Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:17, 27 June 2006

Drawing the Line

Obviously, the most difficult task is deciding where we draw the line in this policy between inclusionism and deletionism. Personally, I fall very fall towards inclusionism, too far for most people, but I'm committed to compromising. And of course, any decision is both somewhat arbitrary and difficult to define/enforce. Honestly, I can't of anything at the moment. Throw out something, anything, just to get something to work with. --Ephilei 06:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait! So the proposal will state that nn has no part to play?! So I could write an article about my family's memorial day picnic? I'm not against this, (well, maybe I am) but everyone else will be. If this succeeds, it will fundamentally define Misplaced Pages. It needs to have wide support, not only to pass but to nurture an environment where editors (even deletionists!) feel productive.

Is there a policy that an article must have the potential of out growing stubness? That wouldn't prohibit my picnic article, but it would prevent some that should be merged and redirected. That would be a good start.--Ephilei 02:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this article should advocate merging information onto small main pages. For example, merging infromation on some 3rd place winner from some spelling bee onto a page about that spelling bee.

However, you could write an article on your family's memorial day picnic - if its verifiable, and not original research. For example, if the news covered your family's picnic. If its just your site talking about your family - thats OR. If its just some memorial day videos, that not verifiable. Thats the point of this article - its not saying that every item you can think of gets an article - its saying that notability isn't considered - instead OR, NPOV, and Verifiability are considered instead - along with the numerous other policies and guidelines on wikipedia. Fresheneesz 07:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And will this simply mean all the articles that fall under this guideline become second-class articles? To ease navigation, they can't be included in categories with notable articles, they can't be mixed with the others in disambiguation pages, they must always come up last in searches, they will never be found on the main page, whether Featured or In the news or Did you know. Most importantly, they won't be linked from notable articles. Who is going to read them? Who is going to ensure that they follow Verifiability, NPOV, and Original research, if no one is interested in it or bound to find it? You mentioned before that you think there is a lot of wasted effort gone into deleting articles, but monitoring the hordes of non-notable articles (and there will be millions) creates far more work. Including non-notable or non-important articles will inevitably result in these articles not being verified, not being neutral; no one is going to be watching them to ensure that they don't become that. In order for Misplaced Pages to be reliable, there absolutely must be a minimum of independent interest in the article. If there isn't, the article is either only edited by vandals, or it is edited by Bob's family, who are not neutral.

Perhaps requirements for notability should be relaxed in certain cases, but there must still be a requirement for notability (or something very much like it). The proper place for changing notability criteria and recommendations is Misplaced Pages:Notability. —Centrx→talk • 08:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"they can't be included in categories with notable articles, .. can't be mixed .. in disambiguation pages, .. must .. come up last in searches"

Why? I believe searches are based on semantics, not popularity or size. As far as I'm concerned, this article is proposing that verifiable non-notables become first-class articles with the rest. "creates far more work" - Articles that aren't edited don't require work. There are plenty of articles that aren't monitored for quality, verifiability, or anyother such thing. However, they are still good stub information, and might grow into nice articles. For example, the article Cabintaxi is terribly written (used to look worse too), and is based off of a copy edit from one outdated page somewhere. However, it is still interesting and useful information. Should this article be removed? I've seen NN articles removed for having more google hits than cabinentaxi's 162.

Oh yea, i've heard about bob's family not being neutral - we should really revoke their editing rights. But in all seriousness, is it really up to us to assume that these articles "probably won't be neutral" ? My opinion is no, we are not a bunch of crystal balls, and we should treat ourselves as if we were.

A large part of this policy is to encourage new editors. By allowing people to edit stuff they are interested in - things they see aren't on wikipedia but should be - we get new editors that in the future will help us handle the millions of new articles we will inevitably get. Misplaced Pages isn't about censorship, and its not about exclusion either. The amount of stuff on this site hasn't been too much for us yet, why draw the line and say "this is how much we can take - kill the rest"?

