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

151–160 of 185 posts

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#151

Post by throwaway2037 »

stevenjgarner wrote: post #14

Wikipedia includes entries based on notability, but they have their own idea on notability. A friend of mine is a famous voice actor who has won not one but two CLIO awards. Wikipedia deleted the page I created for him on the basis that he was not notable. Another page I created was for the person who introduced deaf sign language to New Zealand. Deleted as she was not notable. There are more than 19,000 entries for…

First: Thank you to take the time to write these Wiki pages, especially about deaf sign language in NZ. Maybe you can repost and HN can do some "Internet battle" to keep that page alive? It would be an interesting "Internet fight".

Regarding bizarre pages that remain (but yours does not): a daily cloud -- yes, read that right... a cloud(!) -- has its own Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_(cloud)

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#152

Post by throwawayarnty »

I found Wikipedia most inconsistent when dealing with academics. Whether living academics are included or not has no relationship with whether they are prominent or influential. That is, May prominent academics do not have wiki pages, and many academics with wiki pages are not prominent.

Eg Donna Strickland did not have a wiki page until after it was announced that she won the Nobel prize. People who win Nobel prizes are not overnight successes and were prominent long before getting their prize.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#153

Post by solardev »

glasshug wrote: post #50
solardev wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't with the editors, but admins who spuriously make these judgment calls. It takes hours to create a new article and seconds to delete it. Not going to spend hours more in the silly appeals process. The bar on deletion should be as high or higher than the bar on creation (spam aside, of course) or you're just going to keep losing editors. Nobody has time to play these stupid games with the juvenile adm…

> The problem isn't with the editors, but admins who spuriously make these judgment calls. Deletion decisions are made by editors, not admins. See, for example, the decision referenced by the author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio... > It takes hours to create a new article and seconds to delete it. I think the "seconds to delete it" process you're describing is PROD[1], which is for "no…

Can I just say... no thanks? I've gone through that process and successfully appealed a deletion before, but it's a dumb policy to begin with. I'm already volunteering my time to create articles for a supposedly open encyclopedia. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with your bureaucrats about whether it's noteworthy enough.

Either Wikipedia culturally decides in favor of openness or you just drive away editors. No ifs and buts about it. Its bureaucracy sucks and has gotten worse over time.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#154

Post by hombre_fatal »

mhh__ wrote: post #142
BrainVirus wrote: post #13

Wikipedia is a cautionary tale of what will inevitably happen if you try to hypercentralize information at the Internet scale. It's broken on every conceivable level, and yet people stubbornly cling to the myth that was formed around it circa 2005. Instead of being surprised at things over and over again, I think it's time to adjust our collective expectations to match the reality.

> It's broken on every conceivable level And yet it's still really good. People like Larry Sanger prattle on about how awful wikipedia is (and make multiple websites for collecting mistakes, which mostly seem to be blank), rarely with any concrete evidence. In fact Sanger in particular refuses to browse wikipedia at all - except that he does but through a proxy, because giving wikipedia.org traffic is "icky". I point…

As many problems as Wikipedia has, and it surely has them, it's amazing how useful it remains despite those problems, and it's the only thing we have like it.

Stack Overflow is similar: you can make it look pretty bad case by case, yet it's an unchallenged best of breed despite its warts.

Maybe there's no perfect way to run these massive operations just like there is no clean, pretty answer to "should this article exist?" no matter where you set the bar.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#155

Post by solardev »

ghaff wrote: post #66
solardev wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia's notability requirements are enforced very haphazardly. Broadly, editors and admins can be split into two camps: inclusionists who want to add everything and exclusionists who want to delete everything. The life of your new article entirely depends on who happens to stumble upon it. I've had success appealing notability deletions in the past, but it was a pain in the ass, especially after I just spent hour…

>inclusionists who want to add everything and exclusionists who want to delete everything That's probably a bit B&W but a lot of people tend towards one side or the other. Part of it too also relates to the availability of secondary sources which are far more available for some domains than others. Even a fairly minor politician or entertainer has probably had quite a bit written about them by third parties. A senior…

I didn't make it up, but I did get the terms slightly wrong. It's "inclusionists" vs "deletionists" (not exclusionists).

There's literally a Wikipedia page about it (how notable is THAT): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_i...

It's a stupid debate to even be having. IMO only. Clearly I fall into the former camp.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#156

Post by solardev »

justincormack wrote: post #124
ghaff wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>inclusionists who want to add everything and exclusionists who want to delete everything That's probably a bit B&W but a lot of people tend towards one side or the other. Part of it too also relates to the availability of secondary sources which are far more available for some domains than others. Even a fairly minor politician or entertainer has probably had quite a bit written about them by third parties. A senior…

Often its related to people not finding sources when they start articles, if you do detailed research first rather than posting a stub survival rates are higher. However thats often not how articles come about.

I sourced an article from 5-6 major news sources and it was nominated for deletion within hours. It ultimately survived appeals but why the hell did I have to waste my time on that.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#157

Post by mynameishere »

meowface wrote: post #145
mynameishere wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I've never heard of Dragonball--and I'm sure it's really great--I'll make a wild guess that 100s or 1000s of people worked on it in one capacity or another and that doesn't really make them "Notable".

It's probably the #1 most well-known anime in the US.

That sounds great. I was actually thinking "video game" but didn't bother looking it up because it's not really that important, is it after all?

But I can think of some other musicians who've worked on cartoons--David Bowie, Roger Waters, Primus, uh, Art Garfunkel. One thing they have in common is their notability didn't really come from that type of work. Straining a bit through the mists of time, I suppose Frank Churchill is genuinely notable for his cartoon work. Matt and Trey, of course, but they are writing show tunes for fun, it seems.

I mean, it's incidental music, right? Hollywood has lots of people who do that. No one cares about them either.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#158

Post by 8bitsrule »

It's clear that B.F. has been connected with Dragon Ball Z - until 2003. The name-link has been redirected to that page. IMDB knows he continued to write music for TV series a couple of times ... up through 2013.

So? Lots of people have jobs in the music industry. What makes each of them notable? He has his own website, if anyone has to know more.

There are thousands of people sure they oughta have a WP page. I'm glad WP doesn't always agree.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#159

Post by kupopuffs »

stevenjgarner wrote: post #35
kupopuffs wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like The Clio Awards need to get the word out

Talk to anybody in advertising, marketing, radio and television ... believe me they know what a CLIO is (and get paid accordingly). There are so many industry specialties now, that to be a dominant player in one may render you virtually unknown in all others.

that, and ads get a bad rap, but damn does it bring in the $$$
Post reply on HN