On Sep 23, 5:32 pm, "X. Rayburn" <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article <1190536074.228073.210...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Wikipedia is the worst thing to happen to information since the burning
> of the Library of Alexandria, or the invention of television. Who gives
> a rat's ass what the editors of Wikipedia view as reliable sources?
The people at Wikipedia do. The people who write articles on conlangs
at Wikipedia do. The people who are voting on conlang article deletion
debates at Wikipedia do. If you just use your "who gives a rat's ass?"
attitude, that won't help any when Wikipedia editors make the case
that there are no reliable sources for an article on a conlang, and
therefore according to Wikipedia policy that article has to be
deleted.
In about late 2006 or early 2007, Wikipedia established a definition
for "notability", which had previously been handled in an I-know-it-
when-I-see-it manner. The new definition is that a topic is notable if
it has been written about in depth by a reliable source that is
independent of the subject or creator/inventor/founder of the subject
of the article. Granted, this gives an entrance pass to Ithkuil or
Steve Downes of Halo, which had previously been deleted as not
notable, but many topics that have never been written about
independently in a published source are now being put up at AfD.
Not too long ago, we lost an article on the Ceqli language. Despite
its good name recognition among conlangers, its many Google hits, its
ISO code and even an appearance in the webcomic Roswell, Texas (which
Wikipedia has an article on), the person managing the discussion
decided to delete it. Deletionists championed the argument that there
were no independent, third-party sources with which an article on
Ceqli could be written, and therefore it had to be deleted per
Wikipedia policy. The notability hounds won out.
Wikipedia's standards for sources are stringent. Not only do
independent sources determine notability under their new policy, but
there are several restrictions on what are considered reliable
sources. Something written in a blog is not a reliable source.
Internet fora are not reliable sources. Sites like Kuro5hin and
Slashdot are not considered reliable. Some editors even push the
position that "personal" websites are not reliable sources. Their
ideal source is a newspaper or respected magazine. In addition,
extremist magazines/newsletters and those that have acquired, on a
case-by-case basis, a "poor reputation for fact-checking" are not
considered reliable.
And the silver lining in all this is that almost anyone can found a
"respected" journal to cover something. If the people at Wikipedia say
there are no third-party sources to write an article on Ceqli from,
found a conlang journal and have it review Ceqli accurately, with
editorial oversight. Leah is right that even newspapers like the New
York Times have sensationalism and lowest-common-denominator appeal,
as well as ideological bias, but even if we let that into our conlang
journal, we wouldn't have to worry, as Wikipedia has no problem with
articles in the NYT, so they shouldn't have a problem with our
articles.
One page in the Wikipedia namespace reads "In fact, editors are
fooling themselves if they think they know how many subscribers makes
a notable journal on calligraphy, how much revenue makes a notable
cardboard box producer, and how many pandas make a notable zoo. . . .
The number that really matters is the tally of reliable sources-zero
is not enough. Those working at newspapers, magazines, journals and
other secondary sources have to make sure that a subject is notable
before they write a piece on it, because if they do not, no-one will
read it, their employer will lose money, and they will get fired. So
we can rely on their judgement of 'how big is big' - but we cannot
rely on ours." This argument is centrally flawed. They state that a
subject has to be notable before a reliable, independent source
reviews it without their journalists getting fired. This leaves a
"window" of at least a few days when a subject is notable, but no
independent source has written about it yet. Therefore, a subject can
be notable without being having written about independently yet.
Despite the deletion of Toki Pona in 2006 as non-notable, Toki Pona
had to be notable before two newspapers wrote articles about it in
2007.
When this journal comes out in dead-tree format with its board of
editors, the people at Wikipedia will have no trick to hang on to to
delete the conlangs covered in the journal's articles. They won't be
able to use Wikipedia policy against articles on Toki Pona or
Breathanach or Ziotaki anymore. Hopefully, when they realize this, the
whole establishment of the journal will cause them to abandon the
"independent sourcing" definition of notability and develop a new,
better-thought-out definition of what makes a subject notable or non-
notable.
|
