Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

tedgioia.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 185 posts

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#111

Post by kps »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #86
sanqui wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bulbapedia was launched in February 2005[1], while Wikipedia reached the consensus that "not all Pokémon are notable" in mid-2007[2]. [1] https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Main_Page [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pok%C3%A9mon_test

Which brings us to, should wikipedia have more domain specific wikis? Why does everyone end up on fandom or some other random wiki site when wikipedia is already ad free, hosted worldwide and ain't going anywhere. Wikipedia doesn't _have_ to be just a encyclopedic overview of topics, it should have dive ins as deep as you want if there are people willing to write it.

> Why does everyone end up on fandom

Fandom dot com is a commercial venture started by Jimmy Wales. Inferences are left as an exercise for the reader.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#112

Post by winternett »

Victerius wrote: post #89
bityard wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia isn't (or isn't intended to be) a platform for promotion.

I'm surprised more ambitious people don't have "having an entry on Wikipedia" as a life goal.

It's def. not any sort of life goal. More like getting a driver's license, so that you can drive. Once you pass the test, the driver's test is no longer a concern (unless you change countries perhaps).

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#113

Post by yifanl »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #86
sanqui wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bulbapedia was launched in February 2005[1], while Wikipedia reached the consensus that "not all Pokémon are notable" in mid-2007[2]. [1] https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Main_Page [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pok%C3%A9mon_test

Which brings us to, should wikipedia have more domain specific wikis? Why does everyone end up on fandom or some other random wiki site when wikipedia is already ad free, hosted worldwide and ain't going anywhere. Wikipedia doesn't _have_ to be just a encyclopedic overview of topics, it should have dive ins as deep as you want if there are people willing to write it.

Write or maintain? Because anyone is willing to write almost anything, see: Twitter.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#114

Post by barnabee »

thrdbndndn wrote: post #108
barnabee wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of an encyclopaedia that only includes topics with significant mass media coverage is both incredibly crass and extremely depressing. If that is the primary standard for inclusion (or “notability”) it is a huge shame and a wasted opportunity.

> an encyclopaedia that .. Wikipedia has the loosest standard of inclusion among any encyclopedia ever existed, not sure why that's depressing.

Because it is a much tighter “standard” than it needs to be given the constraints.

It is depressing to think of all the effort that people put into writing articles that no one can ever benefit from, knowing there’s no good reason for their work to be wasted in this way.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#115

Post by fennecfoxen »

thrdbndndn wrote: post #65

I probably will side with Wikipedia this time. As mentioned in the discussion page [1], there doesn't seem to have any coverage from mass media about him, the only opponent in the discussion lists a bunch of sources/references that are either database-type websites, attendance lists, or product credit. These unfortunately don't really count, any professionals would have such things to a degree. Also it looks like he…

You know what else isn't happy-times? When Wikipedia editors are trying to maintain things one way or another, and someone disagrees with what they've done, so they go off and write an article about how these terrible trolls have so heinously decided to efface such a luminary of accomplishment, et cetera.

Look! I'm going to promote a rather dull controversy to an online magazine and the front page of Hacker News! I'm 100% confident that this process will effect justice and result in only 100% positive and desirable contributions to Wikipedia! cough

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#116

Post by nonameiguess »

winternett wrote: post #63
armchairhacker wrote: post #47

Honestly even if he isn’t famous why can’t Wikipedia keep his entry? Why does Wikipedia even have “notable” requirements anyways? There’s not a storage issue. Wikipedia can literally have billions of articles and still be easy to maintain. There’s not really a quality issue. Wikipedia is known for not being 100% reliable. But moreover, they have tons of ways to denote “this article needs citations” and “this isn’t a…

I can't get on there myself with over 20 years of making and publishing music and being on radio etc... And for that same reason can't get verified on Twitter and many other sites I promote my music work on. First of all, Wikipedia has banned all T-Mobile IPs from being able to even log in to my account... 10 years ago when I tried to post my biography there, they rejected it for lack of notability... Twitter also re…

It's kind of amusing to think of this from the perspective that the requirement for a person to be eligible for a page on Wikifeet is they need to have a bio on IMDB, and that is really easy to get. A whole lot of people I know from primary school are there for appearances in student films. I could be on there since I was on a television game show in 1992, but no one has bothered to create an entry for it.

