Wikipedia kicks a man while he's down

[Lukeno94]

It's perfectly reasonable to argue that the man is not notable because notability isn't indicated by the sources. I personally was unable to decide, so I didn't vote in the AfD. The problem here is that the deletion rationale was patently illogical--this was obviously not a case of "BLP1E", and it requires a laughable contortion of policy and plain language to claim it is. Furthermore, there was nothing even remotely resembling a consensus in favor of this spurious notion. When such contortions are allowed to stand they set a precedent, enabling others to come along and argue that things normally distinguished as separate events are actually one. That clears the way for a huge amount of important, notable content to be deleted.

The correct outcome would have been to overturn the AfD close and have a new AfD with sound arguments.

Or you could read the actual policy based arguments, and you'll see where BLP1E actually fits perfectly. If you're not too blind and stupid to do so.

[Hex]

Don't be a dick to people with an article about them should trump every single other policy on en.wp.
The fact that this is not the case is highly indicative of the moral rot at the center.

That implies that there were morals there to rot. I think of it more of a moral void.

[Mason]

The Earl deletion might be the last time an admin will be allowed to do that, if language is added to the BLP policy to specifically disallow it:

* Recommendation to closing admin - I believe we have No consensus as to whether BLP1E covers this situation; I recommend following up on the BLP1E policy talk page and Village Pump to discuss as to whether BLP1E covers such a series of events. That general question is not best resolved here and now in this particular article or DRV. Policy changes must happen on the policy pages. I am going to initiate those policy discussions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No sign of such a policy discussion being initiated yet. Perhaps they are waiting to slip it in there when fewer people are paying attention. If there is such a discussion, don't be surprised if it takes place on a little-watched policy page.

[The Devil's Advocate]

Or you could read the actual policy based arguments, and you'll see where BLP1E actually fits perfectly. If you're not too blind and stupid to do so.

Yes, clearly the intelligent argument is that a policy about a person known only for a connection to one news event is meant to apply to a person who is repeatedly in the news for different things that keep happening to him that happen to have a recurring theme. Come on now, I think most of you invoking "BLP1E" know deep down it is just a cop-out because you cannot come up with a better argument.

[Triptych]

Yes, clearly the intelligent argument is that a policy about a person known only for a connection to one news event is meant to apply to a person who is repeatedly in the news for different things that keep happening to him that happen to have a recurring theme. Come on now, I think most of you invoking "BLP1E" know deep down it is just a cop-out because you cannot come up with a better argument.

It threw me for a loop at first too, but then I likened it to Guinness Book of World Records holder for a numerically-based record. Henry's arguable inclusion basis is that he's been arrested record-settingly. Like "number of hotdogs eaten in a single sitting" or that deal where you stack coins on your elbow and then grab them out of the air with the same arm. These things can be viewed as a single event. He's known for the single event of being arrested so much. Does my reasoning sound nutty?

I'm not taking a position on it, and I haven't recently reviewed the policy, but that is how I thought it could be warranted, and Wikipedia accords a lot of discretion to the closer.

[SB_Johnny]

The Earl deletion might be the last time an admin will be allowed to do that, if language is added to the BLP policy to specifically disallow it:

* Recommendation to closing admin - I believe we have No consensus as to whether BLP1E covers this situation; I recommend following up on the BLP1E policy talk page and Village Pump to discuss as to whether BLP1E covers such a series of events. That general question is not best resolved here and now in this particular article or DRV. Policy changes must happen on the policy pages. I am going to initiate those policy discussions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No sign of such a policy discussion being initiated yet. Perhaps they are waiting to slip it in there when fewer people are paying attention. If there is such a discussion, don't be surprised if it takes place on a little-watched policy page.

This precedent would cause all kinds of havok for the pornstar fanboys, if a long career of fucking people on camera ends up counting as one event.

[Lukeno94]

Triptych sums up the reason why BLP1E is indeed entirely valid. Every single press release is pretty routine, apart from the bits claiming that he'd had his thousandth arrest.

