Mailing List Archive

Just think, in a few years we can set up the site to construct drafts for
the site that constructs drafts for Wikipedia.



On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org>
> wrote:
> > There's nothing that prevents a subject from having an article in both
> > namespaces. One can be seen as the complement of the other; mainspace
> would
> > become more encyclopedic and there would be a neat space where the more
> > recent coverage can be found for further information.
> >
> > It'd only be a matter of educating editors and readers; the mainspace is
> the
> > most reliable and seriously sourced "base" of articles, at the cost of
> being
> > possibly a bit dated or drier. The space "below the fold" is more
> timely,
> > and possibly more detailed at the cost of being possibly less reliable.
>
> This is a good idea, and you can take it further, as suggested in the
> past: we need a space in which one can draft verifiable articles
> about any topic, without arguments about notability.
>
> Just as Wikipedia was a 'simple, unreliable scratch space' to let
> everyone draft articles for nupedia, we need the same sort of space to
> let everyone draft articles for [what we currently think of as]
> wikipedia.
>
> SJ
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

On 7/4/12 1:04 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> What would a Wikipedia look like that did not make use of press sources? It
> would look a hell of a lot more like an encyclopedia. Thousands of silly
> arguments would never arise. Thousands of apposite criticisms of Wikipedia
> would never arise. These are good things.
>
> Unfortunately, such a Wikipedia would also have vastly impoverished
> coverage of popular culture and current affairs. The articles on Lady Gaga
> and Barack Obama would be years behind events; the articles on the Japan
> earthquakes, which I believe Wikipedia was widely praised for, would only
> now begin to be written, articles on many towns and villages would lack
> colour and detail.
>

It's an intriguing idea, and I agree with the general principle of
reducing reliance on sources with less gestation time, of which
newspapers are the biggest offender. I do tend to apply it in an
as-alternatives-are-available fashion, and to many kinds of sources. For
example, citing a recent academic conference paper may be justified if
no synthesizing source is available, but there are dangers to cobbling
together a new synthesis out of a dozen conference papers that may or
may not be representative of majority views in a field, that may now be
obsolete in ways unbeknownst to the reader, etc. Better to cite a proper
book or survey article, if one is available.

A problem with avoiding newspapers entirely, added to those you mention,
is that we'd even lose many things that aren't that recent. Especially
in their more "summary" pieces such as obituaries and biopics,
newspapers (and newsmagazines) fill in a lot of fairly uncontroversial
information on more minor, but potentially still important, people and
events. For the ancient world, that information is compiled fairly
exhaustively in academic sources; you can find at least a three-sentence
biography of every attested figure in some kind of specialist
encyclopedia, e.g. the impressively comprehensive _Prosopography of the
Later Roman Empire_. But for 20th-century figures that's often not the
case. For example, I've written a number of articles on minor political
figures (a mayor of Houston, say) primarily sourced from obituaries in
major newspapers, e.g. the NYT's obituary section. For what they are,
they are usually reliable enough: they provide some dates, a summary of
offices held, and a brief mention of why the person is known. For famous
figures, there are usually better sources, but for minor figures the
alternatives are often more like primary sources, e.g. the state or
municipal archives, or not including an article at all.

-Mark


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Delirium <delirium@hackish.org> wrote:
> On 7/4/12 1:04 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>>
>> What would a Wikipedia look like that did not make use of press sources?
>> It
>> would look a hell of a lot more like an encyclopedia. Thousands of silly
>> arguments would never arise. Thousands of apposite criticisms of Wikipedia
>> would never arise. These are good things.
>>
>> Unfortunately, such a Wikipedia would also have vastly impoverished
>> coverage of popular culture and current affairs. The articles on Lady Gaga
>> and Barack Obama would be years behind events; the articles on the Japan
>> earthquakes, which I believe Wikipedia was widely praised for, would only
>> now begin to be written, articles on many towns and villages would lack
>> colour and detail.
>>
>
> It's an intriguing idea, and I agree with the general principle of reducing
> reliance on sources with less gestation time, of which newspapers are the
> biggest offender. I do tend to apply it in an as-alternatives-are-available

The problem with articles from india, kosovo and other minor places
for example is that many will be deleted because there are not many
press sources online for people to check refs.

mike

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

On 4 July 2012 01:38, Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org> wrote:

> Well, if I were suddenly named dictator of Wikipedia, I'd probably suggest
> that a "recent event" namespace be created, where popular media were
> acceptable sources, and make them verbotten in mainspace. Mainspace
> articles might have a hatnote with a link to the other namespace along the
> lines of "for recent, less authoritative coverage".

You could avoid the whole namespace issue by simply highlighting
articles or parts of article that are based on popular media. Like
non-canon stuff on fiction wikis. Highlight its background in blue or
something.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Or a template at the top.

'This article relies on newspaper sources...please contribute better
sources or tag with notability if you cant find any better sources.'

P.s. This offtopic thread should be on Wikipedia lists as its not about the
movement in general.

On Jul 4, 2012 6:13 PM, "Svip" <svippy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4 July 2012 01:38, Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org> wrote:
>
> > Well, if I were suddenly named dictator of Wikipedia, I'd probably
suggest
> > that a "recent event" namespace be created, where popular media were
> > acceptable sources, and make them verbotten in mainspace. Mainspace
> > articles might have a hatnote with a link to the other namespace along
the
> > lines of "for recent, less authoritative coverage".
>
> You could avoid the whole namespace issue by simply highlighting
> articles or parts of article that are based on popular media. Like
> non-canon stuff on fiction wikis. Highlight its background in blue or
> something.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 6:21 AM, The Cunctator <cunctator@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just think, in a few years we can set up the site to construct drafts for
> the site that constructs drafts for Wikipedia.
>

Oh yes. It will be called Wikiwikiwiki, with "Jam On It" playing every
time you load the main page.

<moving to wikipedia-l as suggested>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Wikipedia-l is not the most active of lists, to put it mildly. Those
interested in discussing the potential advantages and drawbacks of a
Wikipedia without press sources and coming up with some ideas for a
feasible compromise are advised that there is a related thread on
Wikipediocracy, at http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=600

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012, Samuel Klein wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 6:21 AM, The Cunctator <cunctator@gmail.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > Just think, in a few years we can set up the site to construct drafts for
> > the site that constructs drafts for Wikipedia.
> >
>
> Oh yes. It will be called Wikiwikiwiki, with "Jam On It" playing every
> time you load the main page.
>
> <moving to wikipedia-l as suggested>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

On 03/07/12 17:09, Delirium wrote:
> The biggest angst producer in my view is actually the opposite case:
> something that seems like it "should" be covered, since it's notable,
> but for which the extant sources are really lacking, making it
> hard/impossible to write a well-sourced article. People get very angry
> when something they view as clearly notable (a programming language,
> say) is deleted due to lack of 3rd-party sources. I think the root
> problem here is a feeling that sources "should" or even "must" track
> notability, so given that something is clearly important (at least in a
> community), the lack of sources we consider acceptable is unexpected.
> Imo the problem is just that the literature sometimes lags and sometimes
> has blind spots; journalists, sociologists, historians, etc. don't cover
> everything important in full detail, instantly. I wrote a bit about that
> last year:
> http://www.kmjn.org/notes/wikipedia_notability_verifiability.html

I always imagined that Wikiversity would be the place where this could
be done. If you can't find a source on something, write it yourself,
then it could be peer-reviewed, by professional scientists and
university professors if possible, formally published and used in Wikipedia.