Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:28, 9 November 2006

• WT:WEB

Archives

• Archive 1 - to 29 October 2005
• Archive 2 - 29 October 2005 to 02 November 2005
• Archive 3 - 02 November 2005 to 11 December 2005
• Archive 4 - 11 December 2005 to 04 January 2006
• Archive 5 - 05 January 2006 to 23 March 2006
• Archive 6 - 27 March 2006 to 30 May 2006

Internet Portal

I've just created Portal:Internet, please contribute! Computerjoe's talk 16:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge of "meme" guideline

This is a sort of long rambling discussion on the most recent archive. I'm trying to distill it down to its bones. Please feel free to add summarised points below. - brenneman 02:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for seperate guideline:

• Notability (web) is rarely invoked in AFD, especially with regard to memes
• This is merely a guideline, so a seperate approach is acceptible.
• Notability is a controversial subject, and so many opinions should be considered in the development of the wiki.

Arguments for mergeing:

• Memes are on websites
• There's nothing new in the new guideline
• Numerous guidelines can be confusing and it's preferable to keep it short and simple

Opinions/Comments:

• My opinion: keep separate - they are about two different things ... websites are websites, while memes are rarely websites. I don't particularly like the new version of the meme guideline - it is just a copy of one of the WP:WEB guidelines. I much prefer the old version , which was more reflective of a meaningful notability standard. BigDT 03:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Meme AfDs

If we could list old AfDs for purported "memes" this would give us something to build a base on. - brenneman 14:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Example one
• Example two

This has been done before. I can't dig them out right this second, but they should be in the talk archives of this page or at the WP:MEMES talk. The striking part of them is that WP:WEB is rarely invoked, nor is sourcing typically an issue. It's almost always meme notaiblity. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Aye, I'm aware it's been done, and as I recall all but one item listed as a " defintaly notable" meme had verification, and that "notability" in other cases amounted to testimony of wikipedia editors. But we're trying to summarise and move on, so having a consice list here is a good thing. - brenneman 15:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You want bonafide memes here, not just neologisms or protologisms, right? I of course am drawing a blank on any. Digging in the archives may pay. ++Lar: t/c 15:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure we're ready to move on over on the other side, for the record. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what that means. You don't want us to dredge up a table of meme AfDs?
brenneman 02:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean that we're not ready to "summarize and move on" at the actual guideline's talk page. There's still been discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Lots of discussion, and large chunks have been hugely repetative. So it's really time to summarise the main points and take stock of where we are at. Really. - brenneman 12:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Notability is the wild west of Misplaced Pages

Let's face it: there's no widespread agreement among editors on this concept. That's why different views are presented and favored by various groups of editors with a similar philosophy. This suggested merge is nothing less than a silencing out of one view favored by a different group of editors. Until notability is a more accepted terrain, this will be the outlook-- various views, and constant discussion. Anyone disagree? I'd like to hear why. Thanks, --Urthogie 08:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A) We're really not talking about notability we're almost always talking about third party reliable sources. B) What exactly are you suggesting that we do? - brenneman 12:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding A, see below. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as a silencing, which seems rather an inflammatory term, but rather common sense. Use an established guideline that covers the subject until something better comes along. Once discussion on the talk page of WP:MEME creates something feel free to propose it, but there's nothing there as yet. These things are only guidelines anyway and shouldn't be used or viewed as absolutes. Part of the argument for rejecting this guideline as applying to internet memes is that no-one references it in afds. Now I can change that with a series of good faith afd nominations, but I'm not that way inclined. The other objection seems to be that it precludes some memes that nobody seems to be able to name but that were really important to someone, somewhere, once. I'd point out we don't even have a well written, referenced article at List of Internet phenomena as yet, and that if you can't point to a cite in a reliable source which describes such an activity as a meme, you've got no business calling it a meme anyway, since that's the very antithesis of WP:NOR. Steve block Talk 13:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's at least get my argument right. At no time am I, or to my knowledge, anyone else saying that we should ignore basic policy/guidelines regarding sources. Yes, WP:RS needs work, but that's outside of the realm of this discussion. The point of bringing up past AfDs in regards to the sourcing is to demonstrate that it largely has not been at issue in the discussions, and that notability, rather than verifiability, has been at the heart of the vast majority of editors' feelings on the matter. The point of WP:MEME, at least initially, was to come up with some sort of barometer to figure out what constitutes nobility for this type of medium, considering that there's a general consensus that memes be included, simply not how. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to how anything you just said addresses any point I made. There's no clear reason why this guideline doesn't apply to memes. It appears to do so, covering as it does internet content. Steve block Talk 13:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're formatting confused me, writing your reply to Aaron directly under mine as if a reply to it. To reply to your point that verifiability hasn't been an issue in any afds, at every afd you have pointyed me to it has, but that it hasn't been an area of the discussion you have participated in. However, I'm tired of going round in circles on this; we're too entrenched in our views to listen to each other. I've yet to be provided with an article which has been deleted but which met WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR so I can't see what people's concerns are. Steve block Talk 13:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think its fair to pretend the meme stuff on this page is a guideline. The meme stuff was added. This was notability (websites). The guideline tag was stretched too far-- for that reason, people refuse to bring up this page in AFD debates. As far as the claim that a few "good faith" AFD's would prove wrong the need for a seperate WP:MEMES page, I just want to say thats ridiculous-- the whole idea of good faith is you do things as you normally would, not to go out of your way to syntheticaly approach AFD's in a way that backs up your opinion on notability.--Urthogie 14:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I nominate things for deletion from time to time, when I see them and don't think they're salvagable. Were I to turn up such a page, concerning a meme, on a random article hit there's nothing bad faith in nominating it, that's my usual practise. As a point of order, I'm deliberately not doing so since this discussion began to avoid bad faith accusations. As to your point about this page not covering memes, as I've stated before, Misplaced Pages:Internet phenomena has been redirecting here since October 2005 and the guideline has always described itself as covering web content, the earliest form of this page, as seen in this link, states Articles on websites, forums, internet memes and flash animations appear regularly on VfD. That's from June 2005, so it's covered memes since its inception almost a year ago. I don't think it's fair to pretend the meme stuff was added, do you? Steve block Talk 16:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Added is a poor word. WP:WEB was a significantly different guideline back then, however. Since its massive overhaul (and a poor one at that, IMO, but I wasn't that involved in project pages at that stage of editing, sadly), the guideline no longer seems to really act as a worthwhile judge of this sort of medium. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Because? Steve block Talk 19:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The redirect was sent here when it dealt with websites. That made sense, and the rules were different. The guideline today did not appear to take memes into effect when trying to make a blanket web guideline, nor would it have, as nothing was merged here and memes on Misplaced Pages weren't as prevalent and sometimes-controversial --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, no, you're wrong, but what I really asked was "the guideline no longer seems to really act as a worthwhile judge of this sort of medium" because...? Steve block Talk 21:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

