Wikipedia talk:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information

Please discuss this essay here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism
Even if a list is "Discriminate" by Paul McDonald's  definition, it does not mean it is notable, and therefore it cannot be presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone list.

For instance, there is no evidence that the List of The Brady Bunch characters is notable, either as as a group or individually. There is no evidence that the list is suitable for an encyclopedia, and therefore is likely to fail one or more of Wikipedia content policies. In this case, the list (as a single topic) fails WP:NOT, and as individual topics, the fictional characters in the list fail WP:OR, as their descriptions are a synthesis of information from various sources. Since there is no reliable secondary source cited in the list, it must be viewed as indiscriminate, because its content has been put togther for reasons unkown. The question remains answered, why was this list created? Since there are no reliable secondary sources to answer this question, the honest answer is that the list is a content fork from the more notable overarching article, The Brady Bunch. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the "discriminate" collection of information would need to not violate any other policy. I mentioned this in the article, does it need to be more clear?  I was using the lists as examples, but I think now that I could expand that some more to give a reasonable expression as content might appear in an article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, a "discriminate" collection of information will fail other polices unless it passes WP:N. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confused about your statement... to me, a "discriminate" collection of information could pass notability but fail another policy (say, WP:COPYVIO; or could pass other policies (like WP:NPOV, WP:COPYVIO, etc) and fail WP:N. I'm not saying that just because a collection of information is "discriminate" that it passes all others, I'm simply stating that a discriminate collection does not violate WP:IINFO.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what your saying, but that does not answer the question "why was this list created?" I think what you are proposing is that, in the absence of verfiable evidence of notability, we should use inclusion criteria based on subjective importance to judge which information should be allowed for inclusion on the basis that it meets your definition of discriminate. However, without verifiable evidence of notability, we don't know whether the lists will meet Wikipedia content policies. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.... first it's not "my" definition, it's Wiktionary's definition (and it's probably changed a little since I posted this essay). But I do not intend to imply that notability, verifiability, or any other "acceptable measure" (yeah, whatever that is!) should be ignored.  I'll play with the wording some more, feel free to make adjustments as well--this is a community essay.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering
This seems like a reasonable start, although it's a bit on the inclusionist side for my own taste. I'm going to make a longer comment when I have time. Stifle (talk) 08:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No doubt it needs work, and your comments and changes would be a welcome addition.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Definition of "discriminate" is too broad
For a collection of miscellaneous information not to be considered indiscriminate, it is not enough for there to be thought and care (the main terms used in this essay) behind it; the organizing principle must be communicated coherently. Our system of open collaboration makes intention irrelevant on Wikipedia; the way content is organized and presented is what matters. Chick Bowen 23:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I'm agreeing in the abstract, but I'm not sure where you're going with this. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I'll try to explain better. I am imagining an AfD for an article that presents a bunch of trivial information related to a notable topic (which is covered in a different article) but too insignificant to be merged into the main article on the topic (the classic example is a page of individual sporting event results). My point is that the burden is not on AfD voters to determine whether there was there was thought behind the selection of data. If it seems random, it is indiscriminate for our purposes. This essay makes me uncomfortable, because it suggests that the intention behind a page matters rather than the contents of the page. Chick Bowen 21:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's trivial information for a notable topic, then the issue is an editing issue and not a deletion issue. But I see the need (now, upon the input here) for adding detail about the importance of communicating to the reader the reasons for the collection of information.  To me, that was implied and understood.  Apparently not.  No objections from me on making changes.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This essay misses the point
The heading of WP:IINFO says "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", but this essay is treating it as if it had said "Wikipedia does not contain indiscriminate collections of information". And a section title is merely a section title, after all. The policy should be understood by what the text itself says, which is to preclude three specific kinds of thing.

By the way, the essay reduces the in/discriminate dichotomy to the difference of whether something has been thought about or not. This reduces it to the game of "spot the connection between the items in this list". That's too trivial as a way of understanding a policy. --Stfg (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. I think you're over-thinking it, but have at it!--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What the policy states, and what User:Stfg is saying, I think, is that Wikipedia ought to discriminate in what information to include. The wording refers to Wikipedia itself, that Wikipedia is not itself an indiscriminate list. --Gccwang (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "And a section title is merely a section title, after all."