If you're not already there, perhaps you can try to get yourself an entry in allmusic.com, which presumably would warrant a Wikipedia entry. You're gonna need to get someone else to write the article for you, though. You're not supposed to create a Wikipedia page for yourself no matter who you are, which is stated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Your_first_article#Things....

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#117

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

The author is calling everyone who doesn't agree with him about Faulconer's notability a "troll" (and more times than one in the article).

>> In the spirit of Wikipedia procedures and reliable source documents, I want to add a few endnotes to this article.

>> TROLLS (Par. 3): Here’s my conversation with Faulconer on the use of this word:

>> Ted: People may question the suitability of the word trolls here—some of these trolls are Wikipedia editors >> Bruce: When they act in this way, they behave like trolls. So it’s a fair word. >> Ted: Yes, that’s my considered judgment too.

That's not a "considered judgement". That's just a flame. Very disappointing.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#118

Post by onli »

shp0ngle wrote: post #99

As a wikipedia contributor, I disagree. You don’t automatically deserve Wikipedia article because you exist, or even because you did a good job your whole life. Even if you have tons of credits on IMDV. You don’t “deserve” wikipedia article. It’s not a collection of everything that exists ever. The criteria for notability on wikipedia are actually quite clear and documented. It’s not a badge for a job well done… And…

Thanks for this comment. It is the essence of why for me the Wikipedia project can't die soon enough.

The criteria for notability on wikipedia are not clear and documented. They are a joke, with a camp of zealots deleting everything they can delete - maybe they see it as a hobby, maybe they need it to feel powerful. The criteria do not matter as long as such people are allowed to wield power. And the english Wikipedia is actually the good one in this category, the german is already completely broken because of this clientele.

You are right, it could be forked, but in practice it's unlikely humanity has the capacity to run two such projects. Thus Wikipedia - if it does not course correct - will sink slowly into irrelevance, be flanked with better wikis for specific topics (sadly often proprietary platforms/commercial projects) and then, hopefully, what you describe will really happen and a new Wikipedia will be forked, learning from the mistakes that are completely obvious to everyone outside of that current in-group of contributors.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#119

Post by CamperBob2 »

derefr wrote: post #53
armchairhacker wrote: post #47

Honestly even if he isn’t famous why can’t Wikipedia keep his entry? Why does Wikipedia even have “notable” requirements anyways? There’s not a storage issue. Wikipedia can literally have billions of articles and still be easy to maintain. There’s not really a quality issue. Wikipedia is known for not being 100% reliable. But moreover, they have tons of ways to denote “this article needs citations” and “this isn’t a…

> Why does Wikipedia even have “notable” requirements anyways? Think of it like code in an active open-source project. Someone needs to maintain the article: update it when house style changes, evaluate any new contributions to it as being valid or not, etc. Like code experiencing code-rot, a Wikipedia article rots if editors don't give it active attention. This has exactly the implications you'd expect: it means tha…

Think of it like code in an active open-source project. Someone needs to maintain the article

No, they don't, no more than Google Maps needs to "maintain" older versions of their imagery for access through Google Maps Timeline.

Curation should be directed towards informing the user and allowing them to make their own judgements regarding the content, not towards excluding content based on someone's completely-arbitrary opinion of "notability."

No matter how much hand-waving Wikipedia does on the subject, that's ultimately what notability comes down to: someone else's opinion.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#120

Post by WalterBright »

winternett wrote: post #63
armchairhacker wrote: post #47

Honestly even if he isn’t famous why can’t Wikipedia keep his entry? Why does Wikipedia even have “notable” requirements anyways? There’s not a storage issue. Wikipedia can literally have billions of articles and still be easy to maintain. There’s not really a quality issue. Wikipedia is known for not being 100% reliable. But moreover, they have tons of ways to denote “this article needs citations” and “this isn’t a…

I can't get on there myself with over 20 years of making and publishing music and being on radio etc... And for that same reason can't get verified on Twitter and many other sites I promote my music work on. First of all, Wikipedia has banned all T-Mobile IPs from being able to even log in to my account... 10 years ago when I tried to post my biography there, they rejected it for lack of notability... Twitter also re…

I just created my own site - https://walterbright.com/ - where I decide what goes on it and what doesn't.
Post reply on HN