i'm wrong? So this guideline didn't change? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No fair, I asked first. I'm still waiting for you to answer why you stated "the guideline no longer seems to really act as a worthwhile judge of this sort of medium"? Do you a deal, you answer mine and then I'll answer yours. Steve block Talk 23:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Traffic ranking

I have seen traffic ranking mentioned in a number of deletion discussions as a reason to keep a website. Why is this not mentioned as a criteria? -- Barrylb 12:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Primarily because traffic ranking systems are both unreliable and arbitrary. I don't think Misplaced Pages should have a rule stating "You must have this many hits to ride". Nifboy 19:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand your feeling, however, this "notability" criterion is FAR too plastic...the requirement of media attention is far less objective than (for instance) Alexa's ranking in measuring the notability of, say, a wrestling fan-site, which may be found "not notable" due to snobbery rather than any NPOV. "Media buzz" the current 'gold standard' for notability, is (IMO) far more "unreliable" and "arbitrary." It's the "safety in numbers" game..."if the MEDIA says its important, we won't look like fools for saying its important..." Good ol' sheepthink, which grows more popular around here every time the media cracks a joke about the wiki... Bustter 17:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Even as an objective measurement of popularity, Alexa has some significant problems deriving from the generation of its statistics via a platform-specific browser add-on. People using Alexa on IE in Windows are, as a demographic, very unlikely to visit websites that specialize in other platforms, or even other browsers.--Santaduck 00:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarify application to USENET newsgroups

I've been participating in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling . It seems to me that WP:WEB is pretty well appropriate to evaluating USENET newsgroups, falling under the category of "Internet forums" and as "content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered."

Still, it would be helpful if this article had a few sentences saying in so many words that it applies to USENET, and dicussing any specific newsgroup-related issues. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• It would be useful. We also need to clarify exactly how Usenet counts towards verifiability and whether any Usenet groups qualify as reliable sources. Frankly, I would be reluctant in the case of most if not all newsgroups but I would be happy to listen to arguments. Capitalistroadster 18:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • As one who has seen many forged Usenet posts, I would strongly argue that Usenet posts (that are not digitally signed) are not reliable sources. But that's an argument for Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources. As far as notability of Usenet newsgroups is concerned, I would suggest that, although Internet is not the sole distribution medium for Usenet, WP:WEB is the best set of notability criteria to apply, and that the primary notability criterion works. If someone writes a FAQ about a newsgroup and faqs.org decides to publish that FAQ document, then (as long as the FAQ ocument has a decent "about this newsgroup" chapter) that is a non-trivial published work that is about the subject. Whereas a line in an "active" file is a mere directory listing, and not a non-trivial work; and thus newsgroups are not notable merely for someone having issued a "newgroup". See Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (AfD discussion), Alt.tv.real-world (AfD discussion), and Sci.psychology.psychotherapy (AfD discussion) for past applications of the primary notability criterion.