 * BZZZT! Although I don't want to participate in the original discussion, this sentence alone is a mistake with ten times the damage potential of the essay missing the point. A section title is a very important part of a whole; the section heading of WP:IINFO is an immensely important portion of a very important whole. Please do not make the mistake of regarding or disregarding a portion of that founding policy in isolation. Cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. This essay missed the point and then went into a lot of detail in the wrong direction. I don't think it's very useful at all. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Then what do you think the point should be?--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a lot of links.
I am in the process of fixing the problems mentioned above. While I was looking into this, I noticed that the following 265 pages link to this page (plus a bunch of talk pages, deletion discussions, etc, -- 434 total): Template:Essays on notability Template:Handling miscellanea Template:WikiProject Essays/doc Template:WikiProject Essays Template:Wikipedia essays/doc Template:Wikipedia essays/sandbox Template:Wikipedia essays "In popular culture" content "Murder of" articles 100,000 feature-quality articles 8 simple rules for editing our encyclopedia A navbox on every page About essay searching Accepting other users Acronym overkill Adjectives in your recommendations Advanced article editing Advanced table formatting Advanced template coding Advanced text formatting Alternative outlets Alternatives to the "Expand" template Amnesia test An uncivil environment is a poor environment An unfinished house is a real problem Apology Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions Arguments to make in deletion discussions Articles must be written Articles with a single source Assume bad faith Assume clue Assume good wraith Assume no clue Assume stupidity Assume that everyone's assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming good faith Assume the assumption of good faith Autosizing images Avoid mission statements Avoid personal remarks Avoid repeated arguments Avoid the word "vandal" Avoid using preview button Avoid using wikilinks Avoid writing redundant essays BOLD, revert, revert, revert Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Unblock Emails Bare URLs Bare notability Barnstaritis Be a reliable source Be neutral in form Be the glue Beef up that first revision Before commenting in a deletion discussion Bombardment Boston Tea Party But it's true! Call a spade a spade Candor Cherrypicking Children's, adult new reader, and large print sources questionable on reliability Citation overkill Civility warnings Close paraphrasing Coatrack Coherence and cohesion Concept cloud Concession Content removal Creating controversial content Cruftcruft Delete the junk Deny recognition Dictionaries as sources Discussing cruft Divisiveness Do not insult the vandals Does deletion help Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack Don't be a fanatic Don't be an ostrich Don't be ashamed Don't be inconsiderate Don't be prejudiced Don't call a spade a spade Don't call the kettle black Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy Don't come down like a ton of bricks Don't demolish the house while it's still being built Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid Don't eat the troll's food Don't fight fire with fire Don't help too much Don't hope the house will build itself Don't leave giant breaks between sections Don't misuse the Current Events template Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument Don't panic Don't remind others of past misdeeds Don't spite your face Don't take the bait Don't template the regulars Don't throw your toys out of the pram Don't-give-a-fuckism Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Editing Under the Influence Editing on mobile devices Editors are not mindreaders Edits Per Day Encourage full discussions Encourage the newcomers Endorsements Enjoy yourself Essays are not policy Essays in a nutshell/Notability Essays in a nutshell Every snowflake is unique Example cruft Existence ≠ Notability Explanationism External links/Perennial websites Failure Fart Featured articles may have problems Follow the leader For publicists publicizing a client's work Forgive and forget Get over it Give an article a chance Go ahead, vandalize Google searches and numbers Handling trivia High-functioning autism and Aspergers editors How many Wikipedians does it take to screw in a lightbulb? How to be civil How to lose How to run an edit-a-thon How to save an article proposed for deletion I just don't like it Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats Immunity Inaccuracies in Wikipedia namespace Inaccuracy Inclusion is not an indicator of notability Independent sources Inherent notability Insignificant It's not the End of the World Just drop it Keep it down to earth Lamest edit wars Liar Liar Pants on Fire Link rot Listcruft Make stubs Manual of Style/Trivia sections Masking the lack of notability Mind your own business Minors and persons judged incompetent Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals Negotiation Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability No angry mastodons No big loss No one cares about your garage band No one really cares No, you can't have a pony Nobody cares Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography Not everything needs a WikiProject Not everything needs a navbox Notability (high schools) Notability is not a level playing field Notability is not a matter of opinion Notability means impact Notability points Notability sub-pages Notability/Historical/Arguments Nothing is in stone Nothing Obscure does not mean not notable Offline sources On Wikipedia, solutions are mixtures and nothing else One sentence does not an article make Other stuff exists Overzealous deletion POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields POV railroad Paradoxes Passive Aggressive Permastub Please bite the newbies Pokémon test Potential, not just current state Product, process, policy Pruning article revisions Put a little effort into it Quote your own essay R-e-s-p-e-c-t Relationships with academic editors Relevance of content Relisting can be abusive Requests for adminship/Paulmcdonald Restoring part of a reverted edit Robotic editing Rough consensus Run-of-the-mill Shadowless Fists of Death! Sham consensus Staying cool when the editing gets hot Subjective importance Temporary versions of articles Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia Tendentious editing Thank you The Five Pillars of Untruth The Last Word The deadline is now The difference between policies, guidelines and essays The grey zone The role of policies in collaborative anarchy The value of essays The world will not end tomorrow There is a deadline There is no deadline Third-party sources Trivial mentions Truce Vague introductions Video links Watchlistitis What Wikipedia is not/Outtakes What an article should not include What is and is not routine coverage What notability is not What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion Why not create an account? WikiBullying WikiCrime WikiHate WikiLove WikiPeace WikiProject Essays/Assessment/Links WikiProject Essays/Templates Wikilawyering Wikipedia clones Wikipedia essays Wikipedia is a community Wikipedia is a volunteer service Wikipedia is a work in progress Wikipedia is not Whac-A-Mole Wikipedia is not about winning Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause Wikipedia should not have users Write the article first Writing better articles Writing for the opponent Your alma mater is not your ticket to Wikipedia Discriminate vs indiscriminate information Does anyone have a good reason why I shouldn't trim the vast majority of those links? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You should discuss that over at Template:Wikipedia essays which is a navigational template used for various Wikipedia essays on topics such as notability, civility, etc. That's where a lot of the links come from, I imagine.  I'm not sure why that would be a "problem" that other pages link to this one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah. I see. I just checked three at random, and all three linked here through templates, clearly the problem of huge numbers of links, if it really is a problem isn't here. I am going to close and hat this; it doesn't belong here. Thanks!
 * Notes:
 * Wikipedia:Pokémon test has:
 * ==See also==
 * Wikipedia:Deny recognition has:
 * == References and footnotes ==
 * Wikipedia:WikiBullying has:
 * ==See also==
 * and
 * ==References==
 * Only that last one is a real problem (it has the same content twice, once under Essays on Wikipedia civility (nutshell) and once under Essays on civility) --Guy Macon (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:WikiBullying has:
 * ==See also==
 * and
 * ==References==
 * Only that last one is a real problem (it has the same content twice, once under Essays on Wikipedia civility (nutshell) and once under Essays on civility) --Guy Macon (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ==References==
 * Only that last one is a real problem (it has the same content twice, once under Essays on Wikipedia civility (nutshell) and once under Essays on civility) --Guy Macon (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Only that last one is a real problem (it has the same content twice, once under Essays on Wikipedia civility (nutshell) and once under Essays on civility) --Guy Macon (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Only that last one is a real problem (it has the same content twice, once under Essays on Wikipedia civility (nutshell) and once under Essays on civility) --Guy Macon (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This essay is wholly wrong
Many of the guidelines use "indiscriminate" as a synonym for "overly exhaustive" which is how pretty much everyone on Wikipedia uses the term. According to this essay, a list is only indiscriminate if it's just a list of random things. You can have your own opinions about what indiscriminate truly means, but at the very least, according to standards already written in guidelines, this essay is wrong. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)