 | This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Some defend that the notability of a given author in the community at large is often for notable things the author or artist has done which have made a wider effect, positively, negatively, or most likely, neutrally. Thus, while it is granted that there is no warranting for any attack of the subject, an attack is not merely constituted by material not related to the principal and tangential points of the author or artist in question. That is, an article on Michael Jackson need not focus simply on his music or career at large, but instead spans beyond his professional engagements, not only to those things which possibly effect his professional engagements, but indeed possibly to his personal life, if this personal life is notable. For many academics, either in art or in authoring, the personal life is not notable, and is not relevant--but things which affect his/her professional engagement which are not explicitly part of his/her claimed endeavors, these are nearly always relevant if they are well-sourced and relevant to a range of communities of interest, not just the targeted ones of the author or artist--as they indeed can be very easily. However, "personal life" should be narrowly construed. The "personal life" that is ibso facto unacceptable and unmentionable on Wikipedia is that which hasn't been sourced. This is the first test. If the material is sourced, and the sources are reliable, and there is no doubt that a given fact, or even a relevant factoid, should proceed to the second test, which is, plainly, does this add to the article, or detract from it. I mean by this not mere quality, but also possible quantity. Thus, reporting that a given noted contemporary artist was involved in decadent orgies--if this is sourced in an obscure art journal from the 70's, this actually should mitigate against its inclusion; despite its reliability, there is plainly no relevance, nor any common knowledge from which a summary could glean knowledge. But if this material was covered in a prominent, more popular source, say a Life magazine article or the like, or if it widely reported in that after being covered more significantly elsewhere, then its' likelihood for inclusion should indeed grow, in that the source is being made known to more, and thus, bears more mention as a snippet than perhaps the rest of the article does, in that more people will know the snippet, mention the snippet to others, others who are searching for well-sourced, but not eruditically sourced, knowledge on a given matter. Thus, the article is not for the author or the artist, instead it is for the community, the community defined as all the individuals in that community, i.e., specifically not all the members of the communities who fancy the particular author or artist, either for political reasons, or for the desire to be experts. In this sense, 'expertise' can be blind to the popular culture, as both have their proper spheres, specifically within Wikipedia. The experts, or the interested, cannot be so blind as to warrant completely subtraction of relevant facts about the author or artist, pr even 'factoids', if the 'oid' part is still sourced, documented, and will be desirable to access for a wide range of the community, including specifically those not particularly searching for the article, but merely coming upon it. Thus, common knowledge is critical to an encyclopedia, it is intrinsic to its very nature, and it should depart from it only at the fancy of its writers, which I daresay, should be closely monitored. An encyclopedia does not tell me the significance of a thinker--it really couldn't care a whit about that. It tells me what the thinker thinks, or what the doer does. The significance of the thoughts thought, the works done, this is too lofty a standard for an encyclopedia to even touch well--and thus, attempts at it, they're largely fruitless except in factoids themselves, like "the most influential Dada artist". That's a factoid, and a subjective one at that.
Biographies cannot, repeat cannot, turn on attack--not even a Hitler bio. But at the same time, facts never are an attack unless they are POV. If they are from a NPOV, they may be relevant, or irrelevant, but they cannot be attacked as an attack--facts are simply not active, they can't attack, like persons can. The relevancy standard is trickier. I propose this: not can the bio live without it, but can the majority of interested persons, not merely in the material the author or artist produces, but in the professional accoutrements surrounding that, and indeed often the personal life, can that majority be better served 'with' it. And I mean by better served, again, not better acquainted with the thought or the work, but the actual subject, and that entails all three of these categories, contigent on whether or not they are each notable. And yes, an article can survive without 2 of the 3--but if material can be found to round the article out in adding the accoutrements surrounding the professional life which has been reported on, or the personal life, so much the better, provided these sources are not wildly POV (and I mean wildly granting of self-endorsement, like a Nazi source, a newspaper or what not, being used to make more 'light and fluffy' the bio of a particular Nazi--true or not). But the correlation must be direct like that to warrant dismissal of the information, in that a correlation of self-endorsement shows a great deal of unlikelihood that the event happened--but if the Wall Street Journal reports that a particularly liberal and Democratic Treasury Secretary was indicted on four counts of child molestation, this is of course not such a correlation, and should be doubted, but not redacted, unless contradicted. The better served are those who will find what they want in the article--exegesis of a work, or the like, general biographical information about the subject, or indeed, if it can be