    Perhaps the addition of Rec.sport.pro-wrestling to footnote #5 is in order. Uncle G 09:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree, for three reasons. First, Usenet newsgroups (including alt groups) go through a creation process that serves, to some extent, as a filter. Websites do not have the benefit of that filter. Usenet newsgroups have some small claim to "notability" for the mere fact of surviving that process (vide alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork). Second, since traffic measurement is "hardwired" into Usenet, traffic is much more reliable as a measure of "notability" in Usenet. Third, while the media has a fair grasp of the web, media coverage of Usenet remains mostly as clueless today as it was in 1992. To make "media buzz" a criteria for the notability of a Usenet group is like asking the math department to deliver a list of the top forty hip-hop themes. Bustter 17:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Creation of "big five" hierarchy newsgroups require a vote (usually CFVs are via the services of a neutral 3rd party vote keeper) and there even exists an ardent community (much as at wikipedia) that patrols trivial attempts to create a new group. Failed attempts require a significant waiting period (6 mo.s?) before trying for creation again. That said, there are notable alt groups, and non-notable big-five groups. As for reliable sources, remember that Usenet predates the web, so esp. for archival content, it was (close to) the only publicly availble "online" source in the early 90's and before. Santaduck 00:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Expand The Criteria!!

Taken from the Misplaced Pages article Long Tail:

"In the same sense, the user-edited internet encyclopedia Misplaced Pages has many low popularity articles that, collectively, create a higher quantity of demand than a limited number of mainstream articles found in a conventional encyclopedia such as the Encyclopædia Britannica."

Websites of moderate popularity whose noterity is not nessacarily recognized by the mainstream media deserve to have articles in Misplaced Pages! Misplaced Pages exists to provide the long tail of encylopedic information.Britanica provides the mainstream stuff.

I move that mentions on blogs and discussion forums be included as legitimate references for WP:WEB, in lieu of the current focus on "published" works. All Non-trival works whose source is different from the website in question should be included.

Check out lostpedia's talk page for a real-world example of how WP:Web is failing. This is why Misplaced Pages needs to change its policy.

Where can go about lobbying for these changes?? --Wikipediastar 01:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, blogs and forums are easily spammed. It is quite simple for a single user to create an article and advertise it on hundreds of forums (Even creating hundreds of accounts to create the illusion of "discussion"). That single user can then turn around and say "Look at all these forum posts about X! X must be really popular!" Nifboy 03:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with the "anyone can make a blog" argument. But what about blogs published on websites of newspapers and magazines that are considered legitimate sources, written by regular columnists of those publications? I think there should be a standard which defines what makes a blog a legit source or not. If Roger Ebert makes a published film-related comment, is that comment valid if it's in the paper but not if it's in a blog (just an example, I know he doesn't have a blog)? Same goes for forums - increasingly we're seeing "official" forums that include participation from people who are considered experts in their field (at least when they publish on paper). --Milo H Minderbinder 20:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Change Notability Requirements for Wiki/MediaWiki Projects

For example, someone could conceivably nominate each of these for deletion now:

The_Psychology_Wiki, Jurispedia, Mac_Guide, Open_Source_Reiki, OpenFacts, OrthodoxWiki, PSConclave, PeanutButterWiki, Personal_Telco, ProductWiki, Quicksilver_wiki, Science_Fiction_and_Fantasy_Wiki, Star_Trek_Gaming_Universe, State_Wiki, and Symbolwiki.

In fact, the whole category that houses them, more or less, could be torched by someone bringing up Notability and WP:WEB for each article therein. What do you say? What is typically required to get a policy like this adjusted? I'd hate to see Misplaced Pages itself and maybe 4-5 other Wiki projects be qualified to be listed here... rootology 02:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I, quite frankly, am not convinced of why any of these should have their own articles. Almost all of them would work quite well as an external link at the bottom of the article on their subject matter. The most egregious example, Open Source Reiki, describes it as "modest" and states "It recently moved to its own domain name". Sounds like PROD candidacy to me. (Edit: Read all of them, and must revise my position; Symbolwiki is worse "The website the article talks about is now defunct", but PSConclave is by far the most awful, being dedicated to Pen spinning and claiming "120 legitimate content pages") Nifboy 03:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Is it supposed to be obvious that these articles shouldn't be deleted? I just read through all of Star Trek Gaming Universe, and I did not come away thinking this unreferenced article meets our content policies. -- Dragonfiend 03:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well this is the tip of the iceberg for borderline pages on WP based on WEB. We'd flood AfD unless the notability was expanded. Probably thousands of articles (let alone the Wiki ones). rootology 03:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're worried about flooding AfD with articles that are obviously unverified by reliable sources, then just WP:PROD them. -- Dragonfiend 03:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There being a lot really isn't an argument not to get rid of them - it's an argument to get rid of them in some sort of large, group AfD or several large, group AfDs - or Prod, as Dragonfiend suggests. -GTBacchus 03:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Whats the policy/method to this? rootology 04:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't be allowing original research, even if it is about a Wiki. That's called bias. --W.marsh 04:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've tagged a bunch of them as PROD, what are all of your thoughts? I labeled them as "Non notable subject matter, unsourced. WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEB not met.". Short list: Encyclopedia_Gamia, EditThis.info, Doom_Wiki, DKosopedia, BluWiki, AlacraWiki. The problem as I see it is that "media" generally don't cover these all, and likely never will. However, on the flip side, they ARE worthy of an encyclopedia entry, even if short, a stub, unsourced, not notable by WEB standards. It's no different how a legitimate entry on some random little river in South America, or some tiny little ghost town in Nevada has an entry--things like this are all out there. Why is the standard different for content simply because it's "online", as opposed to a physical thing that exists in real life? rootology 20:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

