This is a work area for the proposed "Wikipedia is not a fansite" addition to What Wikipedia is not policy. This is not the actual poll. Please make changes/corrections you feel appropriate, or discuss this proposal below. When "finalised" this will be added as an actual poll to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
The section below contains proposed wording for the poll. Please feel free to offer alternative language, corrections or other improvements-- you may also use the discussion area below this section; however, please do not "vote" here.
Seeing as how I initiated this discussion in November, which had a good deal of response, I'll now offer some more concrete language, with an Opinion Survey. As such a " straw poll" is an attempt to gauge consensus, it is non-binding, and does not have a definitive number/percentage for enactment. I'll close the discussion in two weeks, and follow the suggested course by participants in the survey.
Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you hold, possibly adding a brief comment. If you are neutral, but wish to record a comment, please place it under "Neutral/Comment." Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion".
PROPOSAL: Add the following under the What Wikipedia is not (below "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files")
Wikipedia is not a fan site, or a forum for fans of a particular fictional or real-world subject to discuss their interests.
Although Wikipedia contains extensive information on a variety of fan-related topics, the aim is to generate encyclopedic content of interest to general readers. Wikipedia should not be used as a replacement for the numerous other Internet resources available to fans, such as discussion forums and newsgroups; chat rooms; email lists; or other fan Web sites and wikis. Special care should be taken that information added to articles on fan topics,
Please discuss ways that the proposed wording may be improved below
Well, it does and it doesn't. Let me play devil's advocate here for a second. Baryonyx writes, We cross the line from interesting point to trivia, and thus inappropriate material, the moment we begin introducing things that contribute little or nothing to the average person's enjoyment. Well, the average person's enjoyment may in fact be heightened by having it actually explained that Walt isn't just speaking incoherently, but a) it's backwards speech, and b) it says blah blah. I watched recaps of Lost with a person recently who hadn't seen any of the series (a first-timer, in other words), and when we got to that particular scene, she was rabid to find out WHAT Walt was saying.
A better example might be if someone posts that this or that scene was filmed in a specific bar in Honolulu or whatever. This would have absolutely no relevance to understanding the show, and is pure ancillary interest to core fans.
Again, I don't think we can/should use the words "trivia" or "fancruft" at all in the policy. They don't bear much weight, especially with newer folks, and thus they don't help our cause to cite them. I've been trying to think of some alternative phrasing, and have not yet been subject to a flash of insight on this . -- PKtm 23:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about this, Leflyman. I think that the distinction "not a fansite" is a useful one, as long as it is made clear that this doesn't mean that fan-related material is to be excluded from Wikipedia. Your proposal below does that, but I think it could be a bit stronger, so as not to give the ultra-deletionists more ammunition. Perhaps the opening paragraph could be rephrased to something like:
Points 3 and 4 are excellent, and should be non-controversial. I've got a few small quibbles with 1 and 2, though.
That would allow a consensus of editors in each field to determine what's appropriate and what isn't (which is what we do, or should be doing, in non-fannish subjects). Just because something has been published for the fan market doesn't mean that it's not reliable or verifiable. Excluding information from Doctor Who Magazine from Doctor Who articles would be like excluding information from Sports Illustrated from basketball articles.
Similarly, a blanket ban on "fan publications" could be interpreted as excluding books like this and this from Buffy the Vampire Slayer articles, even though they're aimed at the intersection between fan and academic communities and could be very useful sources for articles like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and social issues.— Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 08:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
All excellent points. Clearly, the issue of "trivia" is a sticky bit. I'm digesting the various comments, and will float some alternatives to wording.
Some quick, and incomplete thoughts:
K1Bond007: You are correct that much of the material is a restatement of other policies; that's what nearly everything in What Wikipedia Is Not does. As I point out below, "this proposal aims to consolidate the disparate policy elements that would clarify why content that might be appropriate to a fan site would not be appropriate to Wikipedia." In other words, to provide a reference that one can point to for new enthusiastic editors who might want to add every bit of info they've come across on their favorite fan site. (Which seems to be the latest trend on the Lost articles, and I expect in other fandoms, too).
