On Notability, and Requirements Therefor, Split from "Giffords shooting" Options

[taiwopanfob]

Being a US Representative and the "third woman in Arizona's history to be elected to serve in the U.S. Congress" seems notable enough. It's just that we should wait a few days to let breaking news sort itself out. This isn't really an issue for non-BLP and non-political articles. Breaking news can be added into other types of articles with no problem for the most part, it's just that there is too much personal involvement in articles on living people and politics for anyone to properly deal with breaking news issues.

How many times does this have to be said?

1. Every BLP at Wikipedia that does not contain at least one reference to a dead-trees book about the subject must be erased Right Now. The only exceptions may in fact be chief executives of a State, Nobel prize winners, or people of similar stature.

2. Mainstream media is inherently unreliable, as the current episode (and uncountably previous ones) demonstrate. They work to completely different goals and under dissimilar constraints. Waiting does not fix the problem. It really is an informational sewer, and it takes a great deal of time, effort and frankly skill to isolate the useful information. (Which gets back to point (1).)

[gomi]

There are of course some very legitimate concerns about the notability bar, BLPs, and reliable sources, some of which I've written about myself. But you kind of lost me again somewhere around "there are deleted pokemons that are more notable than congresswomen."

And continuing to debate Ottava on that topic, rather than addressing those "very legitimate concerns", is somewhat disingenuous. To repeat myself:

I think that the point is that Biographies should be held to very high standards. Wikipedia's standards, at the best of times, are low, and you cannot even hold your admins, let alone your editors, to these low standards. Whether higher de jure standards would improve the de facto mess is highly debatable, but it can certainly be said that it wouldn't hurt.

It seems to me that any admin who touched that article should be summarily de-adminned. It would show some leadership and responsibility, which is why it won't happen.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Easy way to fix:

1. Ban all sources newer than a year.

But the more clever POV pushers like Beback have developed a technique of assembling a huge catalogue of news stories going back decades, and then cherry picking the negative articles.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Mainstream media is inherently unreliable, as the current episode (and uncountably previous ones) demonstrate. They work to completely different goals and under dissimilar constraints. Waiting does not fix the problem. It really is an informational sewer, and it takes a great deal of time, effort and frankly skill to isolate the useful information.

Nicely put (except that media is plural.)

[A User]

Anyway, WP:NOTNEWS should make it clear this shouldn't happen but no one listens.

Easy way to fix:

1. Ban all sources newer than a year.

2. Ban any source that isn't a book published by a notable publisher or another kind of source not published by an academic publisher.

That would get rid of the crappy news articles and most of the bad sources not vetted.

It's a shame this isnt applied evenly across wikipedia. That would kill off the thousands of trivial pop culture articles and non-notable BLPs that have infested wikipedia in the last 10 years.

[lilburne]

2. Mainstream media is inherently unreliable, as the current episode (and uncountably previous ones) demonstrate. They work to completely different goals and under dissimilar constraints. Waiting does not fix the problem. It really is an informational sewer, and it takes a great deal of time, effort and frankly skill to isolate the useful information. (Which gets back to point (1).)

Hey ho. The irony in this is pretty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Joa...est_and_release

[Gruntled]

2. Ban any source that isn't a book published by a notable publisher or another kind of source not published by an academic publisher.

On the first part, isn't Playboy published by a notable publisher? Some of their other publications are books, even hardback books. I couldn't decipher the second part; would you allow non-books only if they are published by a non-academic publisher?

[Gruntled]

1. Every BLP at Wikipedia that does not contain at least one reference to a dead-trees book about the subject must be erased Right Now. The only exceptions may in fact be chief executives of a State, Nobel prize winners, or people of similar stature.

Do you mean a full-length biography? That's awfully restrictive. Do you mean an entry in a respectable reference work? Cue huge debate about what reference works to include. And major reference works are increasingly only available online.

> What happened to automatic post-merging?

This post has been edited by Gruntled:

[Peter Damian]

IRC was filled with rambling nonsense.