We require encyclopedia articles to be based on information verified in reliable sources because an unreliable encyclopedia is useless. We'd rather have no information on a topic than unreliable information. Also, nice job on PRODing those articles. -- Dragonfiend 02:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to bring folks up to speed on user Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s actions of late. His mass AfDing/PRODing campaign was essentially done to "illustrate a point" relative to this AfD of Encyclodpedia Dramatica. Please understand these actions in this light. Thanks. (→Netscott) 07:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that all small, irrelevant articles should be PROD'd to clean up the thousands of them lurking? Or should WEB change to accomodate what is a reality of the modern Internet? Scores of notable sites that get press, and notability, but not through standard media channels (which each year will factually grow more irrelevant)? rootology 02:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Except the internet at large is not a reliable source, and you would be hard-pressed to convince me otherwise. Nifboy 03:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Under the current standards no. That's why I'm bringing this up to see if it needs to be revisited. When were they last updated? rootology 04:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe I did not make myself understood: Using forums, blogs, and wikis as sources is a very bad idea, and standards that include them would be very low indeed. (Edit: My usual rule on sources is that I don't use sources I wouldn't use in a college freshman English paper. Relying on forums and blogs would guarantee I failed a high school paper. Our standards should be higher than that.) Nifboy 05:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's a fair enough viewpoint and I agree with this totally. What do you think of news sources that are 'niche', simply by virtue of covering more niche fields? Computer/computer science related, and related to the Internet specifically. All the hubbub on this from ED (again, for those just seeing me defend it--I got nothing to do with any of that, I stumbled upon that fracas and argued what seemed the right course of action then) got me thinking about this, as I'm putting together hopefully what could be a decent sized project. Some of the source material might not count as RS, which is another reason I'm bringing all this up. For example, just picking out two at random from the type of thing I usually read here: RFC 3951 which leads to . Similar would be things surrounding say the Hacker (computer security) article (look at the sources/magazines listed there). Or, issues related to relationships between various operating system companies and groups, their relationship with the government. I focused on the Wiki articles first as an easy example for clarification without getting this deep into it.

Short version: nearly all the sources for this sort of information generally fall outside the realm (far outside) of mainstream media. For many of these things, the only news sources are strictly online, in niche realms, even perhaps only via mail lists. Many news things come out/can be found via the NANOG mailist, but won't even ever reach any real 'media' or reference source beyond that, but are just as notable, when relating to things that are found "just online". This is why I'm wondering if perhaps the qualifications for subject matter strictly of an 'online' nature perhaps should be expanded. There is an ever dwindly supply of traditional media, due to loss of circulation at newspapers (just for starters) and more and more things move online. At the same time, news coverage expands each year to cover more and more things, but strictly "online". Another good example: comic books. How many print magazines are "about comics"? Comics Journal? Wizard? Most of the big news these days breaks first at places like Slush or Newsarama. Would they be valid (RS) sources?

That's the root of my concern--that a lot of sources which for 99% of the non-Wiki editor community would be a completely legitimate news or reference source, is excluded. Looking at the examples here:

• The webcomic When I Am King has been reviewed by The Guardian, Playboy, The Comics Journal, and Wired.
• The blog Daily Kos has been covered by Los Angeles Times, Time, The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, and The New York Times.

It would seem to raise the bar artificially high. A great many, many things that are "notable" online will never be covered by things that fall under the realm of "traditional" media, or media that is notable itself to a wide variety of the the population (unless I'm utterly misreading this, correct me if I'm wrong). This ranges from silly memes like Tubcat to serious matters on internet security that aren't picked by the mainstream, or the aforementioned Internet RFCs. It just seems... needless prohibitive for things of an online nature. rootology 08:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The RFCs themselves might be a great illustration of what I'm thinking about it. IANA may put out an RFC--they make up the groundwork of how the whole Internet is generally supposed to run. But for something that notable, where would you find RS that meets our current requirements for that kind of thing? IANA publishes/cites back to itself? Sorry if this sounds disjointed at all. rootology 08:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This conversation seems to crop up every so often. We've had it with "webcomics don't get covered by reliable sources," but then we discovered that they do. We had it with blogs and internet memes, and came to the same conclusion. I'm not sure where these conversations start, but they seem to start from an assumption that the people who create and fact-check traditional reliable sources don't have internet access or something. But then we do a little reseacrh and find out that people at The New York Times do read webcomics or whatever, and they do write about it. I'm not familiar enough with the VoIP issues you're talking about, but a quick search at my library shows plenty of artilces on the Business Wire and in Wireless Design & Development magazine. For example, articles like "GIPS iLBC First Speech Codec to be Standardized by the IETF for IP Telephony Solutions" and "Challenges for VoIP deployment in the enterprise." Also, take a close look at WP:RS; some online sources (those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, for example) are acceptable. Mainly what you can't do is use something a blogger wrote as if it's a reliable source for anything other than an article on the blog (which of course needs to be supported by relaible third-party sources to support the importance of the blog). -- Dragonfiend 15:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me dig around and compose my thoughts more, in light of your reply. And just so I'm clear, even blogs of accomplished and noted journalists fall under not meeting the RS requirement? Last, does circulation/distributation typically play a role in the reliability of a news source? When I say niche, for the online stuff, I mean niche. Vital importance to core parts of the underlying internet possibly, but stuff that say a 'normal' media source wouldn't touch unless there was a dead body involved. rootology 15:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Criteria - reference