[lilburne]

Or you could read the actual policy based arguments, and you'll see where BLP1E actually fits perfectly. If you're not too blind and stupid to do so.

Yes, clearly the intelligent argument is that a policy about a person known only for a connection to one news event is meant to apply to a person who is repeatedly in the news for different things that keep happening to him that happen to have a recurring theme. Come on now, I think most of you invoking "BLP1E" know deep down it is just a cop-out because you cannot come up with a better argument.

Dozy fucking bag of shit. Give us 10 examples of his arrests that are qualitatively different from any of the others.

[Vigilant]

Or you could read the actual policy based arguments, and you'll see where BLP1E actually fits perfectly. If you're not too blind and stupid to do so.

Yes, clearly the intelligent argument is that a policy about a person known only for a connection to one news event is meant to apply to a person who is repeatedly in the news for different things that keep happening to him that happen to have a recurring theme. Come on now, I think most of you invoking "BLP1E" know deep down it is just a cop-out because you cannot come up with a better argument.

Dozy fucking bag of shit. Give us 10 examples of his arrests that are qualitatively different from any of the others.

That's an excellent point.

Worse than that, the whole article is some sort of sick disaster voyeurism.
Jerry Springer would be proud, wikipedia, you loathsome fucks.

[Randy from Boise]

The Earl deletion might be the last time an admin will be allowed to do that, if language is added to the BLP policy to specifically disallow it:

* Recommendation to closing admin - I believe we have No consensus as to whether BLP1E covers this situation; I recommend following up on the BLP1E policy talk page and Village Pump to discuss as to whether BLP1E covers such a series of events. That general question is not best resolved here and now in this particular article or DRV. Policy changes must happen on the policy pages. I am going to initiate those policy discussions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No sign of such a policy discussion being initiated yet. Perhaps they are waiting to slip it in there when fewer people are paying attention. If there is such a discussion, don't be surprised if it takes place on a little-watched policy page.

This precedent would cause all kinds of havok for the pornstar fanboys, if a long career of fucking people on camera ends up counting as one event.

Actually, the thing that saves Porn Bios isn't proliferation of films, it is the Special Notability Guideline low bar that allows auto-keeping winners of certain industry awards. The number of truly notable porn stars is probably in the range of 10 to 20; that's massively increased by the SNG. If that is ever completely deprecated, good night to the porn hobbyists...

RfB

[Vigilant]

The Earl deletion might be the last time an admin will be allowed to do that, if language is added to the BLP policy to specifically disallow it:

* Recommendation to closing admin - I believe we have No consensus as to whether BLP1E covers this situation; I recommend following up on the BLP1E policy talk page and Village Pump to discuss as to whether BLP1E covers such a series of events. That general question is not best resolved here and now in this particular article or DRV. Policy changes must happen on the policy pages. I am going to initiate those policy discussions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No sign of such a policy discussion being initiated yet. Perhaps they are waiting to slip it in there when fewer people are paying attention. If there is such a discussion, don't be surprised if it takes place on a little-watched policy page.

This precedent would cause all kinds of havok for the pornstar fanboys, if a long career of fucking people on camera ends up counting as one event.

Actually, the thing that saves Porn Bios isn't proliferation of films, it is the Special Notability Guideline low bar that allows auto-keeping winners of certain industry awards. The number of truly notable porn stars is probably in the range of 10 to 20; that's massively increased by the SNG. If that is ever completely deprecated, good night to the porn hobbyists...

RfB

That would be a bad thing, how?

[The Devil's Advocate]

It threw me for a loop at first too, but then I likened it to Guinness Book of World Records holder for a numerically-based record. Henry's arguable inclusion basis is that he's been arrested record-settingly. Like "number of hotdogs eaten in a single sitting" or that deal where you stack coins on your elbow and then grab them out of the air with the same arm. These things can be viewed as a single event. He's known for the single event of being arrested so much. Does my reasoning sound nutty?

