of human knowledge, for free. Far better would be to do away with the notability guideline entirely. The purpose it allegedly serves is in keeping unverifiable (as in, cannot be confirmed by reference to reliable sources) information out of Wikipedia, but Wikipedia already has two full-blown and actively-used policies regarding that matter. All that's left for notability, then, is to turn Wikipedia articles into popularity contests, something that's definitely at odds with its stated goals.
- tptacek 17y ago
  You might be right, but I think you confused Wikipedia's goal with Google's. I looked (casually) and did not find anything on Wikipedia that said its goal was "to collect and provide the totality of human knowledge, for free." There's a whole huge article on Wikipedia that contradicts this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ISNOT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ISNOT

rms 17y ago

tptacek in 3, 2, 1...

tptacek 17y ago
You're mean.
- rms 17y ago
  Sometimes my timing is impeccable.