As per the discussion at army.ca regarding deletion, the notion has been made that a site is used as a reference. Does the fact that a site is used by others in itself confer notability?Michael Dorosh 16:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Award examples

I've removed the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards as an example of "a well known and independent award." While it may be well-known among some web comics fans, I don't believe it is well-known in any general sense. Also, a WHOIS of ccawards.com shows that it is registered to Keenspot Entertainment, making it less than independent. -- Dragonfiend 22:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "well-known in any general sense"? Do you mean well-known within the context of the webcomic community, or within the context of the populations of first-world countries? -- Zeigfreid 03:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Although unfamiliar with this topic, I would lean toward keeping the award. WP:WEB needs more subgenre-specific notability criteria, as are being covered by the wikiprojects linked at the top of this page. Adding a subgenre-specific award to the category of awards would be one plausible way. --Santaduck 21:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The Web Cartoonist's Choice Award would fall under self-promotional and not independent by any stretch of the imagination. Anybody can make up their own award, and that's what they did. Anyone hoping to justify an article here needs something more than that, as it falls squarely in line with examples in the guidelines of people making their own sites to promote themselves... would need to be some other, well-repected and truly indpendent source. 172.130.239.49 19:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Stupid

There isn't a solid way to verify something on the net. Thousands of interesting articles get deleted everyday by the wikinazis.

I'm sorry

I was just trying to show you the website. Because when I clicked on the name of the website it wouldn't come up. So I was just trying to make it easier for you! Sorry!

Podcasts

I've noticed that there might be a lack of suffucient criteria relevant to podcats in this parent area of WP:WEB. Disadvantages to listing podcasts as notable:

1. As podcasting are a relatively new medium, notability of such alternate media via coverage in traditional media (e.g. wall street journal) is handicapped. And although admittedly blogs have recently garnered wider traditional press, podcasts have not.
2. WP:WEB notes that Category:Awards may suggest notability, but there are no podcast-specific award categories, (and if any are added, they should be added to WP:WEB IMHO).
3. Traffic ranking sites such as Alexa (used in older versions of WP:WEB) also do not accurately reflect podcast traffic, which may be directly downloaded by music applications rather than web browsers.
   

In general, I am left wondering if discussion for a WP:PODCAST , or a Wikiprojects for Podcasts (following those for blogging and webcomics, at the top of this page) would be of merit. Otherwise for the time being, adding some podcast-specific awards categories, or an alternative podcast-specific criterion (e.g., iTunes podcast Top 100 ranking), may be of merit. (Note: Actively participating in meta-wiki areas of WP is relatively unfamiliar for me, so if these opinions are totally off-base, my apologies). --Santaduck 21:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

To give you a little background, WP:MEME tried this exact argument with internet memes and failed miserably. WP:WEB is just a codification of key unmutable policy WP:V: Articles must be verifiable using reliable sources. Trying to set the bar lower than that, by creating exceptions, doesn't work. Nifboy 21:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Nifboy. I'm simply unfamiliar with how 'notability' interacts with reliable sources, which are skewed toward citation of information (as opposed to a measurement of a datum). Popularity of websites or podcasts by independent measures might be a measure of notability but veers close to an editor doing independent research. But if that is not an issue, then is 'viewership' (i.e. popularity) a common-sensical measure of notability for a podcast? If so, then it would be useful to research such measures (e.g. itunes ranking, parallel to a billboard ranking for songs), and explicitly list them. If not, then notability leans more toward broad cultural influence, for example of the sort that would result in a news article in traditional media( e.g., "podcast X incites riot", "podcast Y sued for indecency", "podcast Z investigated for release of state secrets", etc. ). Could you quickly fill me in on these issues (balance between an objective popularity measure vs. broad cultural influence) with regard to podcasts? Thanks! Perhaps I'm just barking up the wrong tree here. --Santaduck 02:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There's an essay on notability, if you're interested. Long story short, notability is very much an importance/influence question, not a popularity contest. WP:WEB once had an Alexa requirement back when it was the Webcomics Notability Guideline, which we eventually decided was entirely too arbitrary to be useful. Nifboy 03:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, I appreciate it. I'll read that article, but already you've cleared up the big issues for me. --Santaduck 00:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Podcasts do get mentioned and discussed in the media, The Guardian, for example, discusses them irregularly. It's often argued that foo doesn't generate any discussion in mainstream media, but this is always proved a fallacy. Often, what people really mean is that my favourite foo hasn't been mentioned in a reliable source and yet it deserves an article. Sadly, nothing deserves an article on Misplaced Pages unless it is verifiable. The Official OverClocked ReMix Podcast is reviewed in "Critic's choice" The Independent (London); Aug 29, 2006; Robert Moss; p. 19, for example. Steve block Talk 13:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this a guideline?