Anyway, WP:NOTNEWS should make it clear this shouldn't happen but no one listens.

Easy way to fix:

1. Ban all sources newer than a year.

2. Ban any source that isn't a book published by a notable publisher or another kind of source not published by an academic publisher.

That would get rid of the crappy news articles and most of the bad sources not vetted.

Ottava speak sense.

[Ottava]

Easy way to fix:

1. Ban all sources newer than a year.

But the more clever POV pushers like Beback have developed a technique of assembling a huge catalogue of news stories going back decades, and then cherry picking the negative articles.

Hence why I wouldn't allow "news" sources.

Journalists aren't academics. They don't go through Peer Review. They have rush deadlines and are there to make money. Not reliable.

Doing a quick search, I find that she is mentioned and discussed in quite a few "dead-trees book[s]". Here's a good one.

Not a reliable academic press nor anything academic at all. That book has a majorly skewed POV and I am troubled that you would even attempt to use it as a source, ignoring that she is not the primary subject of the book or even given anything major in the book.

It is sad that Wikipedia Review's great hope is someone who isn't able to recognize a bad source instantly. The corruption has gone so deep that even an amputation wont solve it, it seems.



Gruntled

On the first part, isn't Playboy published by a notable publisher?

No, it is self published.



Dogbiscuit

Though the fundamental problem is that you can place as many rules as you like, many users simply do not understand what is appropriate. Without a fundamental change of culture, further rules won't fix the problem.

I see Silver seren's thinking that his source would be reliable as a case in point.

Tea Party/ultra-Rebublican rhetoric and Wikipedia. Palin and her ilk have used strong words in their "defence of democracy" (aka if it ain't Republican, it is evil)

Working with some Tea Party people last election, I would say that 99% of them aren't Republican. A La Rouchean took over of the groups in Maryland and used it to spout off their nonsense.

[taiwopanfob]

How many times does this have to be said?

I guess I have to repeat myself again?

1. Every BLP at Wikipedia that does not contain at least one reference to a dead-trees book about the subject must be erased Right Now. The only exceptions may in fact be chief executives of a State, Nobel prize winners, or people of similar stature.

Emphasis added.

Doing a quick search, I find that she is mentioned and discussed in quite a few "dead-trees book[s]". Here's a good one.

You are aware this is not a biography of Giffords?

I have also proposed that only editors that have indemnified the WMF in writing regarding libel or any other liability should be allowed to edit BLP's. Do I need to add further conditions that basic reading comprehension of English also be a requirement? One would think that having your entire net-worth on the line with each edit would encourage a certain amount of responsibility and care, but perhaps some people need further clues.

[taiwopanfob]

Do you mean a full-length biography?

The idea is not unique to me, but yes, this is precisely what I mean. It solves two related problems:

a) Notability. Real biographers and their publishers do not waste their time on nobodies.

b) Original Research/Synthesis. Every biography at Wikipedia that is not traced back to a dead-tree at some point is, in effect, a synthesis.

Not sure what you mean by "restrictive", as there is hardly a lack of candidates. Of course, to most Wikipediots, this is a terrible thing. Where are they going to grind those axes?

[Ottava]

Do you mean a full-length biography?

The idea is not unique to me, but yes, this is precisely what I mean. It solves two related problems:

a) Notability. Real biographers and their publishers do not waste their time on nobodies.

b) Original Research/Synthesis. Every biography at Wikipedia that is not traced back to a dead-tree at some point is, in effect, a synthesis.

Not sure what you mean by "restrictive", as there is hardly a lack of candidates. Of course, to most Wikipediots, this is a terrible thing. Where are they going to grind those axes?

A full length biography isn't necessary, as most modern biographies aren't academic. A chapter in an academic work, however, would show notability.

Samuel Johnson's wife is notable - she is heavily discussed in hundreds of academic books. I don't know of a full length book on just her, however, as academic works need a "point" and a "point" is not to just tell someone's life story.

An academic journal article could also be a substitute for a chapter. Now, you would need multiple works to justify "notability".