Josiah: I agree that "publications" isn't clear; the inserted it with the intent to refer to fanzines and newsletters, as opposed to printed periodicals that meet "reliability" standards. If it's a problem, the mention of "or publications" can be removed. Fan websites, however, should perhaps be clarified to refer to "personal-type" fansites, of which there are countless numbers on everything under the sun. My feeling is that Wikipedia should not be in a position to judge the quality of one fansite versus another, thus the expectation should be that only "official" sites or traditional news sites should be used for background and news. Fan sites which conduct interviews with individuals mentioned in articles can be quoted, of course. One thing of note that we should keep in mind, the proposal doesn't just speak to fictional fandom, but should also be general enough that it deals with real-world interests, such as sportsfans, or celebrity fans.
More as it comes to me... (thanks again!) -- LeFlyman 04:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs a better way of dealing with popular culture generally. A big chunk of Wikipedia replicates Gracenote and IMDB. Wikipedia has tens of thousands of album and song articles, but they're not organized into a searchable database. Similarly, Wikipedia has many movie articles, but IMDB does a better job in that area. Such database-type info belongs in a real database, not a manually maintained mess of links.
Then there are the fan universes, starting with Star Wars/Trek/Gate and continuing through all those collectable card sets designed to suck money out of kids' pockets. Wikipedia has an article for every Pokemon. That stuff belongs elsewhere. Even though there's an entire Wookiepedia for Star Wars, there's way too much Star Wars detail in the main Wikipedia.
What's needed is a better place to put all this stuff, so that it can be moved out of the main Wikipedia. That's the real problem. We need Wikipedia Popular Culture, with both a wiki and structured databases for info like albums.
Once we have that, and a "transwiki" system that works, the fan material can be moved in bulk. That's the way out of this mess.
This is a duplicate of the discussion held at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, please do not add to this, as it is for reference only
Proposed addition: "Wikipedia is not a fan site."
As one of the editors involved in the constant battle to clean up articles about fan-favorite Lost (TV series), I've found that many new users are confused about the level of detail appropriate to encyclopedic content, versus fan content. I've used the refrain "Wikipedia is not a fan site" repeatedly, and think it's appropriate to state explicitly. Last year, another editor floated a similar suggestion, regarding sports fans.
Under such "not fan site" category would be the rubric of other fannish activities, such as: inclusion of extreme trivia; speculations on future events; archiving multiple promotional images; and chat-room like commentary on Talk pages (as I mentioned above). A note that Wikipedia is not " spoiler-free" might likewise be appropriate.
Thoughts? — LeFlyman 20:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I support anything that makes wikipedia's content simultaneously more academically selective and more accessible for non-experts. This proposal seems to do that. The Literate Engineer 20:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I support the addition of this item to WP:NOT, but only on the basis that a fan site basically never is NPOV (not on the basis that fan sites have excessive detail.) — David Remahl 18:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I support LeFlyman's proposal, strongly; I believe that "not a fan site" deserves to get special policy mention, after seeing the constant barrage of fan-like material getting added/deleted on the Lost article. It's nothing at all like saying Wikipedia is not a science enthusiast site, because that's not been a problem across Wikipedia, as is the fan site issue. -- PKtm 00:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I was waiting to get comments to point out that Wikipedia does have a section of guidance in line with this proposal at Wikipedia:Fancruft, whose contents seem to support the proposition that "Wikipedia is not a fan site." — LeFlyman 04:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Fan data is most of the time the same as historical data, as long as they don't add rumors, or half truths, Getting fans to give information about their favorite artists is a very good source for authors. -- Masssiveego 03:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I think part of the controversy involving fansites and wikipedia's relationship to them is that wikipedia can't seem to agree on a definiton of a fansite. I see two definitions. The first, which seems to be wikipedia's definition, is simply a site created by fans, which is pretty much any unofficial site. The second definition (which seems to be how this proposal defines it) is a site with content that caters to hardcore fans instead of the average casual person (extreme detail/cruft/discussion/speculation). Problem is, by wikipedia's own definition, the pop culture sections of wikipedia are fansites for all intents and purposes. They aren't official sites, and the content is put in place by fans. I agree with the intent to keep the cruft level on wikipedia low, but it seems a bit futile to try and distance wikipedia from "fansites" when the difference isn't that great. I generally like your proposal, with the exception of the term "fan site" (if you can believe that). -- Milo H Minderbinder 14:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a work area for the proposed "Wikipedia is not a fansite" addition to What Wikipedia is not policy. This is not the actual poll. Please make changes/corrections you feel appropriate, or discuss this proposal below. When "finalised" this will be added as an actual poll to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
The section below contains proposed wording for the poll. Please feel free to offer alternative language, corrections or other improvements-- you may also use the discussion area below this section; however, please do not "vote" here.