I'm not taking a position on it, and I haven't recently reviewed the policy, but that is how I thought it could be warranted, and Wikipedia accords a lot of discretion to the closer.

No, they really can't be viewed as a single event. It was and is a stretch to call being arrested a lot over several decades an "event" and doing so just makes things more complicated. Any number of decent arguments could have been made for deleting the article, but people went with BLP1E. There are also decent ethical arguments against deletion (not that tripe Clemens pushed). When the ends justify the means, you merely indulge the means for less desirable ends.

[Mason]

Any number of decent arguments could have been made for deleting the article

Do tell.

[Lukeno94]

It threw me for a loop at first too, but then I likened it to Guinness Book of World Records holder for a numerically-based record. Henry's arguable inclusion basis is that he's been arrested record-settingly. Like "number of hotdogs eaten in a single sitting" or that deal where you stack coins on your elbow and then grab them out of the air with the same arm. These things can be viewed as a single event. He's known for the single event of being arrested so much. Does my reasoning sound nutty?

I'm not taking a position on it, and I haven't recently reviewed the policy, but that is how I thought it could be warranted, and Wikipedia accords a lot of discretion to the closer.

No, they really can't be viewed as a single event. It was and is a stretch to call being arrested a lot over several decades an "event" and doing so just makes things more complicated. Any number of decent arguments could have been made for deleting the article, but people went with BLP1E. There are also decent ethical arguments against deletion (not that tripe Clemens pushed). When the ends justify the means, you merely indulge the means for less desirable ends.

You're clearly too lazy to actually read any of the arguments that actually use BLP1E, and instead are making up your own waffle.

[dogbiscuit]

You're clearly too lazy to actually read any of the arguments that actually use BLP1E, and instead are making up your own waffle.

The underlying entertainment is seeing the backflips that Wikipedia has to go through to be decent to people - there are so many Wikipedians who cannot conceive of there being a moral dimension to compiling a reference work that every time one of these debates comes up, we are guaranteed to see some Wnt-style perverse argument for doing exactly the wrong thing.

The memory span of the Internet is a problem that the world hasn't yet wrestled to the ground. In the old world, things had a half-life and faded into obscurity and generally this seems to be a good thing - we can see, say, with the Palestinian issue that where this is not applied and people fail to move on, problems do not get solved. Wikipedia amplifies the problem as it brings individuals' transgressions to the top of the heap without any ability for an individual to move on. Time is no longer a great healer.

[thekohser]

Grover Cleveland wasn't notable until he was elected to a second non-consecutive term.

[Ming]

Grover Cleveland wasn't notable until he was elected to a second non-consecutive term.

Please, Greg. He was mayor of Buffalo and the governor of New York in a quite news-generating period. You need to work a little harder at the inane responses.

[Ming]

You're clearly too lazy to actually read any of the arguments that actually use BLP1E, and instead are making up your own waffle.

The underlying entertainment is seeing the backflips that Wikipedia has to go through to be decent to people - there are so many Wikipedians who cannot conceive of there being a moral dimension to compiling a reference work that every time one of these debates comes up, we are guaranteed to see some Wnt-style perverse argument for doing exactly the wrong thing.

The memory span of the Internet is a problem that the world hasn't yet wrestled to the ground. In the old world, things had a half-life and faded into obscurity and generally this seems to be a good thing - we can see, say, with the Palestinian issue that where this is not applied and people fail to move on, problems do not get solved. Wikipedia amplifies the problem as it brings individuals' transgressions to the top of the heap without any ability for an individual to move on. Time is no longer a great healer.

The internet does actually forget things, through link rot and the like. But the Wikipedia attitude of every stupid and embarrassing thing as "knowledge to be curated" is self-aggrandizing abuse of other people. Some link rot ought not to be fought.

