|
Discussions in this subforum are hidden from search engines.
However, they are not hidden from automobile engines, including the newer, more "environmentally-friendly" electric and hybrid engines. Also, please note that this subforum is meant to be used for discussion of the actual biographical articles themselves; more generalized discussions of BLP policy should be posted in the General Discussion or Bureaucracy forums.
|
|
Redirects and BLP |
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 30th April 2010, 6:27pm) QUOTE(Tarc @ Fri 30th April 2010, 2:23pm)
Isn't that kinda bad though? What we're saying really is that in one form it is disallowed, but in this other form it is ok, and the only reason it is ok for the latter is for user navigation.
We've carved a loophole in policy for the sake of readability, and I dunno, but I'm finding a problem with that.
NEO is meant to prevent articles on new words that haven't entered the common lexicon and wouldn't pass DICDEF. Has nothing to do with redirects. As long as redirects are in the article section I would think that redirects are articles too. Apply it and block anyone who disagrees (standard admin protocol). If anyone asks, say you were [[WP:BOLD]]ly applying standards against [[WP:Tendentious editing]] by people who were violating [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]] and they possibly made a few [[WP:NLT]] violations. But seriously, just delete the redirect and salt.
|
|
|
|
Tarc |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined:
Member No.: 5,309
|
QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 30th April 2010, 2:27pm) QUOTE(Tarc @ Fri 30th April 2010, 2:23pm)
Isn't that kinda bad though? What we're saying really is that in one form it is disallowed, but in this other form it is ok, and the only reason it is ok for the latter is for user navigation.
We've carved a loophole in policy for the sake of readability, and I dunno, but I'm finding a problem with that.
NEO is meant to prevent articles on new words that haven't entered the common lexicon and wouldn't pass DICDEF. Has nothing to do with redirects. /sigh Can you not do any better than a wiki-semantics rationale?
|
|
|
|
Apathetic |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 594
Joined:
Member No.: 7,383
|
QUOTE(Tarc @ Fri 30th April 2010, 3:48pm)
/sigh
Can you not do any better than a wiki-semantics rationale?
/shrug It's true. See the topical example at Wikipedia:Redirect#Neutrality_of_redirectsThis post has been edited by Apathetic:
|
|
|
|
Apathetic |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 594
Joined:
Member No.: 7,383
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 30th April 2010, 3:56pm) QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 30th April 2010, 7:34pm)
It looks like more than a flash in the pan to me, and has hardly disappeared...
According to who? There is little mention of it at all in the US, and even the UK papers only made a big deal about it for a day then it trailed off quite quickly. There is far more mention of gaffs Bush or Obama made and I can point out how they lack pages. This is only being mentioned on Wikipedia because it is a game for political people to promote their agenda during election times. Ban them all. Well, there's still news on it being printed as we speak and some are saying it's "the" incident of the election.
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
|
|
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 30th April 2010, 2:30pm) Just curious, but why is this getting any prominence on Wikipedia? It was a non story and disappeared after a day. This is why I want to impose that rule that nothing can be written on until after a month has passed. That way, people who were so overly enthusiastic have moved to their new pet project and the encyclopedia stays encyclopedic. Whether or not it's a non-story, imposing some sort of "delayed gratification" rule would be extremely beneficial for WP in terms of quality improvement, which is why they're not going to do it. (That, and the fact that they'd find it a difficult rule to enforce.) Personally, I'd make it three months, though even a week would be better than nothing. The fact is, most people are actually very polite, and don't want to "mess with" someone else's work, much less fight over it - even if that work is a paragraph written in the midst of a confusing media circus, based on scant or even false information. The mess is created up front, and then someone always has to clean it up. But hey, as long as a few people register new accounts to get their digs in and (in the process) pump up those monthly recruitment numbers, it's all good, eh?
|
|
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 30th April 2010, 8:33pm) NPR is a niche news group that has a tiny audience. It is not representative of US media. QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 30th April 2010, 8:58pm) QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 30th April 2010, 4:26pm)
Then it could deserve a wonderful one line mention of it on the page about the election and be done with it.
But not a useful navigational redirect from the name the media has given to it (which has already generated over 36,500 ghits) ? Google hits get blogs and the rest. It is a bs term, as well as anything with "gate" behind it (besides Watergate, and then that kinda had to have it). It is a big "no one really cares". QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 30th April 2010, 9:29pm) Whether or not it's a non-story, imposing some sort of "delayed gratification" rule would be extremely beneficial for WP in terms of quality improvement, which is why they're not going to do it. (That, and the fact that they'd find it a difficult rule to enforce.)
Personally, I'd make it three months, though even a week would be better than nothing. The fact is, most people are actually very polite, and don't want to "mess with" someone else's work, much less fight over it - even if that work is a paragraph written in the midst of a confusing media circus, based on scant or even false information. The mess is created up front, and then someone always has to clean it up. But hey, as long as a few people register new accounts to get their digs in and (in the process) pump up those monthly recruitment numbers, it's all good, eh?