Lastly, I've discussed it at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability, and it isn't the "proper place" to begin writing a guideline proposal. Remember, WP:NN is just a very popular essay, not a guideline or policy. If you want me to copy-paste this proposal right onto Misplaced Pages:Notability you can go right ahead and do that yourself - but i'm pretty sure there'd be come pretty angry locals at your door in the morning. Fresheneesz 09:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

First, there is no good reason why someone looking through a category or searching on a traditional, important, encyclopedic subject should be required to wade through dozens articles in which no one but a handful of people in the world are interested. Someone looking at the "Websites" category should not have to browse through millions (and millions of websites would qualify under your criteria) of non-notable websites to come across ones like Netcraft, Moviefone, or Acronym Finder. Second, in order to still have the articles comply with Verifiability, Original research, and NPOV, which is what the essay says, the articles would have to be monitored. Notable articles get watchlisted because a variety of people are interested in the subject, and if an editor happens to come across an obscure article with some falsities, it can be resolved and it is not a great burden; in your recommendation, there would be millions upon millions of articles (millions in just websites alone) that have no editor interest—aside perhaps from the websites creator who is likely to be quite biased. If, on the other hand, you were to now say that NPOV, OR, and V are not so important, any reader could come across an article that asserts all manner of personal theories, extravagantly vain statements, under the guise of an encyclopedia with authoritative information. You underestimate the magnitude of your proposal. There are currently 1.2 million articles on the English Misplaced Pages. What you propose would result in 10's of millions of articles at a minimum. What is to ensure that these would follow NPOV and OR? The reason I recommend you bring it up on Misplaced Pages:Notability is because this is a non-starter. We are not a crystal ball, yes (though that applies to predicting future events in articles, not anticipating major consequences of policies), but the fact remains that the first step toward implementing this idea would be to relax the Notability essay and get agreement to do that. A change of this magnitude would require small steps rather than a brash change. Misplaced Pages:Five pillars does not merely state that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, it furthermore states that "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not a collection of source documents or trivia, a dictionary, a soapbox, a newspaper, vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory." All of these things can be neutral and verifiable, but do not qualify under your idea. As I said on the Village pump, the Notability essay is designed to flesh out what the above statement means as a consequence of it. What you are proposing is not opposing an essay, but the whole foundation of Misplaced Pages heretofore. The first step, likewise, for gaining consensus on this is to convince people that Notability needs to be relaxed. The essay you have posted here is not going to be implemented without the first steps of gaining consensus to relax Notability, and seeing the practical results of that relaxation. We do not require a crystal ball to do that. —Centrx→talk • 20:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think that it might be best to relax both this proposal, and the essay at the same time - to coincide at a consensus. When you say "millions of websites and millions of other things would qualify", you're misinterpreting what this article is about. This guideline proposal does not urge people to disregard what wikipedia is not (or any other policy), but asks people to use those policies and guidlines in place of "notability". The millions of websites you speak of would violate OR, because I would guess people would simply narrate what they think the site is about - or advertise what their site does, which would be POV.

Perhaps this isn't clear from the page, and I invite you to change the wording of the proposal to reflect that this proposal is not meant to give all non-notables a place - only ones that don't violate policy and other guidelines. Fresheneesz 23:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would an accurate description of a website be POV? It is not original research, all the information is right there on the website and is verifiable. The source is the website, and it would be silly to require a newspaper article or a book to verify the contents of a website that anyone can look at right on the Internet. Or do you suggest that the source instead be another website? And if what is stated on that other website is reliable, why isn't the text and functions of the first website, which are readily accessible by anyone, also reliable? Even articles about quite notable websites with daily thousands of visitors and newspaper mentions have as their source the clear, verifiable source of going to the website and seeing what it does. —Centrx→talk • 23:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability requires reliable sources, and while it may seem like a website would be a reliable source about itself, that's not always true (inflated claims of importance, history, impact, etc., not to mention the fact that it's obviously biased towards promoting itself). Even given those, WP:RS requires several third-party sources, and if there aren't any of those articles or books about a website it's just not verfiable, and therefore shouldn't be included. Ziggurat 23:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about claims made on a website, I am talking about looking at what the site actually does. If you go to www.superbad.com or www.ytmnd.com (though these happen to be notable sites, which is how I know about them), the sites can be accurately and verifiably described, without reference to looking at any "About this site" section. Even if it were just claims, it would still be accurate to say "This website claims to...". Where does WP:RS say that everything must have several sources? Is it really necessary to have three or more independent sources for us to state "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia" or "CNN.com is a news website run by CNN."? —Centrx→talk • 02:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's perform a thought experiment: I'm a fan of the website and I write an article about it using the information on the site. If (a) I'm a inexperienced editor, I don't add a category; if (b) I'm a decent editor, I put in a category Websites because I see there is a subcategory Pointless websites (bc that's what it is. Takes care of the category problem. Now, because asdf.com is so nn, there's no decent place to link to it from. Or, say I manage to find 2 pages to link to it from: 1 on a page about humorous websites, 1 on a page about letter combos. 99% of readers don't care about funny websites or letter combos so they are never bothered with it - for good or ill. Takes care of the linking problem. Check the main article about for something new on monitering accuracy/vandalism. --Ephilei 01:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Back to the initial issue of drawing the line - I agree we need a compromise or nothing will pass. I see the point that proposing something on the opposite extreme will "swing the pendulum" of opinion to land in the middle, however, a failed a proposal is just a failed proposal. A few people might change their minds to land in the middle, but there will still be nothing officially approved. To me, having something approved is the ultimate goal, no matter what the approach or compromise. There's little point in relaxing the Notability essay because its just an essay - not a policy/guideline. I think we need a clean a approach, but something that can be approved as is. Before we argue about whether the proposal should pass (and we should argue!) let's create a proposal that we can support! --Ephilei 01:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to read this thread word for word at the moment, but I would like to note that I did too much a lot of thinking about this sort of thing in my early Misplaced Pages days. The results of that are here. Feel free to make use of some of that if you think it's sensible. --L33tminion | (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems redundant.

Why not just improve the existing and established Misplaced Pages:Notability? Just zis Guy you know? 22:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Because that page is an already established guideline (by established I mean has a lot of precedent) not a proposal and because it argues the opposite of this proposal. And I'm sure people wouldn't like it if we blanked all that pre-existing info. Basically, for clarity. --Ephilei 02:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I read this knowing the history of the original contributor and see that had it existed it would have boosted his attempts to have certain articles included, and other articles expanded. I find it hard to WP:AGF when I see a newly proposed guideline which closely mirrors another extant and widely accepted practice and several extant guidelines such as WP:BIO and WP:NMG but which appears to promote the inclusion of material which has been excluded, written by the author of that material. Look at the history of personal rapid transit, UniModal etc. This looks like a retrospective attempt to legislate against results the author did not like. And yes, I know that this lack of good faith makes me a bad person. For me, notability has always been a simple matter of whether there is sufficient external coverage to verify botht eh content and the neutrality of the article; I perceive a real issue right now with subjects which are stated to be "verifiable" by reference to sites which support them, and newspaper coverage garnered by their proponents, but which lack either the credibility of robust peer-review, or in some cases the credibility to inspire peer review: some things are simply dismissed as crank nonsense and not covered at all. We deleted Aetherometry partly for this reason. The section on "upkeep cost" is redundant per WP:NOT paper anyway, which is widely understood.

Here's a specific example: the exhortation to (in bold) full merge information speaks directly to a situation where a hypothetical concept, UniModal, was written up in a level of detail quite indefensible for a system which lacks a backer, a prototype, or a customer. Fresheneesz argued long and hard about the amount of merge. The word full here looks like a deliberate attempt to retrospectively legislate against my reduction of the amount of content (in my view almost all of it was already in the main article anyway, but that is another matter and not truly relevant, only the existence of the dispute is relevant). It also goes directly against WP:NPOV#Undue weight, because it asks for all information, whether provably significant or not, to be merged. That is simply a bad idea. Just zis Guy you know? 11:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am most definately thinking of my past experiences on wikipedia as a reason to have this guideline. I like thinking of ways things I've done in the past or present could be more easily done in a better way. I think this guideline provides that better way by urging users to focus on concrete policy, rather than notability - which is neither guideline nor policy, and is very very subjective. However, I assure you I don't plan on pushing a million new articles on wikipedia if this proposal goes through. I sincerely think this would be a step in the right direction for wikipedia, and I really think that the current emphasis on not biting newcommers is understated - we need new editors. I really doubt I'll be creating any new controversial non-notable articles anytime soon. So this guideline isn't for me specifically.