[DanMurphy]

It's probably a topic for another thread, but their whole idea of "notability" is insane. "The guy was mentioned in a newspaper!" Is not an argument for writing an encyclopedia article.

The sane approach would be restricting the construction of biographical articles to people about whom there has been significant and in depth work on. Book length biographies, long profiles in the quality press, examinations of who they are as a person and what impact they had on others and the world around them. All of this would need to be there to write about people, living or dead, in any kind of fair and thorough way.

This approach would lead to the deletion of at least 80 percent of their so-called biographical articles (all the stuff on football players, porn stars, video game voice-over actors, and minor unfortunates like the fellow being discussed here).

That the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia participants don't see this is more evidence that they're not qualified to be carrying out the task they've set for themselves.

For instance there are over 200 articles in their American voice actors stubs category and over 3,000 articles in their American voice actors category. All but maybe (being generous) two dozens of these articles shouldn't exist. Because they CAN'T exist. There is nothing to work with (particularly given that individual and original research is disallowed by their rules).

Here's Ogie Banks (T-H-L), selected at random.

Ogie H. Banks III (born June 13, 1973 in Los Angeles, California) is an American voice actor, best known for his roles in Butt-Ugly Martians. He also voices Power Man in Ultimate Spider-Man as well as extra characters in Phineas and Ferb. He provides the voice of Monster High's BMOC, Clawd Wolf.

That's the whole article. And that's all it will ever be.

[thekohser]

You need to work a little harder at the inane responses.

If I worked any harder, they wouldn't be inane any more.

[Hex]

there are so many Wikipedians who cannot conceive of there being a moral dimension to compiling a reference work

This, this, and this again.

[Ming]

there are so many Wikipedians who cannot conceive of there being a moral dimension to compiling a reference work

This, this, and this again.

Well, everyone knows that NOTCENSORED means that moral issues can be dismissed, and that BLP policies are only there because the benighted government might let people sue WMF anyway.

[The Devil's Advocate]

Well, everyone knows that NOTCENSORED means that moral issues can be dismissed, and that BLP policies are only there because the benighted government might let people sue WMF anyway.

Except, one could make the argument that, regardless of what Wikipedia does, he will still be known around the world for being arrested a lot. Taking that into consideration, one has to wonder if crafting an article about him based on the sources that eliminates the misinformation and focuses on the humanizing aspects of the individual would be more beneficial than letting the cacophony of the press and blogosphere dictate his public profile. A certain someone who frequents this site who was clearly notable had his biography deleted on Wikipedia long ago and now the top result for his name is Encylopedia Dramatica, which is far less indulgent of any concerns regarding his public image.

[Ming]

Well, everyone knows that NOTCENSORED means that moral issues can be dismissed, and that BLP policies are only there because the benighted government might let people sue WMF anyway.

Except, one could make the argument that, regardless of what Wikipedia does, he will still be known around the world for being arrested a lot.

Maybe, maybe not. It's also possible that this could gradually fade from the internet as news websites get reorganized and other sites fade away.

[SB_Johnny]

Well, everyone knows that NOTCENSORED means that moral issues can be dismissed, and that BLP policies are only there because the benighted government might let people sue WMF anyway.

Except, one could make the argument that, regardless of what Wikipedia does, he will still be known around the world for being arrested a lot.

Maybe, maybe not. It's also possible that this could gradually fade from the internet as news websites get reorganized and other sites fade away.

I had never heard of him, and don't feel I needed to.

[Randy from Boise]

The Earl deletion might be the last time an admin will be allowed to do that, if language is added to the BLP policy to specifically disallow it:

* Recommendation to closing admin - I believe we have No consensus as to whether BLP1E covers this situation; I recommend following up on the BLP1E policy talk page and Village Pump to discuss as to whether BLP1E covers such a series of events. That general question is not best resolved here and now in this particular article or DRV. Policy changes must happen on the policy pages. I am going to initiate those policy discussions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No sign of such a policy discussion being initiated yet. Perhaps they are waiting to slip it in there when fewer people are paying attention. If there is such a discussion, don't be surprised if it takes place on a little-watched policy page.