Hi, I'm wondering if the editors of this page consider this to be a full guideline. The tag at the top is different from more accepted guidelines, and that makes me wonder. One thing i'm proposing is that you use the Template:guideline, rather than the tag you have now. Please discuss it here (i'll be posting this message on other pages that have this same tag). Thanks! Fresheneesz 20:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Style guidelines also use a different guideline template. Doesn't make them any less of a guideline, though. Nifboy 21:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't, apparently. But i'm asking because I see this as dubious. Should I take your sarcasm as a "yes, yes this is a guideline"? Fresheneesz 07:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That was sarcasm? It read like a pretty clear "yes, it's a guideline" to me... -GTBacchus 08:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely no sarcasm intended; yes, these (both notability and the MOS) are guidelines. I'm still not sure what, exactly, caused any doubt about this, but there it is. Nifboy 16:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, would it be prudent to put the Template:guideline on the top rather than the one thats there? I am not sure of the utility of having two separate tags for things that basically have the same stutus. I would say that while style guides are guidelines, they don't really have the same status since they are about style rather than about the inclusion of information. Fresheneesz 21:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

As has already been mentioned, we use different tags to tag our guidelines to contextualise what the guideline refers to. For another example beyond the notability guidelines and the manual of style, see the individual naming conventions. Steve block Talk 21:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it can't be a full-on guideline because it's a notability standard, and notability is rather clear in regards to deletion. And yes, it's sly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would a guideline like this refer to a proposal? Fresheneesz 01:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a proposal last I checked. I see it is now. Hm. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the core of the confusion is that notability almost exclusively applies to article deletion, and on any given day AFD may or may not be a psychotic seven-headed hydra that has no regard for the rules whatsoever. Certainly, at no point in time will notability ever be policy, with the implication that we categorically reject any and all content that doesn't pass muster (although it would certainly save AFD a lot of headache). Nifboy 18:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Change template

The template should not refer to WP:NN, thus we should change the template to the regular Template:Guideline. Personally, I disagree with this page becomming guideline - and I don't see any consensus gathering to make it so. Someone just decreed it "in common use". Fresheneesz 20:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Games distributed exclusively on the Internet

Would games distributed exclusively over the Internet (specifically fangames) be subject to WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE (or either or both)? Jeff Silvers 00:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• I believe they presently fall under WP:WEB, but that's imply because it's the older of the two guidelines. It would be in the wiki's best interest if the guidelines matched on this point. >Radiant< 22:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Fangames tend to do exceedingly poorly at AfD almost regardless of any other consideration; I highly recommend having a pile of good sources. Nifboy 22:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah, fangames tend to be self-published which tends to fall under vanity. >Radiant< 23:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• WP:SOFTWARE is still a proposal, so WP:WEB would be the best one to use. That said, they are pretty similar in their criteria. Steve block Talk 15:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

AtomFilms

Hello, I am trying to figure out if a site like would be grouped in with a site like Newgrounds and not be counted towards making web content notable if it is hosted their. Please note that AtomFilms does not allow instant uploading and only high quality flash is allowed and they pay the author to have a non-exclusive license. --Simonkoldyk 01:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Content distribution

In this AfD a matter of content distribution came up. The only example we give is a blog syndicated on a news site (backed up by a newspaper). How about file content on a site? Newgrounds wouldn't count, as the files are user submitted. How about download.com? Gamespot? There are potentially lots of files that would get past WP:SOFTWARE and WP:WEB by this criterion alone, and I'm a little bit apprehensive about this (I'm not sure about how the standards for content are handled at download.com and gamespot). ColourBurst 17:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Anything self-published (such as on any fileserver) doesn't count as "having a publisher" and is generally non-notable. >Radiant< 17:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Educational sites

I see room here for an extra clause covering sites that hold free and editable educational content, to that extent in line with Misplaced Pages's mission, but perhaps not complying with one or two of the core principles -- somehow POV, or allowing OR.

This kind of site should have a lower barrier for inclusion; a certain length of time online, with growing community; some indication that it is one of the main sources for free or editable content on a subject. A recent example is the nominally educational anarchopedia, whose other language verisons meet notability standards in their wikipedias, but which has come under fire on this one.

+sj + 21:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think at one point there was a proposal for Wikis in general, and that was very handily shot down (WP:ASR, for one). The determinants you suggest were discarded long ago for websites in general. That Encyclopædia Dramatica was ultimately put down is another example of this. Nifboy 22:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Anything free and editable is probably not a good source unless it has a strong WP:CITE-like policy. This is roughly the reason why blogs aren't generally good sources either. >Radiant< 07:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nifboy -- Right. I would classify these both under the same guidelines; and think that we should reconsider ED at some point. But an educational and multilingual mission should could for a good deal.

