I spend my time in an obscure subject: jazz. It hasn't been a popular genre since World War II. I found an article from 2015 placing jazz sales figures at 1.4% of music consumption, making it the least popular genre in America, selling less than classical. It's difficult to find reliable sources for popular subjects, let alone unpopular ones. No sources, no article.
I've been chipping away at the Wikiproject Jazz Cleanup Listing, which consists of the backlog of 4000 articles out of about 29,000 articles in Wikiproject Jazz. My first step was to remove from the project articles which didn't fall under the category of jazz, which I thought would be easy. It wasn't. Simply removing the Wikiproject Jazz template from articles resulted in a variety of reactions from contributors—a variety of negative reactions.
Proposals to have an article deleted (AfDs in Wikipedia slang) are difficult to say the least. There's lots of addition on Wikipedia and very little subtraction. Very little resolution.
Stubs and orphans are common on the backlog list. These articles aren't going to be improved, but they can't be deleted if people are going to protect them for arbitrary reasons.
One reason collective projects fail is because of the natural tendency to feel ownership for something one has worked on. The more work you do, the more you feel it is yours. The more you feel it is yours, the less you want someone to meddle with your efforts.
I seek a moderate approach that balances individual interests with the interests of a useful encyclopedia. Fundamental to this is an attempt to achieve some degree of impartiality. When one edits, one tries not merely to correct mistakes but to prevent them from happening again, to avoid playing whack-a-mole. Such an attempt can mean the difference between progress and going in circles.
"Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics."
List personnel by instrument. Orchestral scores list them from high notes to low. So the jazz version is something like this:
Wikipedia discourages the use of the following as sources:
See: WikiProject Albums/Sources and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Other sites
One doesn't "post" to Wikipedia the way one posts to Facebook, Twitter, a forum, or a chat room. Anyone can write or edit Wikipedia, provided one knows the rules. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. It isn't television. It isn't the place to go for the latest thing. It isn't the place to read about gossip or scandal. It's an encyclopedia, which means a boring reliance on facts. No site that has user-generated content can be a reliable source for Wikipedia, and this includes Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Instagram, iTunes, Discogs.com, Musicbrainz, RateYourMusic, Soundcloud, LinkedIn, YouTube, blogs, forums, retail sites, and any site whose purpose is to sell or promote rather than to record facts. Even if the sources are appropriate, Wikipedia isn't the place to post "A new album is coming next month" or "the band said they plan to record a new album" or "the band might go on tour next year". It isn't a diary, a tour book, or a place to mourn dead loved ones. It's isn't the place for tributes or free advertising. It isn't the place for drawing attention to people, places, or ideas that you think deserve more attention. We have rules for notability.
There's a kind of religious sentiment among some members of Wikipedia who object to articles being deleted. Articles are inert data, not living beings, so it is false to say one is "saving" or "rescuing" articles.
If not enough has been written or published on a subject, it's impossible to write an article about it. Articles come from sources. No sources, no articles.
When an article is up for deletion, you're not supposed to think "But I like this" or "But this is important". If you think it's that important, then you write the article. Otherwise stay out of the way. If you have good reasons to keep rather than delete, you will have a chance to give those reasons. Don't assume deletion is always wrong. As editors we are supposed to be impartial. That means leaving at the door our preferences, desires, feelings, causes, movements, politics, religion. Don't leave for others work that you are capable of doing.
My opinion about words use excessively or incorrectly in WP jazz articles:
This user is a participant in WikiProject Jazz. |
This user is in the Disambiguator Hall of Fame. |
The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar | ||
The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to the winners of the
Disambiguation Pages With Links monthly challenge, who have gone above and beyond to remove ambiguous links. This award is presented to Vmavanti, for successfully fixing 2297 links in the challenge of January 2018. This user is also recognized as the Bonus List Champion of January 2018. |
en | This user is a native speaker of the English language. |
This user prefers citation templates. |
This user is a citizen of the United States of America. |
70,000 | This user has made 70,000 edits to the English language Wikipedia. |
This user is one of the 1000 most active English Wikipedians of all time. |
This user does not want to be an Administrator and is suspicious of people who desire such powers. |
# of users | There are currently 47,476,857 users on Wikipedia |
I spend my time in an obscure subject: jazz. It hasn't been a popular genre since World War II. I found an article from 2015 placing jazz sales figures at 1.4% of music consumption, making it the least popular genre in America, selling less than classical. It's difficult to find reliable sources for popular subjects, let alone unpopular ones. No sources, no article.