Seeing as how I initiated this discussion in November, which had a good deal of response, I'll now offer some more concrete language, with an Opinion Survey. As such a " straw poll" is an attempt to gauge consensus, it is non-binding, and does not have a definitive number/percentage for enactment. I'll close the discussion in two weeks, and follow the suggested course by participants in the survey.
Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you hold, possibly adding a brief comment. If you are neutral, but wish to record a comment, please place it under "Neutral/Comment." Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion".
PROPOSAL: Add the following under the What Wikipedia is not (below "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files")
Wikipedia is not a fan site, or a forum for fans of a particular fictional or real-world subject to discuss their interests.
Although Wikipedia contains extensive information on a variety of fan-related topics, the aim is to generate encyclopedic content of interest to general readers. Wikipedia should not be used as a replacement for the numerous other Internet resources available to fans, such as discussion forums and newsgroups; chat rooms; email lists; or other fan Web sites and wikis. Special care should be taken that information added to articles on fan topics,
Please discuss ways that the proposed wording may be improved below
Well, it does and it doesn't. Let me play devil's advocate here for a second. Baryonyx writes, We cross the line from interesting point to trivia, and thus inappropriate material, the moment we begin introducing things that contribute little or nothing to the average person's enjoyment. Well, the average person's enjoyment may in fact be heightened by having it actually explained that Walt isn't just speaking incoherently, but a) it's backwards speech, and b) it says blah blah. I watched recaps of Lost with a person recently who hadn't seen any of the series (a first-timer, in other words), and when we got to that particular scene, she was rabid to find out WHAT Walt was saying.
A better example might be if someone posts that this or that scene was filmed in a specific bar in Honolulu or whatever. This would have absolutely no relevance to understanding the show, and is pure ancillary interest to core fans.
Again, I don't think we can/should use the words "trivia" or "fancruft" at all in the policy. They don't bear much weight, especially with newer folks, and thus they don't help our cause to cite them. I've been trying to think of some alternative phrasing, and have not yet been subject to a flash of insight on this . -- PKtm 23:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about this, Leflyman. I think that the distinction "not a fansite" is a useful one, as long as it is made clear that this doesn't mean that fan-related material is to be excluded from Wikipedia. Your proposal below does that, but I think it could be a bit stronger, so as not to give the ultra-deletionists more ammunition. Perhaps the opening paragraph could be rephrased to something like:
Points 3 and 4 are excellent, and should be non-controversial. I've got a few small quibbles with 1 and 2, though.
That would allow a consensus of editors in each field to determine what's appropriate and what isn't (which is what we do, or should be doing, in non-fannish subjects). Just because something has been published for the fan market doesn't mean that it's not reliable or verifiable. Excluding information from Doctor Who Magazine from Doctor Who articles would be like excluding information from Sports Illustrated from basketball articles.
Similarly, a blanket ban on "fan publications" could be interpreted as excluding books like this and this from Buffy the Vampire Slayer articles, even though they're aimed at the intersection between fan and academic communities and could be very useful sources for articles like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and social issues.— Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 08:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
All excellent points. Clearly, the issue of "trivia" is a sticky bit. I'm digesting the various comments, and will float some alternatives to wording.
Some quick, and incomplete thoughts:
K1Bond007: You are correct that much of the material is a restatement of other policies; that's what nearly everything in What Wikipedia Is Not does. As I point out below, "this proposal aims to consolidate the disparate policy elements that would clarify why content that might be appropriate to a fan site would not be appropriate to Wikipedia." In other words, to provide a reference that one can point to for new enthusiastic editors who might want to add every bit of info they've come across on their favorite fan site. (Which seems to be the latest trend on the Lost articles, and I expect in other fandoms, too).
