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

71–80 of 185 posts

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#71

Post by leijurv »

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 think it has to do with verifiability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V Essentially everything written has to be verifiable, and if a person doesn't have enough reliable sources talking about them, it isn't really possible to write a verifiable article. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:GNG and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#72

Post by ghaff »

adamrezich wrote: post #37
_aavaa_ wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but "is this musician notable" literally is a popularity contest.

but that's not how Wikipedia works. their policies don't care how popular or well-known someone or something is, what matters is whether or not journalists, news outlets, and other such groups (who must themselves be "notable") find them "notable" enough to cover. the Philip Roth story mentioned in the article is one such example of this—it's a good thing Mr. Roth worked at The New Yorker (a verified "notable" news o…

>it's really odd the degree to which Wikipedia's policies enshrine commercial journalism outlets as the Arbiters of Notability.

It is somewhat of an irony that notability probably is bolstered more by fairly small run periodicals and books than it is by things like fan websites.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#73

Post by leijurv »

worik wrote: post #56

Pedantically: "In another bizarre case, an editor at Wikipedia told Philip Roth, “one of the most awarded American authors of his generation” (according to Wikipedia) that he was not a reliable source on the subject of Philip Roth." Philip Roth is not an authoritative source on Philip Roth. I would have thought that was obvious.

Some mistake or miscommunication happened there, as Wikipedia does have a policy that people can be cited for information about themselves, the policy is called SELFSOURCE. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SELFSOURCE

Perhaps the issue was that Philip Roth was unable to sufficiently demonstrate his identity? Of course, Wikipedia can't take a random editor's word when they say "I am this person and this is the truth", then anyone could say anything. There has to be some citation, for example I've seen someone cite a tweet for simple biographical information (e.g. "today is my birthday").

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#74

Post by stevenjgarner »

derefr wrote: post #62
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…

Most people would expect there to be a table on the "Clio Awards" Wikipedia page that lists award winners. I don't think anyone would object if such a table was added to the page; just nobody has done it yet. But there is a difference between having someone's name listed in a table on a page in Wikipedia, and that person needing an entire Wikipedia article about them. If there's only one notable fact about someone, t…

I like it. What can make a name on that list notable above other names is the plethora of other awards they may have also made - in advertising it would not just be ClIO, but IBA, ADDY, Hatch, New York International, Sunny, Silver Microphone, Mobius, RAC, London International, ANDY, EFFIE, The One Show, not to mention regional awards. A multidimensional matrix of such award winners would indicate true notability. Other factors might also include the notability of the campaign they created - e.g. the famous 1984 Apple Chiat Day commercial [0] - or the top advertising agency revenues.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#75

Post by DuskStar »

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…

> Re: the second point about demand — the Pokemon Pikachu has its own Wikipedia page, because people expect Wikipedia specifically to have an article about Pikachu. Other Pokemon do not — because there's already Bulbapedia around to satisfy the demand for an encyclopedia with articles about Pokemon, and the pages from it are easily found in any search engine. If a different set of editors are willing to take on the maintenance burden for those articles in their own domain — and are doing a decent job of it — then why should Wikipedia's editors duplicate that effort?

You've got the chronology here backwards IIRC - Bulbapedia exists because Wikipedia got rid of "non-notable" Pokemon.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#76

Post by Bud »

unixbane wrote: post #24

> A few days ago, composer Bruce Faulconer found that his Wikipedia entry had suddenly disappeared. This was surprising because his music is known and beloved all over the world—in fact, it has been heard in more than 80 countries. Hmmm how do I already know from the first paragraph this article is bogus? Let me search this person I've never heard of. Oh, there's nothing. He's literally not noteable. "Heard in more t…

I get why people lie sometimes. I get why people mislead, or fudge facts, or gaslight.

But it's genuinely hard to figure out why you'd post something like this when spending literally 3 seconds on a Google search shows that you just completely made it up and didn't do any kind of search at all. Why tell a lie that is so easily and completely disproven?

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#77

Post by joecot »

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…

> Re: the first point about contribution, this is why Wikipedia doesn't let people be their own primary source — it's because, when that primary-source person eventually stops maintaining the page, who will then be able to take over the maintenance?

It's also because people use having personal Wikipedia pages as a credentials boost, and they write puff pieces about themselves or their friends. If a person is notable, there will be multiple editors on their article, and the hope of the project is that multiple collaborators will reduce bias. If someone is not notable enough that people besides themselves and their friends would contribute to their page, there is room for substantially biased puff pieces. Most people take Wikipedia articles at face value, and don't delve into any of the sources cited, so that is a huge problem.

Wikipedia articles will always struggle with bias issues, but for the reasons you mention, there is no point in spending volunteer time verifying articles and removing bias when they're for people who aren't notable. That's why they just get removed.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#78

Post by logicalmonster »

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…

It feels like you described what the plausible deniability is; or the ostensible excuse that could be used.

But does that actually describe reality?

Given how corrupt and petty Wikipedia's editors have become, the more complete and realistic reason might be that having a complex set of rules that allows some humans to pick and choose who makes it on Wikipedia gives people who would otherwise have little of it, some real world power.

And if you think humans aren't above basing their life activity over a petty bit of power, well, I've got some Reddit moderators to show you.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#79

Post by stevenjgarner »

derefr wrote: post #67
stevenjgarner wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the problem right there. Advertising is not even included. The number one employer of voice actors (advertisements) and they're not even included in Wikipedia's guideline for the notability of voice actors. I suggest a major revision in that Wikipedia guideline. > significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions - this shows the Wikipedia bias against comm…

Wikipedia serves the public, and its notability heuristic is demand-driven. It doesn't matter how famous someone is within their own domain, if a member of the public outside of that domain would never have reason to look that person up, and therefore would get no marginal value out of Wikipedia having that page. Personally, I don't know the name of a single advertising voice actor. Nor would anyone even three steps…

I disagree. Information today is a unified field across all domains - wikipedia has done better than most at addressing that - you may search for something thinking of it in one domain only to find it relevant in another domain. A domain-specific wiki would not deliver that. The first thought that comes to mind is millions of (public) entrepreneurs who in search of a business / domain / trademark name invariably include in their search a peek on Wikipedia. Such searches cross-fertilize so much creativity.

And I also disagree. I'll bet you know James Earl Jones not just as Darth Vader but also because of his instantly recognized voice. In the past 30 days, commercials featuring James Earl Jones have had 28,635 airings. [0]

> The dynamics of the ad audio industry are stacked against building public recognition

While that is true, the opposite is equally true. Advertisers pay top dollar for instantly recognized voices, which are countless in number.

[0] https://www.ispot.tv/topic/actor-actress/kes/james-earl-jone...

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#80

Post by sanqui »

DuskStar wrote: post #75
derefr wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Re: the second point about demand — the Pokemon Pikachu has its own Wikipedia page, because people expect Wikipedia specifically to have an article about Pikachu. Other Pokemon do not — because there's already Bulbapedia around to satisfy the demand for an encyclopedia with articles about Pokemon, and the pages from it are easily found in any search engine. If a different set of editors are willing to take on the m…

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

Post reply on HN