This precedent would cause all kinds of havok for the pornstar fanboys, if a long career of fucking people on camera ends up counting as one event.

Actually, the thing that saves Porn Bios isn't proliferation of films, it is the Special Notability Guideline low bar that allows auto-keeping winners of certain industry awards. The number of truly notable porn stars is probably in the range of 10 to 20; that's massively increased by the SNG. If that is ever completely deprecated, good night to the porn hobbyists...

RfB

That would be a bad thing, how?

I don't know, you tell me.

RfB

[enwikibadscience]

Well, everyone knows that NOTCENSORED means that moral issues can be dismissed, and that BLP policies are only there because the benighted government might let people sue WMF anyway.

Except, one could make the argument that, regardless of what Wikipedia does, he will still be known around the world for being arrested a lot.

Maybe, maybe not. It's also possible that this could gradually fade from the internet as news websites get reorganized and other sites fade away.

I had never heard of him, and don't feel I needed to.

What about her?

[HRIP7]

This approach would lead to the deletion of at least 80 percent of their so-called biographical articles (all the stuff on football players, porn stars, video game voice-over actors, and minor unfortunates like the fellow being discussed here).

Well, but that would be terrible. Wikipedia would, in one fell swoop, lose about half a million articles, and perhaps even drop back below the four-million-articles mark.

And what about page views and the Alexa ranking? Wikipedia might conceivably drop out of the top ten! What about all the marginally notable people editing their own articles? Wikipedia would lose even more edits and editors.

If push comes to shove, Wikipedia wants to have lots of crappy pages rather than not have them. They all count, as do the people editing and viewing them.

Wikipedia is a website designed for maximum web traffic, not an encyclopedia designed to deliver reliable content. And that is how it will remain, unless and until complaints about reliability and bias – or the availability of more reliable competitors – start affecting page views.

[TungstenCarbide]

This approach would lead to the deletion of at least 80 percent of their so-called biographical articles (all the stuff on football players, porn stars, video game voice-over actors, and minor unfortunates like the fellow being discussed here).

Well, but that would be terrible. Wikipedia would, in one fell swoop, lose about half a million articles, and perhaps even drop back below the four-million-articles mark.

And what about page views and the Alexa ranking? Wikipedia might conceivably drop out of the top ten! What about all the marginally notable people editing their own articles? Wikipedia would lose even more edits and editors.

If push comes to shove, Wikipedia wants to have lots of crappy pages rather than not have them. They all count, as do the people editing and viewing them.

Wikipedia is a website designed for maximum web traffic, not an encyclopedia designed to deliver reliable content. And that is how it will remain, unless and until complaints about reliability and bias – or the availability of more reliable competitors – start affecting page views.

Yes, they've traded quality for popularity. The smart people who've understood and arranged this over the years don't hang out on irc or ani.

[EricBarbour]

If push comes to shove, Wikipedia wants to have lots of crappy pages rather than not have them. They all count, as do the people editing and viewing them.

And yet, the thing is hopelessly conflicted, because they have hundreds of aggressive deletionists, many of them admins, waiting for a chance to kill off those crappy pages. I suspect many backroom or IRC deals are made to allow some junk bios to exist, in return for favors elsewhere. And nowhere does "quality" enter into the discussion.

[HRIP7]

If push comes to shove, Wikipedia wants to have lots of crappy pages rather than not have them. They all count, as do the people editing and viewing them.

And yet, the thing is hopelessly conflicted, because they have hundreds of aggressive deletionists, many of them admins, waiting for a chance to kill off those crappy pages. I suspect many backroom or IRC deals are made to allow some junk bios to exist, in return for favors elsewhere. And nowhere does "quality" enter into the discussion.