You bring up a good point about "full merge". The article does suggest an action that might be against policy in some cases. I'll change the wording to reflect that concern. Fresheneesz 19:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

But your entire premise is that you were right and I was wrong I would challenge that interpretation (see also the deletion review, for example, which endorsed my view). What you originally wrote was, in essence, a POV-pusher's charter, and directly at odds with a number of well-established guidelines such as WP:BIO, WP:NMG and WP:CSD. The fact that notability is included in the (highly restricted) criteria for speedy deletion, an area where there is strong resistance to any extension, is evidence that there is a widespread agreement that notability is, in the end, a useful term to describe that content which is worth including. I would suggest you spend a bit more time around CAT:CSD and WP:AFD before judging the merit of notability as currently understood. Just zis Guy you know? 20:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to say I was right and you were wrong, but I think this guideline would have saved much time in comming to the eventual consensus to keep the page UniModal.

Non-notability seems to be only mentioned on the Criteria for speedy deltion page to assert that non-notability is *not* in fact criteria for speedy deletion, if the article establishes "importance". And the biography tag mentions non-notable people and vanity pages. I do see the problem with loosing the ability to use notability as a qualifier, and I think that it would be good to go into the reasons and explore ways of chaning this proposal so it allows wikipedia to grow without causing problems. Fresheneesz 23:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

An article that is not important or significant could not possibly assert importance or significance, so strictly construed, it would be deleted under those criteria. —Centrx→talk • 20:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Perfect, but asserting significance is usually not what people are refering to when they say "notability". Thats a good reason why notability is not a useful base on which to argue - other policy suffices, and makes things less complicated as well. Fresheneesz 03:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Straw man?

The essay lists "problems with keeping non-notable pages" and then proceeds to shoot these down as arguments. Indeed, as arguments for deleting non-notable pages in general they are not strong. But isn't this setting up a straw man? The essay will be stronger if it tackles the arguments from Misplaced Pages:Notability#Arguments for deleting non-notable articles. --Lambiam 12:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a straw man. This proposal is meant as something entirely separate from the essay, and it doesn't interpret (or misinterpret) anything from that essay. The thing is, the essay is an essay, and I really think there should be a clear guideline on this subject. Fresheneesz 19:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

aetherometry

I removed this paragraph pending further discussion:

"As an example, Misplaced Pages had for a long time an article on a crank theory called aetherometry. It documented the theory and systematically debunked it. It was for some considerable time one of the leading sources of information on the subject. But it was deleted, because the debunking was original research, as the theory had never been published or discussed in any peer-reviewed journal; that left the pro-aetherometry side only, which was therefore non-neutral. It was not possible to cover the subject neutrally without original research, because the theory itself was non-notable and had not been given so much as a passing nod by the scientific press. The only reliable primary sources were those promoting the theory, and there were no reliable secondary sources at all."

I think this precedent sort of goes against what this guideline is advising. I think that the main idea of aetherometry could have been (and might very well have been) merged with Aether theories. Noting that the entire subject was deleted with no redirect (I just took the liberty of RDing it to aether theory) I think goes against the intent of this guideline. Comments? Fresheneesz 20:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If the article was deleted for being original research, then it was not deleted for non-notability and this essay would not apply. —Centrx→talk • 22:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted as a non-notable crank theory (which is also why it was not merged: it was a minor POV which would have been accorded undue weight). We have plenty of notable crank theories. But do feel free to find a better example. Just zis Guy you know? 22:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

removed quote of Brion Vibber

Just a question, why was it removed again? Fresheneesz 09:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea. I've readded it pending explanation. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight of separate articles

I've looked over the undue weight part of NPOV, and I've never seen any way to interpret that separate articles can by themselves constitute undue weight. Could someone please quote something that can be interpretted as such? It seems like the following sentence directly contradicts such thinking anyway:

"None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them."