I've been chipping away at the Wikiproject Jazz Cleanup Listing, which consists of the backlog of 4000 articles out of about 29,000 articles in Wikiproject Jazz. My first step was to remove from the project articles which didn't fall under the category of jazz, which I thought would be easy. It wasn't. Simply removing the Wikiproject Jazz template from articles resulted in a variety of reactions from contributors—a variety of negative reactions.
Proposals to have an article deleted (AfDs in Wikipedia slang) are difficult to say the least. There's lots of addition on Wikipedia and very little subtraction. Very little resolution.
Stubs and orphans are common on the backlog list. These articles aren't going to be improved, but they can't be deleted if people are going to protect them for arbitrary reasons.
One reason collective projects fail is because of the natural tendency to feel ownership for something one has worked on. The more work you do, the more you feel it is yours. The more you feel it is yours, the less you want someone to meddle with your efforts.
I seek a moderate approach that balances individual interests with the interests of a useful encyclopedia. Fundamental to this is an attempt to achieve some degree of impartiality. When one edits, one tries not merely to correct mistakes but to prevent them from happening again, to avoid playing whack-a-mole. Such an attempt can mean the difference between progress and going in circles.
"Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics."
List personnel by instrument. Orchestral scores list them from high notes to low. So the jazz version is something like this:
Wikipedia discourages the use of the following as sources:
See: WikiProject Albums/Sources and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Other sites
One doesn't "post" to Wikipedia the way one posts to Facebook, Twitter, a forum, or a chat room. Anyone can write or edit Wikipedia, provided one knows the rules. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. It isn't television. It isn't the place to go for the latest thing. It isn't the place to read about gossip or scandal. It's an encyclopedia, which means a boring reliance on facts. No site that has user-generated content can be a reliable source for Wikipedia, and this includes Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Instagram, iTunes, Discogs.com, Musicbrainz, RateYourMusic, Soundcloud, LinkedIn, YouTube, blogs, forums, retail sites, and any site whose purpose is to sell or promote rather than to record facts. Even if the sources are appropriate, Wikipedia isn't the place to post "A new album is coming next month" or "the band said they plan to record a new album" or "the band might go on tour next year". It isn't a diary, a tour book, or a place to mourn dead loved ones. It's isn't the place for tributes or free advertising. It isn't the place for drawing attention to people, places, or ideas that you think deserve more attention. We have rules for notability.
There's a kind of religious sentiment among some members of Wikipedia who object to articles being deleted. Articles are inert data, not living beings, so it is false to say one is "saving" or "rescuing" articles.
If not enough has been written or published on a subject, it's impossible to write an article about it. Articles come from sources. No sources, no articles.
When an article is up for deletion, you're not supposed to think "But I like this" or "But this is important". If you think it's that important, then you write the article. Otherwise stay out of the way. If you have good reasons to keep rather than delete, you will have a chance to give those reasons. Don't assume deletion is always wrong. As editors we are supposed to be impartial. That means leaving at the door our preferences, desires, feelings, causes, movements, politics, religion. Don't leave for others work that you are capable of doing.
My opinion about words use excessively or incorrectly in WP jazz articles:
This user is a participant in WikiProject Jazz. |
This user is in the Disambiguator Hall of Fame. |
The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar | ||
The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to the winners of the
Disambiguation Pages With Links monthly challenge, who have gone above and beyond to remove ambiguous links. This award is presented to Vmavanti, for successfully fixing 2297 links in the challenge of January 2018. This user is also recognized as the Bonus List Champion of January 2018. |
en | This user is a native speaker of the English language. |
This user prefers citation templates. |
This user is a citizen of the United States of America. |
70,000 | This user has made 70,000 edits to the English language Wikipedia. |
This user is one of the 1000 most active English Wikipedians of all time. |
This user does not want to be an Administrator and is suspicious of people who desire such powers. |
# of users | There are currently 47,476,857 users on Wikipedia |