User talk:Danklass

Nomination of Lance Anderson (podcaster) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lance Anderson (podcaster) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Lance Anderson (podcaster) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

article source
Hi, I respect what you are trying to do saving the articles, but if you are going to have a chance of success, you need to understand the criteria that are going to be used to evaluate the article. Read Notability (people) particularly WP:BASIC which requires "in-depth" coverage about the person. for example the CS Monitor article used in your article http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1210/p12s03-stct.html is a GREAT source. But it is unfortunately just one source. On the other hand http://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/kronikor/hanna-fahl-poden-ar-kastad/ is what is known as an "in-passing" reference (see footnote #7 on that BASIC link). If a person has 3-5 sources like the CS monitor one, they generally make it. A single article like that usually not, and NO articles like that, almost never. You could try to argue WP:CREATIVE, but the next problem you are going to run into is WP:Verifiability - especially on a WP:BLP everything must be backed by WP:RELIABLESOURCES where as most of the ones you are using are WP:SELFPUBLISHED and one would need to be able to verify, not just assert that the subjects meet the criteria in question.

I will work under the assumption that you are annoyed with me, but if there are questions or clarifications I can help you with feel free to ask. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Clearly this is something I should have worked out years ago, when all these articles, links, etc. were being published. Although, when podcasting was new, it wasn't getting covered by the mainstream media much, so there aren't that many articles that go in-depth about ANYONE prior to Adam Carrolla. Articles had to spend most of their ink explaining what podcasting IS. We were on our own to start magazines etc. until the "real" papers caught up.

So, that being said, does that mean Podcast User Magazine issues and iProng/Beatweek issues DON'T count as reliable sources and are considered "self published?"

I honestly don't think I can put together enough to keep Lance's page afloat. My page may squeak by due to some recent additions. The CM article, in-depth interview with WGBH Boston, cover stories in two podcasting "magazines." Plenty of recommendations of the podcast in books, but not sure how those stack up. When we were starting, a "passing reference" was notable.

The CM article was reprinted by USA Today. Does that count as TWO? :)

Thanks.


 * Lots of stuff on wiki slips between the cracks until someone notices it. In this case I was the one to notice it. One of the criteria for WP:RELIABLESOURCEs is having "editorial control". Blogs are generally considered less reliable than "established" outlets, but beatweek looks like it might pass now (may or may not pass historically . Podcast User Magazine probably not (tough to tell since its down in any case). Yes, the sources on you may push you over the edge of being notable (as wikipedia defines it). Between CM and the WGBH transcript I could be convinced to maybe switch my !vote to a neutral or weak-keep. The book mentions count somewhat as well (an in-passing ref in a book counts more than an in-passing ref in a blog/magazine as a less-transient medium) Gaijin42 (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

on notability
To be clear, I am not accusing you of the following, I'm just explaining why the policies and habits are the way they are.

Lots of people try to use wikipedia for promotional purposes, for the google juice, or for the "prestige". For example see WP:BAND which is there to exclude every local garage band who has been mentioned in their local paper from making articles about themselves.

As to the why, there are limited admins and editors who volunteer to handle the "overhead" of the wiki. The have a duty (both legal and moral in different circumstances) to police the content of the wiki. Legally, we have issues like libel etc that must be monitored. Morally readers come to us expecting neutral, honest articles. We editrs are not experts in every topic, which is why we require things to be WP:Verifiable by anyone. Low notability individuals tend to be not verifiable, so everything in them is effectively WP:OR. Additionally, the fact that they are low notability probably means that the person creating the article has a personal stake in the content (an WP:AUTOBIOgraphy, or at least a WP:COI) which then runs into WP:NEUTRALITY issues.

There are so many eyeballs, and so many hours in the day to police these things. Some of that policing is by culling out the chaff to reduce the workload. Yes, we could spend dozens of hours researching low notability individuals or groups to ensure everything is correct and neutral. But that is time directly taken from elsewhere in the wiki (and an elsewhere that likely has a much greater ROI in terms of value to readers if its improved.).

