Redirects and BLP Options

[Tarc]

This whole "Gordon Brown's open mic" brouhaha has been snowcloned as "Bigotgate", a term that at the moment does not exist at the Wikipedia, but they want to overturn it at DRV. Am I cracked, or should the desire to not want a 65-year-old pensioner to be forever linked to accusations of bigotry outweigh a "useful redirect" ? Redirects and neutrality are held to a much lower bar than the rest of the Wikipedia.

[Apathetic]

The belief that the suppression of this redirect will somehow cause the genie to retreat quietly back into the bottle or cause this woman any less harm is dubious at best.

If the readers are searching for the term "bigotgate" (and why wouldn't they?), then redirecting them to a neutral treatment of the event seems entirely reasonable.

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[Ottava]

Doesn't WP:NEO already state that such a term should not be used? Sigh.

[Apathetic]

Doesn't WP:NEO already state that such a term should not be used? Sigh.

NEO covers articles about neologisms, not redirects from neologisms...

[Tarc]

Doesn't WP:NEO already state that such a term should not be used? Sigh.

NEO covers articles about neologisms, not redirects from neologisms...

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.

[Apathetic]

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.

[Ottava]

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.

[Apathetic]

But seriously, just delete the redirect and salt.

Too late...

[Ottava]

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.

[Apathetic]

Just curious, but why is this getting any prominence on Wikipedia? It was a non story and disappeared after a day.

It looks like more than a flash in the pan to me, and has hardly disappeared...

[Tarc]

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]

/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_redirects

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[Ottava]

Just curious, but why is this getting any prominence on Wikipedia? It was a non story and disappeared after a day.

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.

[Apathetic]

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.

[Ottava]

Well, there's still news on it being printed as we speak and some are saying it's "the" incident of the election.

Then it could deserve a wonderful one line mention of it on the page about the election and be done with it.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

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.

It is not news, it is electioneering. Of course, the pedants will squeal its been reported in "reliable sources" but, so what, it is electioneering and all the newspapers will be taking sides politically.

Is Wikipedia to become a summary not of just the Google first page on every subject but also all media coverage?

Then you get 3 bigots on the Wikipedia deciding what history in real time ... forever ... because they are "community consensus".

[Moulton]

NPR's daily newsmagazine, Here and Now, spent about 10 minutes on the story on yesterday's program.

[Apathetic]

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) ?

[Somey]

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]

NPR's daily newsmagazine, Here and Now, spent about 10 minutes on the story on yesterday's program.

NPR is a niche news group that has a tiny audience. It is not representative of US media.

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".

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.