Is Randal L Schwartz notable enough for Wikipedia? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is Randal L Schwartz notable enough for Wikipedia?

#71

Post by JoshTriplett » Tue, Aug 23, 2011, 5:02 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #7

JoshTriplett wrote: post #4

Every time I think Wikipedia couldn't slide any further into craziness, I see something like this. Nobody ever seems to step back and ask "what exactly are we accomplishing by campaigning to get content deleted?". Somewhere between "preventing spam, vandalism, and vanity pages" and "delete everything" there's a line; the exact placement of that line seems non-obvious, but individual cases like this seem incredibly ob…

Respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about. Nothing crazy has happened here. The whole point of Wikipedia is that anyone can do stuff like "propose that WP delete a page". Note that the page hasn't been deleted yet. When Randal Schwartz is actually deleted from Wikipedia, then you have an argument.

The problem is not that this particular article has a chance for deletion (and it does, if people don't stay on top of it). The problem is that these processes force repeated active defense and maintenance by people who don't want to see useful content deleted, whereas a momentary lapse in vigilance produces a "default" answer of "a few of people think it ought to be deleted and nobody has chimed in in defense with citations for chapter and verse of Wikipedia policies, so let's delete it".

If you'll forgive a political analogy (which seems appropriate given Wikipedia involves politics): What do Wikipedia, governments, and very young children have in common? You have to watch all of them carefully so they don't do something painfully wrong and injure themselves or others, they have a lot more energy than you do, they don't have or use much common sense, and they keep persisting because they can get away with things if you get tired and look away briefly.

And yes, I do know what I'm talking about; I've participated in Wikipedia for years, dealt with several of its policies, and watched its internal workings extensively with both fascination and disgust.

Re: Is Randal L Schwartz notable enough for Wikipedia?

#72

Post by jamesbritt » Wed, Aug 24, 2011, 12:23 AM UTC

JoshTriplett wrote: post #69

jamesbritt wrote: post #12

This is a Web site that thinks it appropriate to offer a synopsis for every episode of Burn Notice. There's a page for each season, plus a page for the show itself. Why is the inclusion of Randal even an issue? "Reasons for deletion ... Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" I like Burn Notice, it's fun and entertaining. But does it need to be in an encyclopedia? More so than Randal L Schwartz? Talk abou…

I frequently use Wikipedia as a source of information on a TV series, and that includes an episode list and synopses. If people might want to look it up, why should they have to move that content elsewhere to one of the various TV summary sites, most of which suck a lot more than Wikipedia (with the exception of special cases for shows popular enough to have dedicated sites, like Memory Alpha).

* I frequently use Wikipedia as a source of information on a TV series, ... *

So do I, and it's quite handy. But if Wikipedia is to be the host for what is, essentially, mass-media trivia, then why would it not also be the host for arguably less mundane content, such as a page on Randal Schwartz. Or me, for that matter?

It just depends on how Wikipedia's owners decide to handle it. But they're currently defining themselves as an encyclopedia.

Re: Is Randal L Schwartz notable enough for Wikipedia?

#73

Post by carussell » Fri, Sep 02, 2011, 5:28 AM UTC

pbreit wrote: post #66

carussell wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What?

I think the vast majority of internet and wikipedia users find it to be a credible source.

Let's be clear. We are talking about whether one should "take wikipedia serious as a source" (emphasis mine). You invoke "source", too, but I'm unsure if your focus is on how reliably accurate Wikipedia is, or if you really do mean to say what you say.

Even assuming yours is the saner of the two--that your "trustworthy" and "credible" mean to say that Wikipedia is reliably accurate--well, I'll first note that this was not the topic at hand.

Since you've appealed to common opinion twice, can I presume that your own use of Wikipedia is also a typically casual one? That is, that you rarely if ever make a point to verify the claims made in articles by:

i) Cross-checking the cited sources, and/or

ii) Independently verifying things in some other way

If I'm permitted to make that presumption, then for my second point I'll note that unless you've done these things, the statement that Wikipedia is "trustworthy" and "credible" is a vacuous one.

I'll also note that I deliberately made a point of saying who's holding this opinion when I wrote that it's a "weird inference that has been tacked on by uninvolved bystanders following Wikipedia's success, and does not originate from within Wikipedia". There is, I think, a fairly realistic view of Wikipedia within the Wikipedia community, especially from those who were involved early. The "vast majority of the internet and wikipedia users" are not Wikipedia editors.

--

To revisit the point I made in the edit to my initial reply to bugsy, I'll say that there's a reason every page on Wikipedia links to a page that says the following,[1] the formatting of which I can neither accurately reproduce nor adequately convey here:

> WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY

> [...]

> That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here.

(emphasized in the original)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer