My point is not that I don't like them personally; my point is that I don't
think they belong on Wikipedia. Now, if you take the point of view that I
should "just ignore" things that I don't like, then you don't think
there is
such a beast, and anything goes on Wikipedia. Then we get more and more
articles about random nonsense, and soon we are everything3. I'd rather have
some semblance of standards - and reasonably high standards, at that - about
what makes an appropriate article. These lists offend me not because they're
not something I'm particularly interested in - there's plenty of that in the
Wikipedia, and that's fine by me. These lists offend me because I think they
lower the quality of Wikipedia, they lower the bar for what is a good article,
and they lower our expectations for other editors.
Saurabh
------
"It doesn't matter what government the country has. The power is held by those
who own and control medias." -- Ahmed Rami
In message <20030306015316.52459.qmail(a)web40910.mail.yahoo.com>om>, Zoe said:
--0-1038858368-1046915596=:51715
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Is there something FORCING you to read these lists you dislike so much? Don't you
have the option of ignoring them?
Zoe
rednblack(a)alum.mit.edu wrote:
Okay. People are actively editing [[List of songs whose title does not appear
in their lyrics]]. Four or five people have assured me I am a rotten git for
daring to question the necessity of this article, but I can't help it. I think
the fact that people created, discussed, and edited this article is just wrong.
Even worse, people I respect (e.g. Tannin and Tarquin) are working on this
article. I'm willing to tolerate most lists, even [[Lists of Americans]], or
whatever it's called now. But this just caps it for me.
I'd like to point out "What Wikipedia is not" #11:
# List repository of loosely associated topics such as; quotations, aphorisms
# or persons (But of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their
# entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly
# contributed to the list topic).
This may not be definitive, but it at least suggests that we have some
guidelines for what sort of lists should be considered appropriate, and what
are total trash. I feel this particular list tips over into total trash. I have
been assured that this list is valuable as an article, because people might be
interested in it for its own sake (i.e. someone might want to know what songs
have titles that don't appear in their lyrics), but I have a hard time taking
this seriously. Are we going to insert every absurd contortion that the human
mind can come up with into Wikipedia in the form of a list? E.g. [[List of
left-handed Presidents]], [[List of towns with forty-story buildings]], [[List
of drinks that contain banana]], etc., etc., etc.
At some point this has got to stop. Can we draw a line in the sand, here? The
trash lists have got to go. If there's not a clear organizing reason for it,
then it shouldn't exist.
Saurabh
------
"Slugs! He created slugs! They can't hear, they can't speak, they can't
operate
machinery... I mean, are we not in the hands of a lunatic?"
-- The Evil One describes the Supreme Being, "Time Bandits"
In message <200302281914.OAA22276(a)TheWorld.com>om>, Tom Parmenter said:
Lists serve as an organizing tool. They show what
we have and don't
have. [[List of people from the United States]] is too broad to be of
much use, but [[List of boogie woogie musicians]] is invaluable, both
as an aid to those of us working on the topic, but also the reader.
There may never be a full article on Drive'em Down, the legendary New
Orleans piano player, but he's in the Wikipedia, and in a place where
his contributions can be best understood.
In addition to their use as indexes, the "Related changes" and "What
links here" are helpful to writers working in a particular area and
the talk pages serve as a meeting place.
There are all kinds of lists.
The best lists are:
- confined to a single graspable topic. If the topic is vast, the
better lists will have been largely assembled by some outside
authority, Hall of Fame or the like.
- annotated, why is the person place or thing on the list?
- organized in a useful fashion. They can be grouped by topic, in
alphabetical order, or chronological, whatever helps make the list
more useful.
Further observations:
- [[List of novelists]] is barely tolerable. It is huge, but at least
it is grouped by an amalgam of language/country identifiers that is
not intellectually rigorous. but works for the reader.
- [[List of gay movies]] is in alphabetical order and unannotated. I
have been arguing on thetalk page that if it were annotated (why is
''Rebel Without a Cause'' a gay movie) and in chronological order
(showing changing attitudes) it would be more useful (and interesting,
always a big number with me).
- [[List of musical topics]] is vast, alphabetical, and unannotated, but
it shows the scope of Wikipedia and give music-minded writers
something to chew on.
- The alphabetical biography lists are much more useful if they are
annotated, which has been a side project of mine.
- [[One hit wonders]] went immediately off the tracks. It started as
a list ofthose odd but classic numbers but was quickly mired down by
objections that so-and-so had had two hits (one of which was never
heard of and did not matter) and also by diligent folks with reference
books listing every song that had ever been on any hit parade for at
least a week.
I'm very pro-list, and willing to take the good with the bad.
If [[List of Mexican restaurants in Los Angeles]] shows up, so be it.
[[List of glass harmonicists]] will soon be along to make up for it.
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
--0-1038858368-1046915596=:51715
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<P>Is there something FORCING you to read these lists you dislike so much?
Don't you have the option of ignoring
them?