Hell, 48 hours would be enough to cool off some of the people who need to "post it now". It would definitely help when posting about people's deaths beyond stating the date. I think an easy way to fix one of Wiki's BLP problems is to deny notability unless something has been published by a legitimate critical publisher. Putting the minimum quite low (say, one publication by a legitimate critical publisher), that would destroy everything that is solely found in newspapers. Books are published quite quickly on political matters (I'd say, 6 month delay). Someone like Obama would have one book published early on which would allow the rest. But spin offs would be denied unless they had a book devoting something to it. But the word "notability" on Wiki has nothing to do with the dictionary definition, so I doubt that will ever happen.
|
|
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 30th April 2010, 10:35pm) QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 30th April 2010, 5:52pm) NPR is a niche news group that has a tiny audience. It is not representative of US media. Reuters carried it. CBS News carried it. The Washington Post carried it. USA Today carried it. MSNBC carried it. Shall I go on? Carried what, exactly? More than a mention? There is no real detail to squeeze out on this issue. I have pages and pages devoted to tiny poems written by people who died hundreds of years ago published by major world class universities. There is no real comparison. Hell, the Elegy page didn't exist until just recently. There should be priorities.
|
|
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 30th April 2010, 10:55pm) QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 30th April 2010, 6:45pm) QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 30th April 2010, 10:35pm) QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 30th April 2010, 5:52pm) NPR is a niche news group that has a tiny audience. It is not representative of US media. Reuters carried it. CBS News carried it. The Washington Post carried it. USA Today carried it. MSNBC carried it. Shall I go on? Carried what, exactly? More than a mention? There is no real detail to squeeze out on this issue. Carried the story as an headlined item or article. See for yourself.I don't see anything there to suggest it was 1. independent from Brown, 2. from the campaign, or 3. warranted its own page. Sorry, but based on that rationale, every time two politicians meet it should have its own page, which is ridiculous. By the way, read your own damn link. Most of that was from blogs. Opinion pieces and blogs are not news. Number one: Huffington Post (blog). Number two: Reuters UK (blog). That just shows how worthless the story is. The fourth link is to a youtube short mention. None of them spent more than a sentence or two as the articles focused primarily on the campaigns or poll numbers. By the way, there is news all the time just like this. That is why Wikipedia has "Not News". And
|
|
|
|
Tarc |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined:
Member No.: 5,309
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 30th April 2010, 6:35pm) QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 30th April 2010, 5:52pm) NPR is a niche news group that has a tiny audience. It is not representative of US media. Reuters carried it. CBS News carried it. The Washington Post carried it. USA Today carried it. MSNBC carried it. Shall I go on? Sourcing is not why I brought this up in the first place. Here, less me draw a picture. bigot ------------------------------------------------> Gillian DuffyHaving that arrow on the Wikipedia does more harm than good. When the arrow is an article, i.e. "bigoted woman incident", it is easy to slice. When it is a redirect, i.e. "bigotgate" ? Slicing it is a hell of a lot more difficult. I'm bothered by the discrepancy.
|
|
|
|
Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
|
Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
|
Most newspapers, even newspapers of record, stopped carrying just news a long time ago.
The internet is causing their demise. So is the ensuing atrophy of budgeting and wages. Especially, or example, of foreign correspondents.
So, here the Pee-dia is tripping itself up yet again, ignoring that not all "reliable sources" are reliable, not all data in "reliable sources" are of archive quality. And the average ignoramus or POV grinder on the Wikipedia has no way, nor any incentive, to know or learn the difference.
I have seen this many times where something is quoted because it came from a "reliable sources" but reading it makes it clear that it is nothing more than an op-ed or lightweight "funny" column padder. Not news at all. I have dealt with the media from both sides. Its a screw up.
Here too one has to apply a different filter because of the political biasing going on during an election time.
Do Presidents and Prime Ministers say "bad words"? Of-fucking-course they have throughout all history. Are many of their electorate uneducated, ignorant and bigoted? ... Of-fucking-I-blame-the-bloody-Blacks/Jews/Pole/Irish/Gays/etc-course they are. This woman was.
So what you have is a strong resonance go on between those of a similar demographic and class in both the general media and the Pee-dia; snarky, conceited, pseudo-intellectual middle class WASPs who social climbing is largely based on their successful attempts at pulling other people above them down. And teenagers trying to be like them, the Pee-dia become a school debating club.
This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
What's with moving the goal posts? I pointed out that NPR carried the story. You pooh-poohed that, saying NPR had a small audience. Then I point out that major mainstream news outlets also carried it as well (and not just on their associated blogs). Reuters carried it both ways. If I knew how to tell Google to omit the blogs, I'd do that for you so your eyes wouldn't have to do the work to skip over them. With over 2000 media sites carrying the story, you will find many small media outlets in the list. But the big mainstream news media carried it too. I could care less whether WP includes it in an article on Brown or in a related article. The only point I cared to make, Jeff, is that the story of his open-mike gaffe was carried worldwide by mainstream news media. Here's a few more... BBC News. Sydney Morning Herald. Wall Street Journal. UK Telegraph. Business Week. CBC (Canada). Etc. So it's not just a small audience NPR story. It's a worldwide story carried by dozens of major mainstream news outlets. This post has been edited by Moulton:
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 30th April 2010, 8:44pm) QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 1st May 2010, 12:39am) NPR did carry the story. I listened to it yesterday on my local NPR affiliate, which is why I knew about the story. No, you heard a person mention it. That is not "carrying the story". Carrying the story means to make it headline news. Baloney. Robin Young spent seven minutes with NPR's London correspondent. They played the audio during the segment that aired. I could care less if WP relies on NPR (or any other mainstream news source). WP is not a useful source of reliable information. If you want to read the papers, you have the Washington Post, USA Today, or the Wall Street Journal (all of which carried the story). Whether WP consults the mainstream press is irrelevant to me, for reasons I'm sure you can still recall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |