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 reliable source”. If Wikipedia is concerned about quality, they can have “verified” and “contributed” articles, just like how distros have “stable” and “user-contributed / experimental”.
Spammers and useless content? This is an issue. But this guy is clearly not spam, the proof being any of his official works. I do agree that Wikipedia authors should remove “spammy” entries and entries on complete nobodies and random things, but you shouldn’t need to be in an Oxford journal to not be considered a “nobody”.
Even things which are famous in small towns and 1000-member groups should be on Wikipedia IMO, because most of the stuff is already on there is about as relevant to me or anyone else (which is to say, pretty irrelevant). If you want relevant content, that’s what the search tools and indexing are for.
Wikipedia is supposed to be “the grand encyclopedia” where you can find info on basically anything. There are already tons of Wikipedia articles on obscure people, places, and things. Way more obscure than this composer even if he isn’t truly well-known. Why does “relevance” even matter?
> 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 that articles about things that don't change, are easier to keep around than are articles about things that might change; which are in turn easier to keep around than are articles about things that definitely will change.
Living people — where the article is basically living biography for them — are in that last category.
The "notability" requirement can be translated into editor-ese as a combination of 1. "how many people could we find who could contribute to this page", and 2. "how much demand is there for Wikipedia — rather than some other website — to do the work of keeping this."
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? If that's "nobody", then to prevent that, the page shouldn't be allowed in the first place.
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?
Regardless of all the accusations of incompetent, unfair, or inconsistent enforcement of their own policies (which are serious and deserve inspection and criticsm), I don't think Wikipedia's stated policies around notability are unreasonable. The policy that most directly addresses your comments is "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_no.... They explicitly reject arguments of the form "we should be able to have any page we want as long as storage costs aren't a problem."
>Honestly even if he isn’t famous why can’t Wikipedia keep his entry?
The answer is Deletionists, people who are unable to contribute with actual knowledge and information, so they have decided that their contribution is destruction of knowledge and information.
The Wikipedia bureaucracy, as it exists, is unfortunately not equipped to handle these types of book burners…
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 requires an entry to be published on Wikipedia for artists, now I could probably wait forever until someone still never writes one about me, or I could choose to pay a renowned publication to run a fluff piece on me like many other musicians do.
I am so tired of the manufactured gatekeeping nonsense that is required of me just to make music and be heard, no wonder why so many quit the business... ugh.
Anybody can already create their own web page or wiki following their own policies.
The reason people want their content on Wikipedia is because a Wikipedia page signal a certain notability compared to a random web page. So the inclusionists want to eat the cake and keep it too.
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 CLIO awards [0] from 62 countries yet only 18 Clio Awards juries comprised of industry leaders from across the globe awarded 13 Grand Clios in 2020/2021 [1]. The Global Advertising Agencies Market Size in 2022 was worth approx. $332.1 billion [2].
By comparison the Academy Awards give out Oscars in 24 categories [3] to nominees selected from only 9,921 members [4]. The Motion Picture Association released a new report on the international box office and home entertainment market showing that the industry reached $101 billion USD in 2019 [5].
Oscars are considered notable. CLIOs are not. It would appear that making art is notable (except in the sad case of Bruce Faulconer), while impacting an entire industry or contributing to marketing or education in a highly visibly recognized manner is not.
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 hours researching, sourcing, writing, referencing, and proofing the article. I never made a new article again after that.
Sadly, some of the admins there are power tripping idiots who will also use random loopholes to forbid edits that don't reflect their own ideologies, often in direct contrast to Wikipedia's own guidelines.
Like any bureaucracy, it has become a cabal of aristocrats who are in it for the power and control. Regular lowly editors generally don't have much recourse. It made me gave up on editing Wikipedia. Became an editor in 2004 and the climate has changed dramatically since then, from "newbies welcome, please edit" to "this is my private library, don't touch anything!"
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, then that fact is data, and is best recorded together with other data of the same shape, to put it in the context of its meaning.
It's only when there are many distinct notable facts about someone, all of different shapes, where the best way to connect all those facts together is in carefully-formatted prose, that the right way to record that data becomes "a distinct Wikipedia page for that topic."
Wikipedia's notability guideline does not pass judgement on the importance of Oscars or "CLIOs," both of which are notable and have their own pages.
Wikipedia's guideline for the notability of voice actors is:[1]
> 1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or
> 2. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
This can be difficult to define. I'd suggest you instead follow the guideline of notability for people generally, which is:[2]
> A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
I'm always sorry to hear about someone that has gotten frustrated editing Wikipedia. Even though I'd discourage it as a conflict of interest, editors have successfully created articles for friends by simply citing reliable secondary sources that cover them. I'd suggest you give it another try if such sources exist and reach out in the Teahouse[3] if you need help.
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)
Plenty of comments on here suggesting WP relaxing/removing notability requirements: the problem is deeper.
WP could retain the exact notability requirements they currently have, as written, and still vastly improve the situation from the current mess. As it stands:
- mentions of any thing or person without a pre-existing article (by extension meeting notability requirements) are quickly deleted by fans of the frequently referenced "Write the Article First" essay[0]. While this essay is clearly labelled as an opinion piece, not policy, that opinion is staunchly defended by people with more time on their hands than you do.
- Any effort to follow the essay's advice and actually create a new article is quickly curbed: despite the notability requirements policies containing detailed sections on the benefits of "stubs" as prompts to grow useful article content, newly minted articles are summarily deleted if they are not perfect on first draft (and extremely comprehensively referenced).
When I first started contributing to Wikipedia almost 2 decades ago, these articles and similar debates between cohorts of "deletionists", etc. certainly existed, but what looks to have happened over the years is that the most progressive of those cohorts left, probably tired of constantly grappling with the hostilities of those with seemingly nothing better to do than to pour all of their hours into making Wikipedia their staunchly defended castle.
Becoming a new contributor to Wikipedia today involves a barrier to entry only zealots will bother to spend time overcoming.
> Becoming a new contributor to Wikipedia today involves a barrier to entry only zealots will bother to spend time overcoming.
The current editors and admins will die someday. Who will replace them? If only the worst kind of people bother making the effort to become the next editors and admins, then Wikipedia will decline in quality and eventually die and be replaced by other sources, like fandom.
I'd say its hard to start as a new Wikipedia editor if you only goal is to make article X or make huge changes to article Y that is somewhat controversial. On the other hand, if you start in Wikipedia by doing simple edits in non-controversial subjects (which does improve Wikipedia, and thus, the Internet given how many search engines just scrape Wikipedia for search results), start making making some new articles in notable things that are also not controversial, then you can start understanding how to get controversial (but correct) things added and changed. Yes, that takes longer and is more work, but at the same time, similar to open source software, you have to spend time learning how to code and how to make valuable and correct PRs to make major overhauls to heavily used software.
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 self-edited the page [2]. This isn't strictly prohibited AFAIK, but it will raise self-promotion [3] red flag and obviously there were hardly any references in his editing.
That diff in [2] is pretty egregious, and given the timing seems to be exactly what sparked the controversy. I think regardless of one's opinion on the outcome here, it's very odd that the author doesn't mention that Bruce Faulconer made a large edit to his own Wikipedia 19 days ago.
FWIW I personally am in the camp that Bruce Faulconer is probably sufficiently recognizable that a small stub article is justified and better than the redirect they added. However, this article skips over a lot of the story, possible disingenuously so.
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
"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").
How does laundering the info through The New Yorker make it authoritative? Any putative fact checking for the article itself would necessarily entail asking him "Hey Phil, that article you just wrote for us about the inspiration for your best-selling, PEN/Faulkner Award-winning novel - was that true or were you just having a giggle?"
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.
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 pointed out that this is childish behaviour and he blocked me, go figure.
> Wikipedia is a cautionary tale of what will inevitably happen if you try to hypercentralize information at the Internet scale.
"Decentralized" <> "unmoderated", "without content standards", or "without editors". Is there a more decentralized knowledge resource of general significance? Hosting happens to be centralized, only because nobody else cares enough to rehost it themselves (which the license allows you to do).
It is things like this that has reduced the usefulness of wikipedia for me personally. I wasn't aware of the whole "notability deletionists" before I tried to look up the Rockstar programming language when discussing esoteric programming languages a while back. I knew that there was a entry there it was a nice short introduction to it but it was deleted by these people. In one way it is piece of "programmer culture" that was removed but at the other hand it is an esoteric programming language so it might not be "notable" almost by definition.
This article highlights the slippery slope of it. It is one thing to remove the esoteric language that nobody is seriously using but has a little cultural significance except for a small number of programmer nerds like myself. This composer is actually notable in comparison. Who gets to decide notability? What is next? Are we going to be removing lore from small ethnic groups because there isn't some academic reference to it and someone dutifully transcribed oral tradition and translated a language which only a few speak... No not notable...
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.
> The long term goal for Wikipedia should be to collect information on anything that is of interest to one or more person.
That is very explicitly not a goal of Wikipedia. Of course you're free to disagree with what Wikipedia ought to be, but they're at least fairly clear and explicit about their own goals.
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.
Wikipedia commingles the “facts” with the organization of those facts. What Wikipedia really is, is that organizational structure. Whether a developer has their own page, or is mentioned on the page of a product they created, is irrelevant in that both views acknowledge the same facts: the developer exists and the product exists and these things are related in that the developer created it.
It would be interesting if the database of facts driving Wikipedia were available to all, and Wikipedia is recognized as providing one of potentially many ways to organize/publish that database for human reading. In other words, if I want to add information about a composer and her composition to the database I can do so, and if Wikipedia chooses only to publish the composition but not the composer, that is entirely their decision.
Wikipedia is a joke nowadays. I made a small correction on the ARM Cortex-M page (the listed instructions available in ARMv8-M base were wrong), I cited the relevant ARM document in the change. Nope, got reverted back to the wrong thing... Pretty sure I know this architecture approximately 1000% better than the joker who reverted this, but OK, whatever, let everyone have the wrong info. I gave up.
I just happened to notice your edit on the Cortex-M page when correcting a typo. As far as I can tell, it doesn't look like your edit was reverted. All of your changes are still present on the current version.
Reminds me of a few months back when I tried to link Amy Winehouse's "Mr. Magic" to the great original Grover Washington piece of the same name. Same name, same music, some Wikipedia support in other places, though not extensive. Both on Youtube, takes seconds to confirm.
Some pedanto reverts it every time I tried. Says "it's not in the booklet" (of the CD). Believe the thinking is that reality is not good enough, it must be confirmed by an authority. A disturbing enough idea in itself.
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.
It’s a fun, relevant metaphor. Some folks live under a bridge and have nothing to do but to harass travelers. Trolls don’t own the bridge and they certainly shouldn’t be demanding tolls and taxes. But their position has stunted their minds and twisted their hearts.
They’ve spent too much time wallowing in the unreal realm of the internet; they fear the light of day. If people were to shine a light on them, they’d die of embarrassment.
And there is a link from the Dragon Ball Z page where its music is discussed to the Bruce Faulconer page (which existed for 15 years, but no longer does), but that page then redirects back to the Dragon Ball Z page. Seems pretty dumb.
Some factor needs to determine what the content of page on wikipedia ends up being. Since "anyone can edit" (credentials are not used as a filter), the content is determined by whoever is most persistent. There are also various processes in place to ensure that content is verifiably correct, and wikipedia largely succeeds in that regard. However, basically everything else, including what information is included, and what spin is put on that information, is decided by the wikipedia editors. They succeed in this regard by being willing to spend the most amount of time camping pages, reverting any change they disagree with, and forming cabals of editors willing to stand up for one another when an editing war emerges.
Given wikipedia's funding, it ought to be possible to pay for credentialed experts to curate the editorial bend of articles in their area of expertise. This would have its own issues, namely of causing a bias towards institutionally favoured interpretations, but I think that would be preferable to the status quo.
It's a hard problem. Volunteer editors are spread thinly over millions of articles, some of which (like "Bruce Faulconer") are about living people that are really important to get right.[1] The project has settled on the guideline of _notability_, meaning that articles are kept only if they have significant coverage in reliable sources.[2] Proving a negative is not really possible, but it works okay most of the time.
It's worth thinking about alternate policies you could set up.[3] You could decide deletion based on whether a figure were "known and beloved all over the world," as the author suggests, which is difficult to define. You could could keep everything,[4] which some alternate Wikis have tried. You get unmaintained pages and probably libel.
Gioia criticizes the barrier to contribution, which is also a difficult balance to reach. Some processes are just inherently complex and involve reaching consensus among hundreds of people. Others could be simplified, but every hour spent discussing and implementing improvements is an hour taken from improving the content.
The policies are under constant discussion and change,[5] and no one thinks we've reached the perfect balance between these constraints. See, for example, this month's headline case at the Arbitration Committee around deletion.[6]
>Volunteer editors are spread thinly over millions of articles
I would like to point out that this is, effectively, a very clever way of saying that Wikipedia is controlled by a tiny group of people whose goals for Wikipedia do not match the expectations of the general public.
It seems the policies for notable composers [1] fail to recognize the work of TV composers.
Judging by this case, composing the music for a TV show watched for years by millions of people doesn't count, but composing something performed in a theatre and watched by far fewer people is officially notable:
> Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc.) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run, as such things are judged in their particular situation, context, and time.
> It's worth thinking about alternate policies you could set up
A reasonable alternative would be for the notability requirement simply to be that the general public may run into the topic/person (and presumably therefore be interested to know more) OR may ask a question to which the article would contain the answer.
Anyone who’s creative work is published or included in a movie or whatever should automatically be included under such a rule.
It would also be sensible for the default in the case of dispute to be to keep the article unless the actual content itself is completely unverifiable, as long as there is some half way plausible argument for doing so.
There should be no sense of achievement for or gratitude towards anyone removing facts from an encyclopaedia.
Any editor who makes removing articles on notability grounds their raison d’etre demonstrates only arrogance and smugness.
Further the guidelines on composers that are likely to apply to him are listed below. It is not at all clear that he meets the bar here.
From the info I have, the only criteria he may meet is #1 for in the first group, and it is not actually clear that "soundtrack for DBZ" is a notable composition. for a TV show soundtrack to qualify as notable, it would need to be something often written about. For example, if a show is discussed for its music almost as often as for its plot, then sure the soundtrack is probably notable. I don't think that actually applies here.
And even if so, if he is only really known for one work (which pretty much is the case), that would generally be merged with the article for that work. So he could be mentioned in the "Sound Track of DBZ" article if one existed, or the "soundtrack" section of the main DBZ article.
------
Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:
1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
2. Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc.) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run, as such things are judged in their particular situation, context, and time.
3. Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.
4. Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.
5. Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria.
6. Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on their genre of music.
Where possible, composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article should be merged into the article about their work. When a composer or lyricist is known for multiple works, such a merger may not be possible.
---
Composers and performers outside mass media traditions may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:
1. Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture.
2. Has composed a number of notable melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable music genre.
3. Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching for a particular music genre.
4. Is cited by reliable sources as having established a tradition or school in a particular music genre.
5. Has been listed as a significant musical influence on musicians or composers who meet the above criteria.
From what I've seen, the key to keeping pages up on Wikipedia is to have a lot of verifiable references & citations. If you do this like you're writing a college paper, rogue editors have much less power. Challenges to their reverts & deletions are also more likely to succeed.
A good example of this is the article for the unloved Honda Ridgeline pickup. Jalopnik did an article about how the Wikipedia page for it is astonishingly detailed and (exhaustively) referenced.
The problem is that this takes SO MUCH time and energy. Most give up.
Taking time out of your day to voluntarily improve a free resource is already energy intensive without also expending that energy battling with zealots.
Edit: to be clear, I'm not saying providing proper references takes too much time, I'm saying that having to fight with people to be permitted to keep content while building references takes much more energy again.
> 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.
This isn't the case. I'm familiar with the standards applied for living philosophers, and they fall far short of the level of "future Nobel prize winner" (A quick glance at Wikipedia show I took classes from 7 such individuals while in grad school). Similarly for physicists: there are over 1000 21st century physicists listed on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:21st-century_physicis....
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.
This sounds like a bad experience. I find Wikipedia pretty daunting and I'm not surprised you got tripped up trying to edit.
But as a lay person reading your post, I do not know what "Deaf Cultures and Deaf Educators" is. Is this a book? I tried googling for it but didn't find it. Wikipedia does have an article on Deaf culture (lowercase c): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_culture -- it was created in March of 2004. I am not sure about "Deaf educators", but Wikipedia does have an article on Deaf education: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_education and on Dead studies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_studies and on Schools for the deaf: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_for_the_deaf (this one is in notable need of expansion). It looks like the separate article for Deaf education sprung into being in the early 2010s and previously redirect-merged to deaf culture.
I think it's at least possible here that you were not discriminated against as part of an anti-diversity agenda, but rather that you misunderstood some of Wikipedia's needlessly complicated rules or maybe didn't present what you were trying to add in the right way.
I went back through the articles for deletion discussion for all of 2004 and could not find a discussion about deleting an article by the name you said. I went through the full list of deleted articles in 2001-2004 -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_log -- and searched for "deaf" and didn't find anything relevant ever. If your pages were deleted after 2004, they're only visible in the modern deletion log and that requires an exact title match unless you're an administrator, which I am not. So unfortunately I think without more information it's going to be hard to help you 18 years later.
But I'm pretty sure it was not because Wikipedia editors were anti-diversity.
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.
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 if you disagree with that - fine, it’s creative commons, you can easily get all the articles with all their histories (wikipedia helpfully dumps all that periodically every day as giant XML), and the software is open source; you can fork it and create article on every living human being that ever existed.
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.
> 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 than 80 countries" is something small independent internet artists did 20 years ago, and they didn't get wikipedia pages either.
Hmm, maybe we'd all learn something about this guy if only he had a Wikipedia page. Guess his life's work is too expensive for Wikipedia's hard drives.
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?
It wouldn't be entirely unfair to say that Wikipedia's policies are designed to keep people like Mr. Gioia off the site and out of the decision making process.
Considering that he doesn't want to learn what Wikipedia's policies are, or why they exist (and his calling people who disagree with him "trolls"), I am inclined to think that is a good thing.
Getting huffy about Mr. Gioia's choice of language doesn't really engage with the substance of his complaint. Is there a stated Wikipedia policy that composers must have an entry in the Grove Dictionary of Music to be considered notable? I bet there isn't. If Gioia is correct in saying that Wikipedia editors are insisting on that, then those Wikipedia editors are applying an arbitrary standard.
They are, in a word, trolling.
And I am inclined to think calling them out is a good thing.
It would be about 99% unfair. In my experience Wikipedia style moderation setups are a magnet for small minded petty martinets. Of course rules and some criteria are needed, but soon those people run over any shred of common sense while wielding them.
> It wouldn't be entirely unfair to say that Wikipedia's policies are designed to keep people like Mr. Gioia off the site and out of the decision making process.
Why? Who is he and what has he done that might make Wikipedia dislike him?
armchairhacker|3 years ago
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 reliable source”. If Wikipedia is concerned about quality, they can have “verified” and “contributed” articles, just like how distros have “stable” and “user-contributed / experimental”.
Spammers and useless content? This is an issue. But this guy is clearly not spam, the proof being any of his official works. I do agree that Wikipedia authors should remove “spammy” entries and entries on complete nobodies and random things, but you shouldn’t need to be in an Oxford journal to not be considered a “nobody”.
Even things which are famous in small towns and 1000-member groups should be on Wikipedia IMO, because most of the stuff is already on there is about as relevant to me or anyone else (which is to say, pretty irrelevant). If you want relevant content, that’s what the search tools and indexing are for.
Wikipedia is supposed to be “the grand encyclopedia” where you can find info on basically anything. There are already tons of Wikipedia articles on obscure people, places, and things. Way more obscure than this composer even if he isn’t truly well-known. Why does “relevance” even matter?
derefr|3 years ago
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 that articles about things that don't change, are easier to keep around than are articles about things that might change; which are in turn easier to keep around than are articles about things that definitely will change.
Living people — where the article is basically living biography for them — are in that last category.
The "notability" requirement can be translated into editor-ese as a combination of 1. "how many people could we find who could contribute to this page", and 2. "how much demand is there for Wikipedia — rather than some other website — to do the work of keeping this."
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? If that's "nobody", then to prevent that, the page shouldn't be allowed in the first place.
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?
tshaddox|3 years ago
cannabis_sam|3 years ago
The answer is Deletionists, people who are unable to contribute with actual knowledge and information, so they have decided that their contribution is destruction of knowledge and information.
The Wikipedia bureaucracy, as it exists, is unfortunately not equipped to handle these types of book burners…
glasshug|3 years ago
winternett|3 years ago
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 requires an entry to be published on Wikipedia for artists, now I could probably wait forever until someone still never writes one about me, or I could choose to pay a renowned publication to run a fluff piece on me like many other musicians do.
I am so tired of the manufactured gatekeeping nonsense that is required of me just to make music and be heard, no wonder why so many quit the business... ugh.
leijurv|3 years ago
macspoofing|3 years ago
To prevent me having a Wikipedia page.
bazoom42|3 years ago
The reason people want their content on Wikipedia is because a Wikipedia page signal a certain notability compared to a random web page. So the inclusionists want to eat the cake and keep it too.
stevenjgarner|3 years ago
There are more than 19,000 entries for CLIO awards [0] from 62 countries yet only 18 Clio Awards juries comprised of industry leaders from across the globe awarded 13 Grand Clios in 2020/2021 [1]. The Global Advertising Agencies Market Size in 2022 was worth approx. $332.1 billion [2].
By comparison the Academy Awards give out Oscars in 24 categories [3] to nominees selected from only 9,921 members [4]. The Motion Picture Association released a new report on the international box office and home entertainment market showing that the industry reached $101 billion USD in 2019 [5].
Oscars are considered notable. CLIOs are not. It would appear that making art is notable (except in the sad case of Bruce Faulconer), while impacting an entire industry or contributing to marketing or education in a highly visibly recognized manner is not.
[0] https://clios.com/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clio_Awards
[2] https://www.ibisworld.com/global/market-size/global-advertis...
[3] https://www.britannica.com/art/Academy-Award
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_Motion_Picture_Arts...
[5] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rosaescandon/2020/03/12/the-fil...
solardev|3 years ago
I've had success appealing notability deletions in the past, but it was a pain in the ass, especially after I just spent hours researching, sourcing, writing, referencing, and proofing the article. I never made a new article again after that.
Sadly, some of the admins there are power tripping idiots who will also use random loopholes to forbid edits that don't reflect their own ideologies, often in direct contrast to Wikipedia's own guidelines.
Like any bureaucracy, it has become a cabal of aristocrats who are in it for the power and control. Regular lowly editors generally don't have much recourse. It made me gave up on editing Wikipedia. Became an editor in 2004 and the climate has changed dramatically since then, from "newbies welcome, please edit" to "this is my private library, don't touch anything!"
derefr|3 years ago
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, then that fact is data, and is best recorded together with other data of the same shape, to put it in the context of its meaning.
It's only when there are many distinct notable facts about someone, all of different shapes, where the best way to connect all those facts together is in carefully-formatted prose, that the right way to record that data becomes "a distinct Wikipedia page for that topic."
glasshug|3 years ago
Wikipedia's guideline for the notability of voice actors is:[1]
> 1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or
> 2. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
This can be difficult to define. I'd suggest you instead follow the guideline of notability for people generally, which is:[2]
> A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
I'm always sorry to hear about someone that has gotten frustrated editing Wikipedia. Even though I'd discourage it as a conflict of interest, editors have successfully created articles for friends by simply citing reliable secondary sources that cover them. I'd suggest you give it another try if such sources exist and reach out in the Teahouse[3] if you need help.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse
throwaway2037|3 years ago
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)
kupopuffs|3 years ago
lucideer|3 years ago
WP could retain the exact notability requirements they currently have, as written, and still vastly improve the situation from the current mess. As it stands:
- mentions of any thing or person without a pre-existing article (by extension meeting notability requirements) are quickly deleted by fans of the frequently referenced "Write the Article First" essay[0]. While this essay is clearly labelled as an opinion piece, not policy, that opinion is staunchly defended by people with more time on their hands than you do.
- Any effort to follow the essay's advice and actually create a new article is quickly curbed: despite the notability requirements policies containing detailed sections on the benefits of "stubs" as prompts to grow useful article content, newly minted articles are summarily deleted if they are not perfect on first draft (and extremely comprehensively referenced).
When I first started contributing to Wikipedia almost 2 decades ago, these articles and similar debates between cohorts of "deletionists", etc. certainly existed, but what looks to have happened over the years is that the most progressive of those cohorts left, probably tired of constantly grappling with the hostilities of those with seemingly nothing better to do than to pour all of their hours into making Wikipedia their staunchly defended castle.
Becoming a new contributor to Wikipedia today involves a barrier to entry only zealots will bother to spend time overcoming.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Write_the_article_...
Victerius|3 years ago
The current editors and admins will die someday. Who will replace them? If only the worst kind of people bother making the effort to become the next editors and admins, then Wikipedia will decline in quality and eventually die and be replaced by other sources, like fandom.
bpeebles|3 years ago
thrdbndndn|3 years ago
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 self-edited the page [2]. This isn't strictly prohibited AFAIK, but it will raise self-promotion [3] red flag and obviously there were hardly any references in his editing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruce_Faulconer&d...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
barnabee|3 years ago
If that is the primary standard for inclusion (or “notability”) it is a huge shame and a wasted opportunity.
Willish42|3 years ago
FWIW I personally am in the camp that Bruce Faulconer is probably sufficiently recognizable that a small stub article is justified and better than the redirect they added. However, this article skips over a lot of the story, possible disingenuously so.
OTOH, similarly small articles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Godfree are all over wikipedia, the backlash seems completely unjustified.
fennecfoxen|3 years ago
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
worik|3 years ago
"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.
leijurv|3 years ago
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").
defen|3 years ago
googlryas|3 years ago
BrainVirus|3 years ago
Instead of being surprised at things over and over again, I think it's time to adjust our collective expectations to match the reality.
themodelplumber|3 years ago
mhh__|3 years ago
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 pointed out that this is childish behaviour and he blocked me, go figure.
