2 ms·

No idea who this commenter is, on the OPs page, but he says it very well: "I don’t think that Wikipedia can be as comprehensive as you say unless and until the

by rsync 12y ago

No idea who this commenter is, on the OPs page, but he says it very well: "I don’t think that Wikipedia can be as comprehensive as you say unless and until the significance requirement is lowered. There are lots of interesting and relevant articles that are killed by exacting admins who think that Wikipedia’s scope shouldn’t be quite as, well, encyclopedic, as others. Wikipedia can be the place for well researched obscure knowledge as much as it can be an accessible place to find the famous stuff. Indeed, the more obscure information it supports, the more useful it will be in the long term as an accretive force for knowledge. Once someone has created a certain page for something obscure, over time others will add to that knowledge and make it more valuable." Inclusionism is something wikipedia needs to work toward. Deletionism is an admission of failure - an inability to reasonably deal with information. I hope they can find a way to fix this problem.

tptacek 12y ago
Here is the AfD page for April 20, 2014 --- I went back a random ways so that we could see an AfD log where most (all?) of the discussions had been closed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_April_20 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion... So, what I'd be interested in is a discussion that drills into specifics. Which of the deleted articles --- the ones headlined in red --- are "admissions of failure, an inability to reasonably deal with information"?
- dingaling 12y ago
  I spent some time reading through that list and it just depressed me even more about the current direction of Wikipedia. Other than the reasonable deletion of two promotional articles for books ( 'Formation of Postcolonial Englishes: Theories' and 'Secret Fantasies' ) that list consists of people arguing about 'notability'. That is begging the question, since notability is what Wikipedia defines and which is the core problem. What the outside World is saying is: remove the notability test. It has become so abused by the administators that they should forfeit it; they are not responsible enought to be trusted with it. ~~ Here's an example of one that was deleted for 'non-notability': Former minor league baseball announcer. Has not received any well-known award or honor nor has he made any widely recognized contribution to broadcasting. Which just illustrates how amorphous this 'notability' concept has become; it can be redefined at will to sataisfy any argument. So that individual was notable, but not notable enough on a global scale? Might as well rename 'notability' to 'is as famous as Tom Cruise' in that case. ~~ Here's another one, this individual had references in media but subjectively someone felt that wasn't good enough: The Plymouth article goes a bit deeper but its more of the "local boy living the dream" variety which isnt enough to satisfy GNG. There should be no opportunity for subjectivity. Was the individual referenced by independent media articles? Yes? Good enough.

by rsync 12y ago

tptacek 12y ago

Here is the AfD page for April 20, 2014 --- I went back a random ways so that we could see an AfD log where most (all?) of the discussions had been closed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_April_20 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion... So, what I'd be interested in is a discussion that drills into specifics. Which of the deleted articles --- the ones headlined in red --- are "admissions of failure, an inability to reasonably deal with information"?

dingaling 12y ago
I spent some time reading through that list and it just depressed me even more about the current direction of Wikipedia. Other than the reasonable deletion of two promotional articles for books ( 'Formation of Postcolonial Englishes: Theories' and 'Secret Fantasies' ) that list consists of people arguing about 'notability'. That is begging the question, since notability is what Wikipedia defines and which is the core problem. What the outside World is saying is: remove the notability test. It has become so abused by the administators that they should forfeit it; they are not responsible enought to be trusted with it. ~~ Here's an example of one that was deleted for 'non-notability': Former minor league baseball announcer. Has not received any well-known award or honor nor has he made any widely recognized contribution to broadcasting. Which just illustrates how amorphous this 'notability' concept has become; it can be redefined at will to sataisfy any argument. So that individual was notable, but not notable enough on a global scale? Might as well rename 'notability' to 'is as famous as Tom Cruise' in that case. ~~ Here's another one, this individual had references in media but subjectively someone felt that wasn't good enough: The Plymouth article goes a bit deeper but its more of the "local boy living the dream" variety which isnt enough to satisfy GNG. There should be no opportunity for subjectivity. Was the individual referenced by independent media articles? Yes? Good enough.