found, criticism. Criticism is not to be kept against the author or the artist, in that, we don't criticize their lives--but sources can do that. The motivation of those sources, it's irrelevant; all that's relevant is their notability and their veridicality--thus, are they speaking the truth, does that particular truth matter, etc. Criticism of course can be phraseological in nature, and not complete, and this can reflect deep POV. But the goal should be moderation--between complete academic treatment and complete journalistic treatment in general, which is not always academic in nature. Find the material, source it, and see if it stands up. But the page is better off 9 times out of 10 if you include sourced criticism of anything--that is, criticism is an objective good, whether it come in a chronicle of an academic criticism debate, or a general journalistic fact of note. It's like baking a cake--is the cake better with a given ingredient. The question is NOT whether it is still eatable without it. You evaluate the completeness of the project WITH, not without. -Kmaguir1 08:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Point one: Well, no, facts cannot attack. That's a key point you're missing, that a lot are missing here. If I say something as a fact, it is not an attack. "Johnny Butterfield murdered two in a West Binghampton field on Thursday." First, is it true? Ok, if it is, is it relevant, is a notable piece of information? Ok. But whether or not it gets included, or ultimately is omitted, its inclusion will or would not have constituted an attack, unless it were POV, which means, that it wasn't true for all people at all times. The hooks stuff I quoted--that was 100% frozen concentrate truth. It was true for all people at all times. Now, you may not have felt it notable. Then you should engage on that. Or that it wasn't relevant--engage on that. But your arguments about the source itself--save those for the butter churn. The bottom line is that you do not, of course, doubt Frontline on this issue, at least on the matters of fact stated in the article--for example, that hooks was not received well by the masses, that she wrote such and such essay about blacks not possessing a killing rage being victims, etc. You cannot doubt these, as they are multiply sourced. I do not like hearing red-herring arguments about sources when the person arguing him or herself full well knows that the material the source is bringing up, is actually veridical.
Point two: Academia can be popular. That is, an academic or an artist has no more of a shield from the slings and arrows of the press muckrakers or of the awards people choose to give, etc., than anyone else does. Now, I agree with you totally that its popularity is not the entirety of its composition, and I also agree that there is no composition of that--namely, when a thinker has no popularity. But when the popularity is of a sufficient nature that there are objectively true popular facts about an academic or an artist, they should be included, if they're sourced, the material is notable. Academia is not a shield that one can bring up, and say "Well, I'm an academic!" to avoid the quibbles and musings of the popular mainstream news media, whether print or TV. Neither is being an artist. As putting their work out there to be scrutinized, they subject themselves to criticism of all kinds. I propose a strict standard on sourcing, one that makes sure, above all, that false material does not get into a bio. But while I want to be strict on sourcing, I do not want to be strict on sources, especially those which, whatever liberal or conservative bias they have, report the truth. A good argument could be made that an outfit like the NY Times, they should NOT be sourced much, because of the Jayson Blair controversy. In that instance, they did NOT report the truth. And yet there is an article on Wikipedia, Jayson Blair!!! So not telling the truth, not reporting it, this has apparently become notable. Again, strict on sourcing, wide-range for sources. And on notability, I, like you, endorse an extremely strict standard. If Mister Rogers thought that Coca Cola was tasty, along with a wide swatch of children's educators, say 50%, that's not notable. If Mister Rogers thought that hookers were tasty, along with few or no prominent children's educators, say .0001%, then that is notable. I would say perhaps around 3-4% of the given population, this is a good standard, but it varies, is subjective, and cannot be exactly quantified. I think that's extremely strict. Thus, "bell hooks goes to the movies every friday night" is not notable, even though not even 3-4% of the population goes to the movies every night. But my contention is that you can't get rid of "bell hooks goes to the movies every friday night" with the standard of notability, you instead need the relevancy standard to come into play--is the implication of her going to the movies every Friday night huge, is it significant for her patterns of life, do her patterns of life matter for a great number, etc. But while a statement "bell hooks goes to the movies every friday night" is not relevant, you simply have to admit that "bell hooks thinks that blacks who lack the proper killing rage are merely victims", that is not the same type of statement. Fewer than 3-4% of the general population thinks that, as well, I wouldn't doubt, but the implication of that is great, as it addresses people, a wide swatch of people, an a primary attitude hooks apparently feels they might possess lest they be victims. And I think not only is that attitude controversial, and widely open to debate, but her holding it--by virtue of that, it is also controversial. So here are a few guidelines I would put forth, and I think they're more strict, and will create tighter, more well-managed articles, than the standards outlined here on the project page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kmaguir1 ( talk • contribs) .