If we increased the quality of the LA podcasters article by 10x, the total number of eyeballs that will ever see that is so low, compared to the value by maybe improving the lead sentence of one important article that will be read millions of times per year. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Gaijin42, I understand, especially about "neutral, honest articles." Honestly, I don't care about the LA Podcasters page.  And, yes, since I can't really figure out what the business model is for Wikipedia, I image there are very few of you, workig for nothing/peanuts.  But, deleting pages that are neutral and contain nothing but verifyable facts doesn't (in my opinion) make Wikipedia stronger overall.  It makes your job easier in some way, but doesn't increase the base of knowledge within. I don't know if your note was a response to what I just posted within the discussion of my page, but I am of the thinking that anyone who gets even a passing mention in a reliable publication should be included in Wikipedia, and anyone mentioned within the text of a Wikipedia article should have their own page.  Why not? What is the downside of maximizing the amount of credible information within the wiki? What is the downside of centralizing the information within the wiki, instead of making visitors Google people and events not covered by their own articles?  The question of "Notability" is largely a judgement call that should/could be taken out of the equation.  The time spent discussing whether Lance Anderson and I are "notable" enough for our own articles was WAY MORE TIME than it would have taken to simply verify the facts, ask for updated links if needed, and move on. That is another way to reduce the workload.   (Until yesterday, my page had a link on it to the wrong Michael Geoghegan, and nobody ever said a word)


 * Yes, it was a response to your question on the AFD. There is no business model really, we editors do it for either altruistic reasons, or out of the general "argue with people on the internet" impulse. Others due it for promotional reasons, or to push a particular viewpoint (for political reasons or whatnot). Theoretically, the standard you propose is within the spirit of wikipedia see WP:NOTPAPER, but practically each article has a cost in terms of maintenance by the admins, and a cost to readers ,who now need to wade through billions of low value articles to get to the good info, or have info scattered throughout multiple articles forcing them to read many articles to get the coherent picture, and different writers writing different versions/facets of that article, with likely conflicting information in them.
 * I understand your frustration, and you do have a point, but I have a point to, and the collective WP:CONSENSUS right now is that my point wins. Perhaps that will change in the future. I hope this experience has not completely soured you on wikipedia. We always need more editors, and there is great value in having a diversity of interest and experience in those editors. Also, be aware that these decisions are only partially binding, and that if you (or the others) receive more coverage in the future, an article can likely be created then. Also,your personal article is on the borderline, and a "no-consensus" result of the AFD is possible (which would result in the article being kept by default) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "a cost to readers ,who now need to wade through billions of low value articles to get to the good info" Again, not asking anyone to wade through anything. Hope that if readers want to drill down, or want information on a specific person mentioned in another article, they can find that information within the wiki. Again, the word "value" is spot on.  Who am I to put a value on information outside my sphere of knowledge?  Not my place.  I say let the information be there and let the person finding the information judge its value based on their interests and needs. The cutting of pages based on value judgement creates a culture where those who love to "argue with people on the internet" set the agenda for what information is on the site.  Not beneficial in the long term.

And, of course it's soured me on Wikipedia. The site is broken. It is kept shallow to reflect the interests of those with the most free time and the most axes to grind, and to keep the workload of the deletists managable. That would never be my vision for Wikipedia.


 * Ok, lets ignore WP:N for a bit. How do we get past WP:V. Everyone can claim to be an expert. Everyone can claim (probably legitimatley) that in some exceptionally narrow field they are the world expert. I am the uncontested world expert on what the view is outside my office window. Why is a line appropriate to exclude that, but not exclude something else? How does one objectively determine the difference? When two experts come up with competing "truths" who wins? Someone has a grudge about a business deal? They are an expert on that business deal. You are quite correct that wikipedia's definition of WP:RELIABLESOURCES may need to change as the media formats do. But books and scholarly articles will be around forever. Its very unlikely that "some random blogger/podcaster said so" will ever become the standard, because then suddenly things like Time Cube stop being internet jokes and start being "published research". Gaijin42 (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you're mistaking me for one of those people who enjoys arguing on the internet. :)  Verifyability?  For Lance or me?  I don't understand. Everything on both of our pages is verifiable, isn't it?  I'm not disputing your knowledge of what's outside your window. Why are we talking about conflicting truths?  I'm lost.  Are you talking about the validity of Podcast User Magazine as a source of information on Lance Anderson and me?  My claims to be an expert in early podcasting history?   I've said everything I can say, I've updated links, added references. That's it.  If the pages come down, the pages come down.  To be honest, my hobby isn't debating with Wikipedia.  Some guy made a page here on me in 2007 and last week I was put in a position to defend my credibility because I created one for Lance Anderson.  I need to get back to creating things...   Danklass (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey I just read your Medium article.  Let me say that I'm generally a deletionist, and I demand full independence of sources in the articles I delete.  However, 's request that all articles have 3-5 in-depth sources seems a bit much.  I think 2-3 should be enough to save something from an AfD, if they are truly independent and not merely promotional.  Also on Gaijin's "article cost" argument, I think there is a maintenance cost, but not a reader cost.  p  b  p  18:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the feedback.

Just to let you know
FYI Articles for deletion/Dan Klass has been mentioned at Village_pump_(policy). Ottawahitech (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the info. Looks like some sane, reasoned thought going into things there. Great to see it. Thanks for the heads up. I hope I've used the ping brackets properly and you see this. - dK