Fresheneesz 09:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncontested, I removed this "(although note that sometimes the existence of a separate article in and of itself constitutes undue weight, for example in the case of a minor theory with few adherents)." Fresheneesz 03:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've made some edits to bring this into line with current policies. The section talks of merging information into main articles, however, it should be wroth noting that if the presentation of that information in the main article would be deemed as undue weight, it should be deleted. That's per WP:NPOV, which I can't see anyone disputing. If a topic is considered to be not of worth in a main article, then guidance on content forking directs that it should not be given its own article. Misplaced Pages:Content forking:

• "However, it is possible for editors to act in bad faith and make article spinouts as POV forks. For instance: Editor A tries three times to insert a statement of his POV in an article section called "Criticism of XYZ"; each time the change is reverted by other editors. So he announces that he is spinning off a new article called Criticism of XYZ, and for the initial text of this article, he uses the "Criticism of XYZ" section of the main XYZ article -- with the disputed statement that he could not get accepted by consensus. This is a POV fork; Editor A is trying to get around the fact that his changes have not met consensus by inserting them in a different location."

• As can be seen, if the information being merged or inserted into the article is consensually removed, then an article on it is POV forking. We must ensure that guidance on POV forking and given undue weight is adhered to. If information should not exist in a main article since it gives that view undue weight, the content forking guidance states it should not have its own article as this constitutes a POV fork. Steve block Talk 19:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of that - espcially the POV fork and articles containing undue weight. However, I think that suggesting we delete an article that would put undue weight on a main article is against the spirit of this proposal - its certainly not what I intended when I began it. The "worth" of an article is what this proposal is about - ie that "worth" is inherintly biased by the individual asserting the worth, and thus not a useful way of classifying (or deleting) articles. Fresheneesz 23:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Also note that WP:NPOV does not suggest deleting articles in the way you explain. Fresheneesz 23:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The guidance on content forking is quite clear. Information which doesn't belong in the main article should not have its own article if that constitutes a POV fork. Regards what you intended for this proposal, this is a wiki, we are all gfree to edit and amend. If you wish to change current policies and guidelines, you do that at the specific talk page, not by attempting to write a separate proposal. To be honest, I think I'd reject this proposal at the moment, as it adds nothing new to Misplaced Pages. The worth of an article is what we debate at WP:AFD. I'm not sure what you feel this proposal addresses. Steve block Talk 11:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I already said, I agree with you about the POV fork thing. This proposal intends to "ban" (not truely ban since it would be a guideline not policy) the use of notability in discussions of an article's worth. This would be quite a large change, and so I have to assume that what you mean by "adds nothing" is that it doesn't make wikipedia better. I simply disagree. Fresheneesz 20:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Importance

There is currently a proposed policy that directly contradicts this proposed guideline (and therefore would overrule it if passed) Clinkophonist 23:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific as to what contradicts? I looked over it and I can't quite understand the intent of the proposed policy - or how one would use it. Fresheneesz 03:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Even assuming they do contradict, I don't think Misplaced Pages is schizophrenic enough to give both consensus. Policy doesn't overrule guidelines; it accords with guidelines. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

against current guidelines?

I removed this header from the page:

This is against current guidelines

Of course it is—it's a proposal to repeal certain guidelines that have gained currency.

I'm pretty sure this proposal doesn't go against guidelines. This proposal is meant to make people use current guidelines and policy rather than the non-policy idea of "notability". Can anyone shed some light on this addition? Fresheneesz 03:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I will add in this header again, and explain that this guidelines does not, and does not intend to, violate or contradict any official policy or guidelines. Fresheneesz 23:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

See CSD A7 and WP:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information point 6. Both explicitly affirm that there must be a minimum threshold of notability for an article to be included in Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, this proposal would suggest that AFDs shouldn't delete things for non-notability, which currently they do routinely. The proposal as-is is largely against consensus (with 70–80% being in favor of CSD A7, as I recall), and consensus is basically equivalent to policy (or at least guideline) on Misplaced Pages. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well this brings up a good point. However, both points specifically address people - ie vanity pages. I think it is quite reasonable to require that articles "assert importance" - meaning that the article explains why someone or something is important. However, I think it might be prudent to explicitely yeild to vanity guidelines in this proposal. My personal preference is that this proposal not contradict any existing official policy or guideline.

What do you think is the best way to do this? Fresheneesz 06:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)