TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

A prominent composer lost his Wikipedia page

148 点作者 b5将近 3 年前

24 条评论

armchairhacker将近 3 年前
Honestly even if he isn’t famous why can’t Wikipedia keep his entry? Why does Wikipedia even have “notable” requirements anyways?<p>There’s not a storage issue. Wikipedia can literally have billions of articles and still be easy to maintain.<p>There’s not really a quality issue. Wikipedia is known for not being 100% reliable. But moreover, they have tons of ways to denote “this article needs citations” and “this isn’t a reliable source”. If Wikipedia is concerned about quality, they can have “verified” and “contributed” articles, just like how distros have “stable” and “user-contributed &#x2F; experimental”.<p>Spammers and useless content? This <i>is</i> an issue. But this guy is clearly not spam, the proof being any of his official works. I do agree that Wikipedia authors should remove “spammy” entries and entries on complete nobodies and random things, but you shouldn’t need to be in an Oxford journal to not be considered a “nobody”.<p>Even things which are famous in small towns and 1000-member groups should be on Wikipedia IMO, because most of the stuff is already on there is about as relevant to me or anyone else (which is to say, pretty irrelevant). If you want relevant content, that’s what the search tools and indexing are for.<p>Wikipedia is supposed to be “the grand encyclopedia” where you can find info on basically anything. There are already tons of Wikipedia articles on obscure people, places, and things. Way more obscure than this composer even if he isn’t truly well-known. Why does “relevance” even matter?
评论 #32255605 未加载
评论 #32255614 未加载
评论 #32258585 未加载
评论 #32255788 未加载
评论 #32255827 未加载
评论 #32255988 未加载
评论 #32255931 未加载
评论 #32266686 未加载
stevenjgarner将近 3 年前
Wikipedia includes entries based on notability, but they have their own idea on notability. A friend of mine is a famous voice actor who has won not one but two CLIO awards. Wikipedia deleted the page I created for him on the basis that he was not notable. Another page I created was for the person who introduced deaf sign language to New Zealand. Deleted as she was not notable.<p>There are more than 19,000 entries for CLIO awards [0] from 62 countries yet only 18 Clio Awards juries comprised of industry leaders from across the globe awarded 13 Grand Clios in 2020&#x2F;2021 [1]. The Global Advertising Agencies Market Size in 2022 was worth approx. $332.1 billion [2].<p>By comparison the Academy Awards give out Oscars in 24 categories [3] to nominees selected from only 9,921 members [4]. The Motion Picture Association released a new report on the international box office and home entertainment market showing that the industry reached $101 billion USD in 2019 [5].<p>Oscars are considered notable. CLIOs are not. It would appear that making art is notable (except in the sad case of Bruce Faulconer), while impacting an entire industry or contributing to marketing or education in a highly visibly recognized manner is not.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;clios.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;clios.com&#x2F;</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Clio_Awards" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Clio_Awards</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ibisworld.com&#x2F;global&#x2F;market-size&#x2F;global-advertising-agencies&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ibisworld.com&#x2F;global&#x2F;market-size&#x2F;global-advertis...</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.britannica.com&#x2F;art&#x2F;Academy-Award" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.britannica.com&#x2F;art&#x2F;Academy-Award</a><p>[4] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Academy_of_Motion_Picture_Arts_and_Sciences" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Academy_of_Motion_Picture_Arts...</a><p>[5] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.forbes.com&#x2F;sites&#x2F;rosaescandon&#x2F;2020&#x2F;03&#x2F;12&#x2F;the-film-industry-made-a-record-breaking-100-billion-last-year&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.forbes.com&#x2F;sites&#x2F;rosaescandon&#x2F;2020&#x2F;03&#x2F;12&#x2F;the-fil...</a>
评论 #32255146 未加载
评论 #32255812 未加载
评论 #32255133 未加载
评论 #32258948 未加载
评论 #32255077 未加载
lucideer将近 3 年前
Plenty of comments on here suggesting WP relaxing&#x2F;removing notability requirements: the problem is deeper.<p>WP could retain the exact notability requirements they currently have, as written, and still vastly improve the situation from the current mess. As it stands:<p>- mentions of any thing or person without a pre-existing article (by extension meeting notability requirements) are quickly deleted by fans of the frequently referenced &quot;Write the Article First&quot; essay[0]. While this essay is clearly labelled as an opinion piece, not policy, that opinion is staunchly defended by people with more time on their hands than you do.<p>- Any effort to follow the essay&#x27;s advice and actually create a new article is quickly curbed: despite the notability requirements policies containing detailed sections on the benefits of &quot;stubs&quot; as prompts to grow useful article content, newly minted articles are summarily deleted if they are not perfect on first draft (and extremely comprehensively referenced).<p>When I first started contributing to Wikipedia almost 2 decades ago, these articles and similar debates between cohorts of &quot;deletionists&quot;, etc. certainly existed, but what looks to have happened over the years is that the most progressive of those cohorts left, probably tired of constantly grappling with the hostilities of those with seemingly nothing better to do than to pour all of their hours into making Wikipedia their staunchly defended castle.<p>Becoming a new contributor to Wikipedia today involves a barrier to entry only zealots will bother to spend time overcoming.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Write_the_article_first" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Write_the_article_...</a>