Josiah: I agree that "publications" isn't clear; the inserted it with the intent to refer to fanzines and newsletters, as opposed to printed periodicals that meet "reliability" standards. If it's a problem, the mention of "or publications" can be removed. Fan websites, however, should perhaps be clarified to refer to "personal-type" fansites, of which there are countless numbers on everything under the sun. My feeling is that Wikipedia should not be in a position to judge the quality of one fansite versus another, thus the expectation should be that only "official" sites or traditional news sites should be used for background and news. Fan sites which conduct interviews with individuals mentioned in articles can be quoted, of course. One thing of note that we should keep in mind, the proposal doesn't just speak to fictional fandom, but should also be general enough that it deals with real-world interests, such as sportsfans, or celebrity fans.
More as it comes to me... (thanks again!) -- LeFlyman 04:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs a better way of dealing with popular culture generally. A big chunk of Wikipedia replicates Gracenote and IMDB. Wikipedia has tens of thousands of album and song articles, but they're not organized into a searchable database. Similarly, Wikipedia has many movie articles, but IMDB does a better job in that area. Such database-type info belongs in a real database, not a manually maintained mess of links.
Then there are the fan universes, starting with Star Wars/Trek/Gate and continuing through all those collectable card sets designed to suck money out of kids' pockets. Wikipedia has an article for every Pokemon. That stuff belongs elsewhere. Even though there's an entire Wookiepedia for Star Wars, there's way too much Star Wars detail in the main Wikipedia.
What's needed is a better place to put all this stuff, so that it can be moved out of the main Wikipedia. That's the real problem. We need Wikipedia Popular Culture, with both a wiki and structured databases for info like albums.
Once we have that, and a "transwiki" system that works, the fan material can be moved in bulk. That's the way out of this mess.
This is a duplicate of the discussion held at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, please do not add to this, as it is for reference only
Proposed addition: "Wikipedia is not a fan site."
As one of the editors involved in the constant battle to clean up articles about fan-favorite Lost (TV series), I've found that many new users are confused about the level of detail appropriate to encyclopedic content, versus fan content. I've used the refrain "Wikipedia is not a fan site" repeatedly, and think it's appropriate to state explicitly. Last year, another editor floated a similar suggestion, regarding sports fans.
Under such "not fan site" category would be the rubric of other fannish activities, such as: inclusion of extreme trivia; speculations on future events; archiving multiple promotional images; and chat-room like commentary on Talk pages (as I mentioned above). A note that Wikipedia is not " spoiler-free" might likewise be appropriate.
Thoughts? — LeFlyman 20:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I support anything that makes wikipedia's content simultaneously more academically selective and more accessible for non-experts. This proposal seems to do that. The Literate Engineer 20:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I support the addition of this item to WP:NOT, but only on the basis that a fan site basically never is NPOV (not on the basis that fan sites have excessive detail.) — David Remahl 18:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I support LeFlyman's proposal, strongly; I believe that "not a fan site" deserves to get special policy mention, after seeing the constant barrage of fan-like material getting added/deleted on the Lost article. It's nothing at all like saying Wikipedia is not a science enthusiast site, because that's not been a problem across Wikipedia, as is the fan site issue. -- PKtm 00:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I was waiting to get comments to point out that Wikipedia does have a section of guidance in line with this proposal at Wikipedia:Fancruft, whose contents seem to support the proposition that "Wikipedia is not a fan site." — LeFlyman 04:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Fan data is most of the time the same as historical data, as long as they don't add rumors, or half truths, Getting fans to give information about their favorite artists is a very good source for authors. -- Masssiveego 03:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I think part of the controversy involving fansites and wikipedia's relationship to them is that wikipedia can't seem to agree on a definiton of a fansite. I see two definitions. The first, which seems to be wikipedia's definition, is simply a site created by fans, which is pretty much any unofficial site. The second definition (which seems to be how this proposal defines it) is a site with content that caters to hardcore fans instead of the average casual person (extreme detail/cruft/discussion/speculation). Problem is, by wikipedia's own definition, the pop culture sections of wikipedia are fansites for all intents and purposes. They aren't official sites, and the content is put in place by fans. I agree with the intent to keep the cruft level on wikipedia low, but it seems a bit futile to try and distance wikipedia from "fansites" when the difference isn't that great. I generally like your proposal, with the exception of the term "fan site" (if you can believe that). -- Milo H Minderbinder 14:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)