CharlesW|3 years ago
"Decentralized" <> "unmoderated", "without content standards", or "without editors". Is there a more decentralized knowledge resource of general significance? Hosting happens to be centralized, only because nobody else cares enough to rehost it themselves (which the license allows you to do).
JanneVee|3 years ago
This article highlights the slippery slope of it. It is one thing to remove the esoteric language that nobody is seriously using but has a little cultural significance except for a small number of programmer nerds like myself. This composer is actually notable in comparison. Who gets to decide notability? What is next? Are we going to be removing lore from small ethnic groups because there isn't some academic reference to it and someone dutifully transcribed oral tradition and translated a language which only a few speak... No not notable...
oezi|3 years ago
tshaddox|3 years ago
That is very explicitly not a goal of Wikipedia. Of course you're free to disagree with what Wikipedia ought to be, but they're at least fairly clear and explicit about their own goals.
echelon|3 years ago
Can you expand on this? I wasn't aware Google penalized Wikipedia now.
Why?
peterlk|3 years ago
themodelplumber|3 years ago
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.
ilikehurdles|3 years ago
It would be interesting if the database of facts driving Wikipedia were available to all, and Wikipedia is recognized as providing one of potentially many ways to organize/publish that database for human reading. In other words, if I want to add information about a composer and her composition to the database I can do so, and if Wikipedia chooses only to publish the composition but not the composer, that is entirely their decision.
dmitrygr|3 years ago
picture|3 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ARM_Cortex-M&type...
mixmastamyk|3 years ago
Some pedanto reverts it every time I tried. Says "it's not in the booklet" (of the CD). Believe the thinking is that reality is not good enough, it must be confirmed by an authority. A disturbing enough idea in itself.
YeGoblynQueenne|3 years ago
>> 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.
hitekker|3 years ago
They’ve spent too much time wallowing in the unreal realm of the internet; they fear the light of day. If people were to shine a light on them, they’d die of embarrassment.
stevenjgarner|3 years ago
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Ball_Z
jtbayly|3 years ago
syrrim|3 years ago
Given wikipedia's funding, it ought to be possible to pay for credentialed experts to curate the editorial bend of articles in their area of expertise. This would have its own issues, namely of causing a bias towards institutionally favoured interpretations, but I think that would be preferable to the status quo.
glasshug|3 years ago
It's a hard problem. Volunteer editors are spread thinly over millions of articles, some of which (like "Bruce Faulconer") are about living people that are really important to get right.[1] The project has settled on the guideline of _notability_, meaning that articles are kept only if they have significant coverage in reliable sources.[2] Proving a negative is not really possible, but it works okay most of the time.
It's worth thinking about alternate policies you could set up.[3] You could decide deletion based on whether a figure were "known and beloved all over the world," as the author suggests, which is difficult to define. You could could keep everything,[4] which some alternate Wikis have tried. You get unmaintained pages and probably libel.
Gioia criticizes the barrier to contribution, which is also a difficult balance to reach. Some processes are just inherently complex and involve reaching consensus among hundreds of people. Others could be simplified, but every hour spent discussing and implementing improvements is an hour taken from improving the content.
The policies are under constant discussion and change,[5] and no one thinks we've reached the perfect balance between these constraints. See, for example, this month's headline case at the Arbitration Committee around deletion.[6]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_livin...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_i...
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy...
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests...
BrainVirus|3 years ago
I would like to point out that this is, effectively, a very clever way of saying that Wikipedia is controlled by a tiny group of people whose goals for Wikipedia do not match the expectations of the general public.
leereeves|3 years ago
Judging by this case, composing the music for a TV show watched for years by millions of people doesn't count, but composing something performed in a theatre and watched by far fewer people is officially notable:
> Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc.) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run, as such things are judged in their particular situation, context, and time.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#C...
Robotbeat|3 years ago
barnabee|3 years ago
A reasonable alternative would be for the notability requirement simply to be that the general public may run into the topic/person (and presumably therefore be interested to know more) OR may ask a question to which the article would contain the answer.
Anyone who’s creative work is published or included in a movie or whatever should automatically be included under such a rule.
It would also be sensible for the default in the case of dispute to be to keep the article unless the actual content itself is completely unverifiable, as long as there is some half way plausible argument for doing so.
There should be no sense of achievement for or gratitude towards anyone removing facts from an encyclopaedia.
Any editor who makes removing articles on notability grounds their raison d’etre demonstrates only arrogance and smugness.
justincormack|3 years ago
jsmith45|3 years ago
From the info I have, the only criteria he may meet is #1 for in the first group, and it is not actually clear that "soundtrack for DBZ" is a notable composition. for a TV show soundtrack to qualify as notable, it would need to be something often written about. For example, if a show is discussed for its music almost as often as for its plot, then sure the soundtrack is probably notable. I don't think that actually applies here.
