Live data from Hacker News

A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

tedgioia.substack.com

81–90 of 185 posts

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#81

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? To prevent me having a Wikipedia page.

Pretty sure you have one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_spoofing ;-)

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#82
post #67

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…

> Wikipedia serves the public, and its notability heuristic is demand-driven.

This sentence seems to be incompatible with itself.

> the public

This constitutes all public groups, including the advertising industry.

> its notability heuristic is demand-driven

Driven by who? The editors at Wikipedia? Depending on which domain they reside in, they may have a very skewed perception of what the demand in a particular area is. Donald Knuth is certainly a notable person in computing, but if I ask any of my non-CS friends (and even several CS friends) whether they would consider him notable, most would respond that they don't even know the man.

So it's hard for me to buy this argument since there are certain domains with their own experts and notable figures that are relatively, if not completely, unknown in tangential domains.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#83

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…

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

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#84
> Just a few months before Donna Strickland won the Nobel, a Wikipedia editor had smugly insisted that she wasn’t a notable physicist.

I heard about this at the time, and it stood out to me as totally missing the point. It's completely 100% possible that winning the Nobel Prize elevated Dr. Strickland from not notable to notable. A physicist who has done work that could win a Nobel Prize is probably getting close to notable but it's hard for an encyclopedia that doesn't engage in original research to adjudicate that. Actually winning is that third party recognition that wikipedia's notability standards are supposed to rely on.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#85

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.

All models are broken, some are useful... Wikipedia works really, really well at specific points of leverage. It can change over time but the most likely-successful change will still center on building from leverage points outward.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#86
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

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.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#87

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…

From your profile "A web design, promotions, branding, and PR group based in Washington DC http://www.winternett.com"

I don't want crap on wikipedia, thanks.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#88
Not sure if this has changed, but I wish there was a way to kind of dull the downside-edge of this kind of outcome. For example maybe there's another place the person's info can go that's not so obviously a trash can, and ideally even still a useful or interesting place.

It ought to be possible, IMO. And I'll add that noteworthiness is a real cringe of a model in a lot of ways.

Personally I saw the downsides of this first hand back in the early 2000s, when I created a page for a software developer. It didn't seem right to put their information, much of which was interesting and relevant, but which wasn't related to the software, on the software's page.

So anyway, their page was deleted with the note that his info should probably just go on that one app's page. A really shallow/easy suggestion especially given that it had already been considered and didn't make sense in various ways.

And then I realized: This whole thing has created extra pain for someone, who for years had a Wikipedia page, and who now has had it deleted. None of which was their choice, but all of which started with intentions to inform and build on a useful corpus of knowledge.

So, is that pain-side really, really necessary? I think such a process can be done better.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#89
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

#90
post #11

Now that Google is down-ranking Wikipedia anyway couldn't Wikipedia relax their notability requirements? I understood why they didn't want anybody to create a marketing page for themselves ten years ago, but I don't understand the rational now. The long term goal for Wikipedia should be to collect information on anything that is of interest to one or more person.

> Now that Google is down-ranking Wikipedia anyway

Can you expand on this? I wasn't aware Google penalized Wikipedia now.

Why?

Post reply on HN