Unpopular opinion: the only rule for having a Wikipedia page about a topic should be : "Would someone in the world ever look for information about this topic on Wikipedia?"
The reason why some zealots try to remove "non-notable enough" pages is because they think it is a badge of honor to be on Wikipedia.
The reason why it is a badge of honor is because some zealots spend their time removing pages considered "non-notable enough".
@williampietri why is desire for a page not enough?
Wikipedia used to be about finding knowledge in a community. I used to be able to start a topic, find someone else to expand, add more sources myself later.
Now I have to prove that the topic is worthy, that myself is worthy to write about it and I have to create a perfect article on my own just to escape deletion.
While seeing that other pages somehow are allowed to be not perfect.
@thierna What part of "We at least need enough verifiable, reliably sourced information to make a page that's trustworthy and worth reading." do you disagree with and why?
@wonka @thierna @williampietri On wikias outside of Wikipedia, stubs are useful - indications of "There is a thing, but we don't have reliable and verifiable information about it. Please help us find more reliable information about it, if verifiable.".
The absence of information can be helpful.
@wonka @thierna @williampietri The immediate example that comes to mind is disputing misinformation; you could have a page titled "Evidence that the Earth is Flat", and then have it be a stub saying "There is no reliable and verifiable information that the Earth is flat. Did you mean the article 'The Earth is Round?'.
Then let the Flat Earthers *try* to edit that stubbed page, and you have one page to reject edits from or revert.
@wonka @williampietri
let me ask you,
what counts as enough?
is it one book, one published scientific article, one newspaper mention? does it need to be all of the above?
I have started some articles with a couple of those, provided links for articles or books from authors
and then I was told that this is not enough.
oddly this is mostly the case for female authors or scientists.
I have seen many male people on wikipedia who did not have more sources than what I provided.
@thierna I don't know what should be "enough". I do know though that just "desire for a page" without any verifiable source about the subject cannot be "enough", because that would violate the sensible and necessary rule of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANo_original_research.
@thierna Demanding a higher standard for articles about women than for articles about men is obviously gender-based discrimination and must be rejected.
@wonka @thierna Yeah, I'm certainly not defending Wikipedia as perfect. As structured, it creates a lot of bad experiences for well-meaning editors. It's especially bad at the margins, because different volunteers will legitimately view marginal cases differently.
My main point is that proposals for change will never make a difference unless they understand both the drivers of inclusion and the drivers of deletion.
@thierna @williampietri And then the German Wikipedia has a book-long document with "relevant criteria" (Relevanzkriterien) for what is allowed in the German WP ...
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Relevanzkriterien
I've ran more than once into that, and gave up at some point.
@williampietri @pozorvlak @ploum
You're muddying the waters.
This isn't about "new pages", this is about existing pages that contain verified and well-sourced information that are being deleted because they're "not notable".
The standard of "notability" means that I *regularly* go back to pages because I'm someone in the world who was looking for information on the topic in Wikipedia, and some zealot has rushed it through deletion because they decided it was "not notable".
No, I'm not muddying the waters, and if you want to remain unblocked, you'll ease off on the allegations.
I agree there are problems with the notability standard, sometimes big ones. But the proposed "only rule" above just isn't enough. There are an ocean of people who believe their beloved thing belongs in Wikipedia and are eager to create a page and then wander off. Pages created in Wikipedia must be good for readers and the encyclopedia as a whole while being maintainable by the long-term contributors who do most of the work.
Wikipedia is stochastic. It's a text-based MMORPG that happens to produce a free encyclopedia as a side effect. I agree it's bad when good niche pages go missing, and I agree that zealots can be a problem, but they are also a huge labor pool.
If you think you have a better approach, feel free to give it a go, but I again suggest spending a week on NPP to get a sense of why Wikipedia works as it does.
@williampietri @pozorvlak @ploum
Oh jeeze, simmer down. This isn't about page creation and turning it around and making it about page creation totally changes the subject. Pick a less annoying term for changing the subject like that, but, again, jeeze.