<P>Zoe
<P>&nbsp;<B><I>rednblack(a)alum.mit.edu</I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid"><BR>Okay. People are actively e
diting [[List of songs whose title does not appear<BR>in their lyrics]]. Four or
five people have assured me I am a rot
ten git for<BR>daring to question the necessity of this article, but I can't
help it. I think<BR>the fact that people c
reated, discussed, and edited this article is just wrong.<BR>Even worse, people I
respect (e.g. Tannin and Tarquin) are
working on this<BR>article. I'm willing to tolerate most lists, even [[Lists of
Americans]], or<BR>whatever it's calle
d now. But this just caps it for me.<BR><BR>I'd like to point out
"What Wikipedia is not" #11:<BR><BR># List repository
of loosely associated topics such as; quotations, aphorisms<BR># or persons (But of
course, there is nothing wrong wit
h having lists if their<BR># entries are famous because they are associated with or
significantly<BR># contributed to t
he list topic).<BR><BR>This may not b!
e definitive, but it at least suggests that we have some<BR>guidelines for what sort
of lists should be considered appr
opriate, and what<BR>are total trash. I feel this particular list tips over into
total trash. I have<BR>been assured th
at this list is valuable as an article, because people might be<BR>interested in it
for its own sake (i.e. someone migh
t want to know what songs<BR>have titles that don't appear in their lyrics), but
I have a hard time taking<BR>this seri
ously. Are we going to insert every absurd contortion that the human<BR>mind can
come up with into Wikipedia in the for
m of a list? E.g. [[List of<BR>left-handed Presidents]], [[List of towns with
forty-story buildings]], [[List<BR>of dri
nks that contain banana]], etc., etc., etc. <BR><BR>At some point this has got
to stop. Can we draw a line in the sand,
here? The<BR>trash lists have got to go. If there's not a clear organizing
reason for it,<BR>then it shouldn't exist.<
BR><BR>Saurabh<BR><BR>------<BR>"Slug!
s! He created slugs! They can't hear, they can't speak, they can't
operate<BR>machinery... I mean, are we not in the ha
nds of a lunatic?" <BR>-- The Evil One describes the Supreme Being, "Time
Bandits"<BR><BR>In message <200302281914.O
AA22276(a)TheWorld.com&gt;amp;gt;, Tom Parmenter said:<BR>>Lists serve as an
organizing tool. They show what we have and don'
t<BR>>have. [[List of people from the United States]] is too broad to be
of<BR>>much use, but [[List of boogie wo
ogie musicians]] is invaluable, both<BR>>as an aid to those of us working on
the topic, but also the reader.<BR>>
There may never be a full article on Drive'em Down, the legendary
New<BR>>Orleans piano player, but he's in the Wiki
pedia, and in a place where<BR>>his contributions can be best
understood.<BR>><BR>>In addition to their use as
indexes, the "Related changes" and "What<BR>>links here"
are helpful to writers working in a particular area and<BR
>the talk pages serve as a meetin!
g
place. <BR>><BR>>There are all kinds of lists.
<BR>><BR>><BR>>The best lists
are:<BR>><BR>>- con
fined to a single graspable topic. If the topic is vast, the<BR>>better lists
will have been largely assembled by so
me outside<BR>>authority, Hall of Fame or the like.
<BR>><BR>>- annotated, why is the person place or thing on
the list?<BR>><BR>>- organized in a useful fashion. They can be
grouped by topic, in<BR>>alphabetical order,
or chronological, whatever helps make the list<BR>>more useful.
<BR>><BR>>Further observations:
<BR>><BR>&g
t;- [[List of novelists]] is barely tolerable. It is huge, but at
least<BR>>it is grouped by an amalgam of language/
country identifiers that is<BR>>not intellectually rigorous. but works for
the reader.<BR>><BR>>- [[List of ga
y movies]] is in alphabetical order and unannotated. I<BR>>have been arguing
on thetalk page that if it were annotat
ed (why is<BR>>''Rebel Without a C!
ause'' a gay movie) and in chronological order<BR>>(showing changing
attitudes) it would be more useful (and interes
ting,<BR>>always a big number with me).<BR>><BR>>-
[[List of musical topics]] is vast, alphabetical, and unann
otated, but<BR>>it shows the scope of Wikipedia and give music-minded
writers<BR>>something to chew on. <BR>><
BR>>- The alphabetical biography lists are much more useful if they
are<BR>>annotated, which has been a side proj
ect of mine. <BR>><BR>>- [[One hit wonders]] went immediately
off the tracks. It started as<BR>>a list ofthose
odd but classic numbers but was quickly mired down by<BR>>objections that
so-and-so had had two hits (one of which
was never<BR>>heard of and did not matter) and also by diligent folks with
reference<BR>>books listing every song
that had ever been on any hit parade for at<BR>>least a week.
<BR>><BR>>I'm very pro-list, and willing to tak
e the good with the bad.<BR>><BR>&!
gt;If [[List of Mexican restaurants in Los Angeles]] shows up, so be
it.<BR>>[[List of glass harmonicists]] will soo
n be along to make up for it.<BR>><BR>>Tom
Parmenter<BR>>Ortolan88<BR>><BR>>____________________________
___________________<BR>>WikiEN-l mailing
list<BR>>WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org<BR>>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/
listinfo/wikien-l<BR>><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>WikiEN-l
mailing list<BR>WikiEN-l@wikip
edia.org<BR>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l</BL…
size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/finance/mailtagline/*http://taxes.yahoo.com/…uot;>Yahoo!
Tax Center</a> - forms, calculators,
tips, and more
--0-1038858368-1046915596=:51715--
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l