Radiant -- I am not talking about something being "a good source" -- we have articles about many sites which are absolutely not good sources, but are widely known or otherwise important in popular culture. I am talking about what makes something notable or useful enough for Misplaced Pages to include a description of it. +sj + 05:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, I see. For web-related matters, the google test tends to do the trick. >Radiant< 08:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

StrategyWiki

I was curious if the website would be considered notable enough to merit an article. It's been referenced by Kotaku, joystiq.com and a few other places. I think it's noted attempt to gain some of the attention that GameFAQs has is worth mentioning, and of course the fact that almost all video game guides from wikibooks were moved there (although I don't know if that's "notable" enough). I put it here because I'm a contributing member at strategywiki and I'd rather the community here come to a conclusion on it's notability before I attempt to start up an article that would be deleted anyway :). Chris M. 02:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Keenspot

While I'm loath in some qways to re-open this discussion, it was never fully resolved before. It's also been raised at Talk:Goblins (webcomic): Does Keenspot in of itself satisfy the "The content is distributed via a site etc." criterion? - brenneman 06:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• No, being published on a site like Keenspot does not mean that "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators." Keenspot is not well known by any stretch. If it were, reliable third-party sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.) would notice the things that it publishes. It's also not independent of every comic that it publishes; its article plainly states that it is run by some of its cartoonists. -- Dragonfiend 16:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keenspot is very well known as a comic distributor online, however. I think it should satisfy it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • And this is precisely why we never finished this discussion. Nifboy 23:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• For all practical intents and purposes, this AfD of Sorcery 101 tells me that, although it is mildly controversial, Keenspot by itself is not enough to save a comic's article. Nifboy 23:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • ...only because there's no difinitive answer regarding Keenspot. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That's because there is nothing definitive about Keenspot. It lies in a vague grey area, and therefore Keenspot membership isn't something that should be relied on to save an article from AfD. Nifboy 00:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll be honest, I'm not sure what's so vague about it. To quote the footnote to the relevant section, "Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless...Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial." Keenspot is not like GeoCities or Newgrounds, that's what their Comic Genesis thing is for. Keenspot hosting is certainly not trivial in the sense that anyone can be hosted there (like Geocities, YouTube, Newgrounds), and given that they only host approximately 50 comics, we're not in any danger of a deluge. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
        • What I'd like to get out of this is some more objective' way for us to make the determination. Most of my favorite comics were on Keenspot at one time. All of them now satisfy other criterion, having been published in dead tree form. So clearly Keenpsot means something.
          brenneman 00:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I promise I'm not being difficult when I say this, but "Keenspot qualifies" is objective via the criteria. It's a noted third party distributor of web content, and it isn't trivial in that you can't just be any schmo who draws pretty pictures to be hosted via Keenspot. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
        • It's vague because there isn't a whole lot of WP:V going on in the world of webcomics, in general. Even if you were to accept that all Keenspot comics meet WP:WEB, you still have to meet WP:V, which has been emphasized much more (both in AfD and elsewhere) than it was a year ago. Nifboy 04:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Well known..."

I'm not a good sample, but Keenspot in this arena is clearly well known. The question is do we mean "well known" like New York Times well known or more like Poynter Online well known? (That had better be a blue link.) The "average" person would never have heard of it, but there is little question that amoung journalists it is well known. - brenneman 04:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you have to judge it in the context of the medium it's providing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should continue with this guideline reading, "well known" rather than "well known to an online subculture." "Well known to an online subculture" is not a verifiable standard for "notability." -- Dragonfiend 16:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"and independent of the creators..."

This one looks fuzzy to me. (Just to be clear: I didn't raise this because I want to delete the circa fifty comics from KeenSpot.) - brenneman 04:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Keenspot is a distributor, and they're different from who writes the comics. As far as I know, that's always been the case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As mentiond above, Keenspot is clearly not independent of everybody "who writes the comics" as it is founded and being run by some of the people who create comics for them. For further discussion of this and the "well known" issue, see the aforementioned Sorcery 101 AfD as well as the Crazy in Love AfD. -- Dragonfiend 16:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Keenspot emphasis

I think the major problem currently is that Keenspot and its ilk are overrepresented compared to other notable webcomics, and this has partly to do with the demographics of Misplaced Pages editors. By which I mean Derek Kirk Kim has only a mid-length article on himself, not on his comic, and he won 3 industry awards over the length of a year or two. Takehiko Inoue, who's a relatively famous mangaka has an even shorter article. When I am King, something that's been had newspaper articles written about it, is shorter than most webcomic articles period. {{Sofixit}}, but it's hard to fix systemic bias. This is combined with the WP:ILIKEIT arguments presented in quite a few webcomic AfDs. But I do want to say one thing, even if Keenspot is notable, Comics Genesis' comics are not by themselves satisfactory, as their criteria is more indiscriminate. (P.S. I do want to know where Keenspot's third-party reliable sources are, because they're not in the article.) ColourBurst 21:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

