Jon Q wrote:
<snip>
One observation I've made is that for a good part,
the editors who regularly
review content seem to look down upon many different types of sources online
-- and while there are "real world" sources that aren't online, they
don't
seem happy unless they can easily click on something. They are dismissive
of the IMDb, of YouTube, even smaller newspapers they haven't heard of,
they'll question "reliability" of the source -- and of course anyone
blogging information would be a big no-no as well. But the thing is -- the
popular internet is largely comprised of these types of sources! When most
of it is "citizen media," and when there are many "reliable sources"
whose
content stands behind a paywall -- it seems that there ought to be at least
some relaxing of standards as much as can be done within fair reason.
We do have a "problem" with sourcing from web pages. Which is that no
permissive definition of what a _reliable_ online source is will work
out for us. We have to be aware that there is little enough posted on
the Web that is actually authoritative. I expect we'll have to adjust
the criteria as time passes.
I'll then invite you to review one very
interesting argument
in progress, relating to the article "List of Apple Inc. slogans":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Apple_…
This AfD discussion is now closed, with no consensus to delete
It really gets my hackles up to read through this --
one person actually
said that EVERY item mentioned ought to be sourced! One fellow who
valiantly struggles there to get them to consider "the wiki way" (if one
might call it that), seems to face major oppression there from these
deletionist completionists.
Actually, complete sourcing for lists is not in itself a bad idea. It is
certainly not applied uniformly across the site (nor should it be). But
it is going to pick up errors and exclude "original research" in some
cases. And it can be interesting (the list in [[Lord President of
Munster]] taught me a great deal about the history).
Part of the damage here could be, if left unchecked --
fault could be found
with virtually ANY article if one wishes to find it. This shouldn't be the
point! To me, this is the perfect type of article I'd like to find on
Wikipedia. Yet it faces being deleted because of this particular attitude
which seems to be growing there.
I think that article is no longer under threat -
it now is well
referenced. Nomination to AfD just to get an article improved is a
misuse of the site processes, however.
Further, let's suppose that Apple is
either a contributor or even just a well-wisher of the site -- if they were
aware of their work being discussed as "non-notable" in any regard -- what
could the repurcussions be? Maybe that is not for consideration in these
arguments -- but establishing goodwill all around is certainly relevant.
The more little articles that people worked hard to create that are deleted
within this environment -- the more likely you have people proferring
complaints about the site all around.
We should actually disregard this kind of consideration, really. I
imagine Steve Jobs has enough to do with iPhone 4, rather than worrying
about geek-on-geek disputes about Apple slogans from the 1980s. But in
any case we operate without fear or favour with respect to large
corporations.
I've also noticed that these "articles for
deletion" are posted in one
place, and there also seems to be a nice batch of people who make it their
business to weigh in on each one -- usually those with the deletionist
perspective. And if "consensus" is weighed by votes -- even if it
shouldn't
be but no doubt IS -- then most articles presented for deletion won't stand
a good chance. And at least some of this goes back to "sourcing" again, as
so many possible sources just "aren't good enough" for the perfectionists
batting away at these.
There are some bad arguments at AfD, certainly, and some may be
presented by serial deletionists. In an ideal world - not the wiki we
have - what is said at WP:BEFORE would be followed and the discussion
there would be about the notability of the topic (in short, whether it
belongs in Wikipedia). Too many people, in general, throw around
considerations they say are policy, and which are in fact partial or
slanted views, or mere sloganising. Certainly the process should always
be case-by-case, and the wisdom "voting is evil" should be noted by the
closing admin; people who are really saying "I hate the article as it
stands" should be disregarded if they have no point to make.
You''l find David Goodman has similar views to your own.
Charles