Edit: Yay, my first block from someone who missed the point and doubled down.
@lyda I can tell you from experience that its a great tactic to combat spam.
I run my own community edited Wikipedia like platform, it has zero pages on my local computer without internet access.
I've yet to encounter a single troll or spam
@pozorvlak @ploum
@dalias @ploum Well, from the Horses mouth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability "We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention."
Of course there may be cases of overzealousness, but this is the official position, and from my experience this is usually followed.
@StephanSchulz @dalias @ploum The problem with their "notability" standard is that it wants broad geographic coverage. This means that someone who was absolutely outstanding in a region, but who eschewed doing all the crap you need to do for "fame" can't get on Wikipedia.
I'm trying to do a page on Neal Gladstone, and they're hammering me with "notability." You can't listen to "Sleep Neat" and not think it's notable! https://youtu.be/e02w8FevlfI?si=DMJkCY-PKHAb-Fqd
I got hold of his scrapbook. There's actual physical newspaper articles about him. I like using them for references, as no one is going to click on them and argue with me. :-)
@ploum I've had people fight tooth and nail to remove single paragraphs I've written, where I can't be bothered to find a high-quality non-primary source.
My metric for editing wikipedia is "it was a pain to find this information the first time"
@ploum heh. I had a Wikipedia page for something like 14 years. It was kind of embarrassing when it came out and I used to joke about it, but once when I went to show it to somebody it had been deleted.
The reason? Apparently I’m a “run of the mill person”
It’s something a wear as a badge of honor.
@ploum The reason why some critics of arts & culture put down artists and authors they deem not worthy is because they think it is a badge of honor to be an artist.
The reason why it is a badge of honor is because some critics spend their time disparaging artists considered not worthy.
Et voila, we have built an industry of arts piblications, galleries and critics.
Non-notable is abused on Wikipedia for sure, but people should be allowed to request pages about themselves get removed for non-notability with a high threshold for ignoring that request.
@ploum Est omnino difficile iudicare inclusionis meritum cuiusdam rei in encyclopædia cum ratio sciendi quid populi referat incerta sit, sed nihilominus aliquid encyclopædiam dedecet.
@ploum there may be issues checking for spam or disinformation and I find it very annoying when I have to scroll through a long list of obscure persons for the one famous; counterexample: "wagner" redirects to richard wagner, I need two clicks to get to alex wagner, her article doesn't slow my thirst for musical knowledge - so why not?
so there may be some problems, but they're all solveable.
so exclusionism seems to be living in the past when an encyclopedia still had to be printed
@ploum Sure, some, but an overwhelming minority. The majority of editors I’ve worked with are trying to uphold the quality of articles over quantity. We have to have standards of some sort.
Following your proposed criteria would be a lot of new pages! I worry it would put the trust folks have in Wikipedia at risk. Citations are the most important part Wikipedia articles. It’s how you know something isn’t just made up by a “zealot” :p
@ploum Agreed.
I created the original incarnation of this page, after being shocked that no one had beat me to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebChat_Broadcasting_System
At one point, it was taken down for alleged copyright infringement, but I was able to prove that the accuser was the infringing party because the page predated their "proof." 😂
ploum
cognitively accessible math
Pozorvlak
William Pietri
Thierna
Wilfried Klaebe
Alexander The 1st
Willy (they/them)
Andreas Scherbaum
Resuna
Sally Strange
Kevin Lyda
CodexNotFound
🪨
Stephan Schulz
Cassandrich
Jan Steinman
Nova
echarlie
Tarus BALOG
Cluster Fcku
Eli the Bearded
David Glover-Aoki
scriptjunkie
Paul Martin
Moved to @
Androcat
Michael Sumner
Odradek
Misuse Case
Moose Jolly Holcomb
Chris Koerner
Matthew Turland
Rbowen
Dan Sugalski
Remy Rose
sleepfreeparent