Just as a note, I mean the above should apply to -all- articles, BLP or not.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[taiwopanfob]

An academic journal article could also be a substitute for a chapter. Now, you would need multiple works to justify "notability".

I left in some exception case to cover stuff like this, as it is possible there are (for example) heads of State that have no full biography either. These exceptions have to be overwhelming, beyond-any-doubt situations. The balance for this exception is "opt out": the subject of any BLP allowed under the exception can have their BLP pulled on request.

On top of all of this is liability. BLP editors should be known to the WMF, and all BLP's should be covered by an editor like that.

[KD Tries Again]

It's interesting that actual printed books from reputable publishers are regarded - quite rightly - as the benchmark in this context.

But I think this is correct:

Though the fundamental problem is that you can place as many rules as you like, many users simply do not understand what is appropriate. Without a fundamental change of culture, further rules won't fix the problem.

It isn't the rules that are the problem as much as the fact that those applying them are - as a matter of policy - unqualified (or not necessarily qualified) to do so. What the project needs is editors, as opposed to "editors."

[Ottava]

It's interesting that actual printed books from reputable publishers are regarded - quite rightly - as the benchmark in this context.

But I think this is correct:

Though the fundamental problem is that you can place as many rules as you like, many users simply do not understand what is appropriate. Without a fundamental change of culture, further rules won't fix the problem.

It isn't the rules that are the problem as much as the fact that those applying them are - as a matter of policy - unqualified (or not necessarily qualified) to do so. What the project needs is editors, as opposed to "editors."

I think you mean writers. Editors merely organize or check grammar (but most of the time fail at doing that and pass off rubbish while still getting paid).

Researchers would also be important - someone that is able to spend time looking through the credible material on a subject and pull out the important or representative pieces.

[Kwork]

IRC was filled with rambling nonsense.



Anyway, WP:NOTNEWS should make it clear this shouldn't happen but no one listens.

Easy way to fix:

1. Ban all sources newer than a year.

2. Ban any source that isn't a book published by a notable publisher or another kind of source not published by an academic publisher.

That would get rid of the crappy news articles and most of the bad sources not vetted.

If an editor violates WP:3RR he/she will get blocked within minutes. If an editor violates WP:V for years, there will never be even a warning. Unless administrators start giving blocks for WP:V violations, nothing will ever improve. I have never seen a user blocked for putting in content that says the inverse of the source cited.

[Silver seren]

Okay, question then. You guys are saying that at least a chapter, if not a book, written by an academic about a person is what is necessary to make them notable? Well, it's quite clear that most Presidents of the US are notable then (the most recent, perhaps not, the academics have been slacking off lately). However, this implies that leaders of nations are notable, correct?

But, most leaders of foreign countries, other than main ones like England and a lot of Europe, are not written about by academics in books. Especially the smaller nations.

Furthermore, your definition of academic is clearly US-centric, when the level of an academic can be considered differently in other nations.

The problem with the way you are defining notability is that it is quite clear that it would be perpetuating and worsening the systemic bias that Wikipedia is already trying to remove, since most academics write about the Western world and not as much about the rest. This is trying to create a knowledge base of information about the entire world, not just the western part of it. That's why the rules of notability have to be considered differently when taken into the context of other nations, because the coverage is going to be different or less from the way it is done in the West.

[lilburne]

Presumably they are notable in their own land, and the local wikis can carry articles on them., sourced by local academics. Some local politico in Thailand is not notable in the UK for example and few in the UK would be able to ascertain whether something written about him is true, or written by an adversary, or whatever.

[Ottava]

But, most leaders of foreign countries, other than main ones like England and a lot of Europe, are not written about by academics in books. Especially the smaller nations.

Furthermore, your definition of academic is clearly US-centric, when the level of an academic can be considered differently in other nations.

Germany doesn't have academic works?

Russia doesn't?

China doesn't?

The only US-centric person is you. It is an underlying racism that isn't appropriate. And smaller nations aren't notable. Notability is based on how many people are connected to you to establish importance. Some minor senator of a country with 1,000 people is probably not important.