Significance on Wikipedia
This topic is something of a response to the post EuroElessar that an article about his program was deleted from the English section of Wikipedia.
So, suppose you are the main editor of a large encyclopedia. Your editorial staff are absolutely any people - from schoolchildren to academicians (and there are 10,000 per person without a higher education per academician). Moreover, it is impossible to find out who is an academician, and who is a schoolboy. An academician may turn out to be a mechanic, a schoolchild calmly communicate and edit articles on thermodynamics as part of a technical college course, a mechanic can write articles about favorite helicopters from all countries of the world, as if he personally participated in assembling each of them.
And here's the problem - you notice that the following articles appear in your encyclopedia (the list is current):
(this is in 15 minutes. upd .: this was a list of articles created in 15 minutes by unregistered users, or by users without an automated flag (= most often - freshly registered))
Now the challenge. How to separate the wheat from the chaff? How to choose what should remain in your encyclopedia , claiming to be a quality one , and what should be thrown out or transferred to other projects? What focus the work of editors, administrators,
Selection criteria can be many. For example:
As you can see, there are many possible criteria. But which one to choose for your encyclopedia? You need to set the conditions:
Wikipedia is governed by the following rules, which are called 5 pillars :
To select the desired criterion, we take the first, second and fourth pillars. This is quite enough:
Thus, there are options:
They are sorted in ascending order of "hardness". So, in Wikipedia adopted the softest version of all valid. Namely :
')
The subject or topic is supposedly significant if they are covered in sufficient detail in independent authoritative sources.
Authoritative, most often, means sources that have an author (to check for neutrality and authority) and, often, an editor, for example, a publishing editor of a popular or scientific journal. Or even an online newspaper, but anyway - there is an author and editor.
Unfortunately, this rule is somewhere too hard, somewhere too incomprehensible. For example, is it worth using the Lebedev blog as a proof of the significance of the topic of road signs design? And the interview, for example, of the academician of the RAS about the fact that we have 4 different Ivan the Terrible? Therefore, for such cases, the following specifications were specifically adopted:
Many of these rules introduce a so-called “a priori” significance, when, based on formal features, the object of an article can be considered significant enough, even if there are no sufficiently significant sources about it yet. For example, for writers of artistic works there is a formal criterion “circulation of 20 thousand”, and for football players - “entering the field in at least one match in the highest league of any country”.
Formulation of the problem
So, suppose you are the main editor of a large encyclopedia. Your editorial staff are absolutely any people - from schoolchildren to academicians (and there are 10,000 per person without a higher education per academician). Moreover, it is impossible to find out who is an academician, and who is a schoolboy. An academician may turn out to be a mechanic, a schoolchild calmly communicate and edit articles on thermodynamics as part of a technical college course, a mechanic can write articles about favorite helicopters from all countries of the world, as if he personally participated in assembling each of them.
And here's the problem - you notice that the following articles appear in your encyclopedia (the list is current):
- Oppeln-Bronikovsky, Hermann von
- DVMU
- Eyes (Babylon 5)
- Thirtieth
- Professiograma lawyer
- Lawyer's professiogram
- Digital machines
- Longgong
(this is in 15 minutes. upd .: this was a list of articles created in 15 minutes by unregistered users, or by users without an automated flag (= most often - freshly registered))
Now the challenge. How to separate the wheat from the chaff? How to choose what should remain in your encyclopedia , claiming to be a quality one , and what should be thrown out or transferred to other projects? What focus the work of editors, administrators,
Possible selection criteria
Selection criteria can be many. For example:
- The object of the article should please the author of the article (= no criteria, take everything)
- The object of the article should please the moderator (as the left heel wants, aka "administrative arbitrariness")
- The number of pages about the object of the article in Google / Yandex should be more than 1000 (“Google-test”)
- About the object of the article should be reviews on forums and blogs
- About the object of the article should be reviews in independent journals and publications
- The object of the article should be a scientific publication.
- About the object of the article should be a scientific publication with a citation index of at least 5.
- On the object of the article should be published monograph of Doctor of Sciences, which is available in the state library
As you can see, there are many possible criteria. But which one to choose for your encyclopedia? You need to set the conditions:
- They should not be tied to the subjective assessment of a particular person - it’s not convenient for you to sit in the editorial office for 24 hours, and articles appear and appear
- Most editors should agree with them.
- The criterion, if possible, should be such that most editors can test it.
- They must meet your goals.
The solution to this problem in Wikipedia
Wikipedia is governed by the following rules, which are called 5 pillars :
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (and not a dump of information)
- Wikipedia is neutral
- Wikipedia materials are free to use.
- Wikipedia has a code of conduct
- Wikipedia has no strict rules.
To select the desired criterion, we take the first, second and fourth pillars. This is quite enough:
- "Should like the author" - does not satisfy the first pillar
- "Should like moderator" - does not satisfy the fourth pillar
- "Google test", "reviews on forums and blogs" - does not satisfy the second pillar. There may be many publications, but if they are all written by one person, then the presentation of the material will not be neutral. Plus, not everything that is written on the forums (= fences) should be significant for the encyclopedia (first stop).
Thus, there are options:
- About the object of the article should be reviews in independent journals and publications
- The object of the article should be a scientific publication.
- About the object of the article should be a scientific publication with a citation index of at least 5.
- On the object of the article should be published monograph of Doctor of Sciences, which is available in the state library
They are sorted in ascending order of "hardness". So, in Wikipedia adopted the softest version of all valid. Namely :
')
The subject or topic is supposedly significant if they are covered in sufficient detail in independent authoritative sources.
Authoritative, most often, means sources that have an author (to check for neutrality and authority) and, often, an editor, for example, a publishing editor of a popular or scientific journal. Or even an online newspaper, but anyway - there is an author and editor.
Exceptions and clarifications
Unfortunately, this rule is somewhere too hard, somewhere too incomprehensible. For example, is it worth using the Lebedev blog as a proof of the significance of the topic of road signs design? And the interview, for example, of the academician of the RAS about the fact that we have 4 different Ivan the Terrible? Therefore, for such cases, the following specifications were specifically adopted:
- Criteria of the importance of personalities
- Website Criteria
- Criteria for the significance of programs
- Criteria for the significance of theories, concepts and inventions
- Criteria of the importance of football players
- Anime and Manga Criteria
Many of these rules introduce a so-called “a priori” significance, when, based on formal features, the object of an article can be considered significant enough, even if there are no sufficiently significant sources about it yet. For example, for writers of artistic works there is a formal criterion “circulation of 20 thousand”, and for football players - “entering the field in at least one match in the highest league of any country”.
About qutIM
- The object of the article is a program.
- The article should show significance in accordance with the rule of significance of programs.
- In accordance with the rule, this program should have independent reviews in magazines, publications, online publications, but not on forums and not in reviews of free program catalogs.
- There are currently no links to these reviews in this article.
- Formally, from the point of view of the rules , it is no different from a program written by a student in one evening “on one knee” for passing a term paper.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/78789/
All Articles