How do larger articles about less notable things damage or cheapen Derek Kirk Kim or When I am King? What are you talking about when you say "overrepresentation", unless you mean that the depth and extent of an article should be limited by the prominence of its subject? What's wrong with the present situation? --Kizor 03:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

My personal experience is that anyone attempting to use Misplaced Pages as a reference for webcomics has to wade through so much unverifiable, non-notable vanity and fancruft as to make the encyclopedia near worthless. I shouldn't have to read article after article on the blood types of various megaman sprites before I find out which webcomic became the first graphic novel to win a National Book Award, for example. Things have been getting much better in recent months, however, as more emphasis is placed on verifiable information from reliable sources and we see less discussion on how "we should have an article on every keenspace comic" or "we should have an article on every webcomic that manages to update 100 times." -- Dragonfiend 03:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It has to do partially with WP:CSB (people tend to think article size and article quality are indicators of notability, but casual editors which WP is mostly composed of only edit things close to them, and this creates a demographic bias), and partially to do with WP:ILIKEIT (I realize that one's an essay, but part of the argument is "It doesn't do any harm". Actually unsourced material does do harm... This means it's entirely possible that the information could be completely false, and spreading disinformation is always harmful. Adding companies or bands who don't meet the criteria, meanwhile, could give them undue prominence and thus harm their competitors.) Misplaced Pages has a lot of hits now, and there are quite a few people who understand this, including people trying to raise their profile. ColourBurst 04:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion and web notability criteria

What is the hurdle for speedy deletion with regard to web content whose article does not assert its importance? In the WP:BIO guidelines, any claim which is perceived as one toward notability makes the article ineligible for speedy deletion. What is the hurdle with web content? Can an article on a blog be speedily deleted for not meeting the notability criteria, or only for not asserting that it meets the notability criteria? —C.Fred (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the difference is between an article that doesn't meet the notability criteria and one that doesn't assert that it meets the notability criteria. Do you have a particular article in mind? -- Dragonfiend 19:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• • I am assuming that Cfred has the article Michael Rivero in mind, since the argument he is putting forward was made by me there in defense of the article's inclusion. Tiamut 19:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• First, Rivero would be under WP:BIO and not WP:WEB, and he would not be speedy-able because the article made the assertion that he's notable.

The specific example I was thinking of was My Left Wing. An article was set up for both the blog and its creator. The blog's article was speedied, but the creator's can't be, because the claim of importance is made, that she was a talk radio guest and hosts a blog. The blog made similar claims of being featured in the Post, yet it was speedied. Am I to understand, then, that even if the article for Some Random Blog claims to be popular and meet the web notability criteria, but it is found to not meet it, it can go ahead and be speedied? —C.Fred (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for the incorrect assumption. Tiamut 22:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Podcasts (again)

I have a question. Are articles on an individuals podcast now being allowed? Searching Misplaced Pages I have found several entries devoted to specific podcasts. Do they now meet the same web notability criteria as many blogs? Buster 20:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe podcasts follow the notability criteria as all other web content. If they meet the criteria, they're in. If not they're out. ColourBurst 02:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:WEB and content distribution

I have placed a question on the village pump regarding content distribution. Please comment. ColourBurst 21:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion Requested

I like to know if anyone has any comments of improvement to make the following edit better: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Notability_%28web%29&diff=86676826&oldid=86675421. FactsOnly 09:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a step backwards. I have expressed my opinion: now have the patience to wait and see what others think. --Francis Schonken 08:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can edit my changes if they feel a certain word is more appropriate, and I would be fine with that as long as they provide good reasons.

How is it "a step backwards"? You have absolutely no support on how this is "a step backwards." I do not believe you are a very good judge of my edits or of me by stating "now have the patience to wait and see what others think." Even when I fixed whatever issues you had, you still reverted my edits repeatedly. Don't you have the patience to realize that many people will not have a problem with harmless edits, and if they do, they can simply suggest improvements and edit my changes.

I have stated I would fix anything you did not agree with, though you would need to tell me precisely what it is that troubles you so greatly with this revision. I had edited the proper names as you wished and see no other concerns. Again, if there are, I am happy to hear them and fix them, so the revision can be pleasing to you, Francis Schonken; instead, you have chose not to reply with which edits troubles you on my talk page even while I have been contacting you on yours requesting exactly that.

Can you specify prior to reverting multiple times? FactsOnly 09:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"have the patience to wait and see what others think" seems perfectly clear to me. --Francis Schonken 10:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think it futile to reason and communicate with you, when you stubbornly said the same old thing without considering what I wrote. FactsOnly 11:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, my $.2 on the differences... linking to the list of policies isn't very useful, we should link to specific policies. Other than that, I don't see any real difference other than some bits of layout and a few minor tweaks in wording, and I have no real opinion on that either way. >Radiant< 12:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, if you perfer to link to specific policies, I will do that and keep that in mind for the future. FactsOnly 12:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)