Well, in a way they are doing exactly what they need to do to have a busy website. All those fights keep editors engaged (and us too, for that matter). They ensure that Wikipedia remains relevant. Without editors, the site would die, and web traffic would move elsewhere. Even much of the good content wouldn't be there if people like 28bytes hadn't first been sucked in by the ability to write about the computer game they released, or the student newspaper they ran.

Speaking as devil's advocate, they are doing exactly what they need to do to get people to work for free for them, and to build an encyclopedia that is free but crappy, yet just good enough and visible enough to become a global phenomenon. Meanwhile, Britannica languishes.

[Poetlister]

I've never quite understood what the point could be of maximising page views. If they carried adverts, it would of course be essential, but we all know that very few hardliners would tolerate adverts (explicit ones, anyway) other than the WMF fundraisers. Is it just a virility symbol or a way of boosting Jimbo's status? If the latter, why would most people care about that?

[DanMurphy]

I've never quite understood what the point could be of maximising page views

Because page views are what makes right. And might! We had a dolt on this forum recently arguing for this very position. It is measurable proof of "success." The fact that it has nothing to do with actual success doesn't trouble the true believers at all.

[Zoloft]

I've never quite understood what the point could be of maximising page views

Because page views are what makes right. And might! We had a dolt on this forum recently arguing for this very position. It is measurable proof of "success." The fact that it has nothing to do with actual success doesn't trouble the true believers at all.

It's what happens when a significant portion of the press and 'digerati' equates 'top ten website' with 'optimal result.'

[Vigilant]

I've never quite understood what the point could be of maximising page views

Because page views are what makes right. And might! We had a dolt on this forum recently arguing for this very position. It is measurable proof of "success." The fact that it has nothing to do with actual success doesn't trouble the true believers at all.

It's what happens when a significant portion of the press and 'digerati' equates 'top ten website' with 'optimal result.'

"Eyeballs are what matters!"

It was a broken slogan when it came out and nothing has changed since.
The people who don't understand tech and/or cool have been desperately casting about for a metric that they can use to fake an appearance of deep knowledge.

This is their metric.
How many page views.

Doesn't matter how much money is made or customers satisfied. They need an easier thing to keep track of because they are, in the final measure, pretty fucking dumb.

[HRIP7]

I've never quite understood what the point could be of maximising page views

Because page views are what makes right. And might! We had a dolt on this forum recently arguing for this very position. It is measurable proof of "success." The fact that it has nothing to do with actual success doesn't trouble the true believers at all.

It's what happens when a significant portion of the press and 'digerati' equates 'top ten website' with 'optimal result.'

In a way then, Wikipedia is similar to successful tabloids. Everybody agrees they're awful, but millions of people buy'em. Human nature. People get the newspapers they deserve.

Perhaps we should give the Wikimedia Foundation a break then. They're merely serving a market that wants to be served, the only way it can be served, and using self-serving spin and advertising in just the same way those tabloids are.

[Hex]

I've never quite understood what the point could be of maximising page views

Because page views are what makes right. And might! We had a dolt on this forum recently arguing for this very position. It is measurable proof of "success." The fact that it has nothing to do with actual success doesn't trouble the true believers at all.

I've been seeing more and more people talking about page views as justification recently, most notably Wikid77 (T-C-L) on Jimbo's Talkpage of Horrors(tm) where he regularly drops blobs of numbers.

[Poetlister]

Does anyone know how many page views are just web crawlers? Given the frequency with which pages are changed, I expect that the proportion is much higher than on many other sites.

[C&B]

So who was 28bytes then?

[Poetlister]

So who was 28bytes then?

He's Mason on this site; see here.

[C&B]

Ah, thanks; It was Annoying to go to the Thread to find Out and then Not to find out I thought at First it was Hex, but I see that Was Scotty

[C&B]

So who was 28bytes then?

He's Mason on this site; see here.

Great blog post. Well, Years Along; we all know Jehochman didn't resign, But did he At least take Any of the Advice?!