| This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Some defend that the notability of a given author in the community at large is often for notable things the author or artist has done which have made a wider effect, positively, negatively, or most likely, neutrally. Thus, while it is granted that there is no warranting for any attack of the subject, an attack is not merely constituted by material not related to the principal and tangential points of the author or artist in question. That is, an article on Michael Jackson need not focus simply on his music or career at large, but instead spans beyond his professional engagements, not only to those things which possibly effect his professional engagements, but indeed possibly to his personal life, if this personal life is notable. For many academics, either in art or in authoring, the personal life is not notable, and is not relevant--but things which affect his/her professional engagement which are not explicitly part of his/her claimed endeavors, these are nearly always relevant if they are well-sourced and relevant to a range of communities of interest, not just the targeted ones of the author or artist--as they indeed can be very easily. However, "personal life" should be narrowly construed. The "personal life" that is ibso facto unacceptable and unmentionable on Wikipedia is that which hasn't been sourced. This is the first test. If the material is sourced, and the sources are reliable, and there is no doubt that a given fact, or even a relevant factoid, should proceed to the second test, which is, plainly, does this add to the article, or detract from it. I mean by this not mere quality, but also possible quantity. Thus, reporting that a given noted contemporary artist was involved in decadent orgies--if this is sourced in an obscure art journal from the 70's, this actually should mitigate against its inclusion; despite its reliability, there is plainly no relevance, nor any common knowledge from which a summary could glean knowledge. But if this material was covered in a prominent, more popular source, say a Life magazine article or the like, or if it widely reported in that after being covered more significantly elsewhere, then its' likelihood for inclusion should indeed grow, in that the source is being made known to more, and thus, bears more mention as a snippet than perhaps the rest of the article does, in that more people will know the snippet, mention the snippet to others, others who are searching for well-sourced, but not eruditically sourced, knowledge on a given matter. Thus, the article is not for the author or the artist, instead it is for the community, the community defined as all the individuals in that community, i.e., specifically not all the members of the communities who fancy the particular author or artist, either for political reasons, or for the desire to be experts. In this sense, 'expertise' can be blind to the popular culture, as both have their proper spheres, specifically within Wikipedia. The experts, or the interested, cannot be so blind as to warrant completely subtraction of relevant facts about the author or artist, pr even 'factoids', if the 'oid' part is still sourced, documented, and will be desirable to access for a wide range of the community, including specifically those not particularly searching for the article, but merely coming upon it. Thus, common knowledge is critical to an encyclopedia, it is intrinsic to its very nature, and it should depart from it only at the fancy of its writers, which I daresay, should be closely monitored. An encyclopedia does not tell me the significance of a thinker--it really couldn't care a whit about that. It tells me what the thinker thinks, or what the doer does. The significance of the thoughts thought, the works done, this is too lofty a standard for an encyclopedia to even touch well--and thus, attempts at it, they're largely fruitless except in factoids themselves, like "the most influential Dada artist". That's a factoid, and a subjective one at that.
Biographies cannot, repeat cannot, turn on attack--not even a Hitler bio. But at the same time, facts never are an attack unless they are POV. If they are from a NPOV, they may be relevant, or irrelevant, but they cannot be attacked as an attack--facts are simply not active, they can't attack, like persons can. The relevancy standard is trickier. I propose this: not can the bio live without it, but can the majority of interested persons, not merely in the material the author or artist produces, but in the professional accoutrements surrounding that, and indeed often the personal life, can that majority be better served 'with' it. And I mean by better served, again, not better acquainted with the thought or the work, but the actual subject, and that entails all three of these categories, contigent on whether or not they are each notable. And yes, an article can survive without 2 of the 3--but if material can be found to round the article out in adding the accoutrements surrounding the professional life which has been reported on, or the personal life, so much the better, provided these sources are not wildly POV (and I mean wildly granting of self-endorsement, like a Nazi source, a newspaper or what not, being used to make more 'light and fluffy' the bio of a particular Nazi--true or not). But the correlation must be direct like that to warrant dismissal of the information, in that a correlation of self-endorsement shows a great deal of unlikelihood that the event happened--but if the Wall Street Journal reports that a particularly liberal and Democratic Treasury Secretary was indicted on four counts of child molestation, this is of course not such a correlation, and should be doubted, but not redacted, unless contradicted. The better served are those who will find what they want in the article--exegesis of a work, or the like, general biographical information about the subject, or indeed, if it can be