And even if so, if he is only really known for one work (which pretty much is the case), that would generally be merged with the article for that work. So he could be mentioned in the "Sound Track of DBZ" article if one existed, or the "soundtrack" section of the main DBZ article.
------
Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:
1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. 2. Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc.) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run, as such things are judged in their particular situation, context, and time. 3. Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria. 4. Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers. 5. Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria. 6. Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on their genre of music.
Where possible, composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article should be merged into the article about their work. When a composer or lyricist is known for multiple works, such a merger may not be possible.
---
Composers and performers outside mass media traditions may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:
1. Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture.
2. Has composed a number of notable melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable music genre.
3. Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching for a particular music genre.
4. Is cited by reliable sources as having established a tradition or school in a particular music genre.
5. Has been listed as a significant musical influence on musicians or composers who meet the above criteria.
chiph|3 years ago
A good example of this is the article for the unloved Honda Ridgeline pickup. Jalopnik did an article about how the Wikipedia page for it is astonishingly detailed and (exhaustively) referenced.
https://jalopnik.com/the-story-behind-the-honda-ridgelines-w...
lucideer|3 years ago
The problem is that this takes SO MUCH time and energy. Most give up.
Taking time out of your day to voluntarily improve a free resource is already energy intensive without also expending that energy battling with zealots.
Edit: to be clear, I'm not saying providing proper references takes too much time, I'm saying that having to fight with people to be permitted to keep content while building references takes much more energy again.
kevinpet|3 years ago
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.
hyperpape|3 years ago
throwawayarnty|3 years ago
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.
mirages|3 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FaulconerProductions...
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
egberts1|3 years ago
Both were summarily deleted.
So I started it again but under my User directory. That too got deleted.
So, Wikipedia editors are inherently anti-diversity.
notafraudster|3 years ago
But as a lay person reading your post, I do not know what "Deaf Cultures and Deaf Educators" is. Is this a book? I tried googling for it but didn't find it. Wikipedia does have an article on Deaf culture (lowercase c): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_culture -- it was created in March of 2004. I am not sure about "Deaf educators", but Wikipedia does have an article on Deaf education: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_education and on Dead studies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_studies and on Schools for the deaf: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_for_the_deaf (this one is in notable need of expansion). It looks like the separate article for Deaf education sprung into being in the early 2010s and previously redirect-merged to deaf culture.
I think it's at least possible here that you were not discriminated against as part of an anti-diversity agenda, but rather that you misunderstood some of Wikipedia's needlessly complicated rules or maybe didn't present what you were trying to add in the right way.
I went back through the articles for deletion discussion for all of 2004 and could not find a discussion about deleting an article by the name you said. I went through the full list of deleted articles in 2001-2004 -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_log -- and searched for "deaf" and didn't find anything relevant ever. If your pages were deleted after 2004, they're only visible in the modern deletion log and that requires an exact title match unless you're an administrator, which I am not. So unfortunately I think without more information it's going to be hard to help you 18 years later.
But I'm pretty sure it was not because Wikipedia editors were anti-diversity.
8bitsrule|3 years ago
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.
guender|3 years ago
[deleted]
goldenchrome|3 years ago
[deleted]
shp0ngle|3 years ago
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 if you disagree with that - fine, it’s creative commons, you can easily get all the articles with all their histories (wikipedia helpfully dumps all that periodically every day as giant XML), and the software is open source; you can fork it and create article on every living human being that ever existed.
onli|3 years ago
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.
unixbane|3 years ago
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 than 80 countries" is something small independent internet artists did 20 years ago, and they didn't get wikipedia pages either.
solardev|3 years ago
Bud|3 years ago
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?
causi|3 years ago
stevenjgarner|3 years ago
[0] https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0269023/
canjobear|3 years ago
clint|3 years ago
powera|3 years ago
Considering that he doesn't want to learn what Wikipedia's policies are, or why they exist (and his calling people who disagree with him "trolls"), I am inclined to think that is a good thing.
chipotle_coyote|3 years ago
They are, in a word, trolling.
And I am inclined to think calling them out is a good thing.
fcatalan|3 years ago
jtbayly|3 years ago
atoav|3 years ago
tgv|3 years ago
leereeves|3 years ago
Why? Who is he and what has he done that might make Wikipedia dislike him?