found, criticism. Criticism is not to be kept against the author or the artist, in that, we don't criticize their lives--but sources can do that. The motivation of those sources, it's irrelevant; all that's relevant is their notability and their veridicality--thus, are they speaking the truth, does that particular truth matter, etc. Criticism of course can be phraseological in nature, and not complete, and this can reflect deep POV. But the goal should be moderation--between complete academic treatment and complete journalistic treatment in general, which is not always academic in nature. Find the material, source it, and see if it stands up. But the page is better off 9 times out of 10 if you include sourced criticism of anything--that is, criticism is an objective good, whether it come in a chronicle of an academic criticism debate, or a general journalistic fact of note. It's like baking a cake--is the cake better with a given ingredient. The question is NOT whether it is still eatable without it. You evaluate the completeness of the project WITH, not without. -Kmaguir1 08:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Point one: Well, no, facts cannot attack. That's a key point you're missing, that a lot are missing here. If I say something as a fact, it is not an attack. "Johnny Butterfield murdered two in a West Binghampton field on Thursday." First, is it true? Ok, if it is, is it relevant, is a notable piece of information? Ok. But whether or not it gets included, or ultimately is omitted, its inclusion will or would not have constituted an attack, unless it were POV, which means, that it wasn't true for all people at all times. The hooks stuff I quoted--that was 100% frozen concentrate truth. It was true for all people at all times. Now, you may not have felt it notable. Then you should engage on that. Or that it wasn't relevant--engage on that. But your arguments about the source itself--save those for the butter churn. The bottom line is that you do not, of course, doubt Frontline on this issue, at least on the matters of fact stated in the article--for example, that hooks was not received well by the masses, that she wrote such and such essay about blacks not possessing a killing rage being victims, etc. You cannot doubt these, as they are multiply sourced. I do not like hearing red-herring arguments about sources when the person arguing him or herself full well knows that the material the source is bringing up, is actually veridical.
Point two: Academia can be popular. That is, an academic or an artist has no more of a shield from the slings and arrows of the press muckrakers or of the awards people choose to give, etc., than anyone else does. Now, I agree with you totally that its popularity is not the entirety of its composition, and I also agree that there is no composition of that--namely, when a thinker has no popularity. But when the popularity is of a sufficient nature that there are objectively true popular facts about an academic or an artist, they should be included, if they're sourced, the material is notable. Academia is not a shield that one can bring up, and say "Well, I'm an academic!" to avoid the quibbles and musings of the popular mainstream news media, whether print or TV. Neither is being an artist. As putting their work out there to be scrutinized, they subject themselves to criticism of all kinds. I propose a strict standard on sourcing, one that makes sure, above all, that false material does not get into a bio. But while I want to be strict on sourcing, I do not want to be strict on sources, especially those which, whatever liberal or conservative bias they have, report the truth. A good argument could be made that an outfit like the NY Times, they should NOT be sourced much, because of the Jayson Blair controversy. In that instance, they did NOT report the truth. And yet there is an article on Wikipedia, Jayson Blair!!! So not telling the truth, not reporting it, this has apparently become notable. Again, strict on sourcing, wide-range for sources. And on notability, I, like you, endorse an extremely strict standard. If Mister Rogers thought that Coca Cola was tasty, along with a wide swatch of children's educators, say 50%, that's not notable. If Mister Rogers thought that hookers were tasty, along with few or no prominent children's educators, say .0001%, then that is notable. I would say perhaps around 3-4% of the given population, this is a good standard, but it varies, is subjective, and cannot be exactly quantified. I think that's extremely strict. Thus, "bell hooks goes to the movies every friday night" is not notable, even though not even 3-4% of the population goes to the movies every night. But my contention is that you can't get rid of "bell hooks goes to the movies every friday night" with the standard of notability, you instead need the relevancy standard to come into play--is the implication of her going to the movies every Friday night huge, is it significant for her patterns of life, do her patterns of life matter for a great number, etc. But while a statement "bell hooks goes to the movies every friday night" is not relevant, you simply have to admit that "bell hooks thinks that blacks who lack the proper killing rage are merely victims", that is not the same type of statement. Fewer than 3-4% of the general population thinks that, as well, I wouldn't doubt, but the implication of that is great, as it addresses people, a wide swatch of people, an a primary attitude hooks apparently feels they might possess lest they be victims. And I think not only is that attitude controversial, and widely open to debate, but her holding it--by virtue of that, it is also controversial. So here are a few guidelines I would put forth, and I think they're more strict, and will create tighter, more well-managed articles, than the standards outlined here on the project page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kmaguir1 ( talk • contribs) .