评论 #32256531 未加载
评论 #32257270 未加载
thrdbndndn将近 3 年前
I probably will side with Wikipedia this time.<p>As mentioned in the discussion page [1], there doesn&#x27;t seem to have any coverage from mass media about him, the only opponent in the discussion lists a bunch of sources&#x2F;references that are either database-type websites, attendance lists, or product credit. These unfortunately don&#x27;t really count, any professionals would have such things to a degree.<p>Also it looks like he self-edited the page [2]. This isn&#x27;t strictly prohibited AFAIK, but it will raise self-promotion [3] red flag and obviously there were hardly any references in his editing.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion&#x2F;Bruce_Faulconer" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;w&#x2F;index.php?title=Bruce_Faulconer&amp;diff=1097113662&amp;oldid=1097112408" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;w&#x2F;index.php?title=Bruce_Faulconer&amp;d...</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest</a>
评论 #32256601 未加载
评论 #32258888 未加载
评论 #32257033 未加载
worik将近 3 年前
Pedantically:<p>&quot;In another bizarre case, an editor at Wikipedia told Philip Roth, “one of the most awarded American authors of his generation” (according to Wikipedia) that he was not a reliable source on the subject of Philip Roth.&quot;<p>Philip Roth is not an authoritative source on Philip Roth. I would have thought that was obvious.
评论 #32256022 未加载
评论 #32258012 未加载
评论 #32255940 未加载
BrainVirus将近 3 年前
Wikipedia is a cautionary tale of what will inevitably happen if you try to hypercentralize information at the Internet scale. It&#x27;s broken on every conceivable level, and yet people stubbornly cling to the myth that was formed around it circa 2005.<p>Instead of being surprised at things over and over again, I think it&#x27;s time to adjust our collective expectations to match the reality.
评论 #32256271 未加载
评论 #32258065 未加载
评论 #32257348 未加载
JanneVee将近 3 年前
It is things like this that has reduced the usefulness of wikipedia for me personally. I wasn&#x27;t aware of the whole &quot;notability deletionists&quot; before I tried to look up the Rockstar programming language when discussing esoteric programming languages a while back. I knew that there was a entry there it was a nice short introduction to it but it was deleted by these people. In one way it is piece of &quot;programmer culture&quot; that was removed but at the other hand it is an esoteric programming language so it might not be &quot;notable&quot; almost by definition.<p>This article highlights the slippery slope of it. It is one thing to remove the esoteric language that nobody is seriously using but has a little cultural significance except for a small number of programmer nerds like myself. This composer is actually notable in comparison. Who gets to decide notability? What is next? Are we going to be removing lore from small ethnic groups because there isn&#x27;t some academic reference to it and someone dutifully transcribed oral tradition and translated a language which only a few speak... No not notable...
oezi将近 3 年前
Now that Google is down-ranking Wikipedia anyway couldn&#x27;t Wikipedia relax their notability requirements? I understood why they didn&#x27;t want anybody to create a marketing page for themselves ten years ago, but I don&#x27;t understand the rational now. The long term goal for Wikipedia should be to collect information on anything that is of interest to one or more person.
评论 #32255698 未加载
评论 #32256463 未加载
评论 #32254826 未加载
themodelplumber将近 3 年前
Not sure if this has changed, but I wish there was a way to kind of dull the downside-edge of this kind of outcome. For example maybe there&#x27;s another place the person&#x27;s info can go that&#x27;s not so obviously a trash can, and ideally even still a useful or interesting place.<p>It ought to be possible, IMO. And I&#x27;ll add that noteworthiness is a real cringe of a model in a lot of ways.<p>Personally I saw the downsides of this first hand back in the early 2000s, when I created a page for a software developer. It didn&#x27;t seem right to put their information, much of which was interesting and relevant, but which wasn&#x27;t related to the software, on the software&#x27;s page.<p>So anyway, their page was deleted with the note that his info should probably just go on that one app&#x27;s page. A really shallow&#x2F;easy suggestion especially given that it had already been considered and didn&#x27;t make sense in various ways.<p>And then I realized: This whole thing has created extra pain for someone, who for years had a Wikipedia page, and who now has had it deleted. None of which was their choice, but all of which started with intentions to inform and build on a useful corpus of knowledge.<p>So, is that pain-side really, really necessary? I think such a process can be done better.
评论 #32256650 未加载
dmitrygr将近 3 年前
Wikipedia is a joke nowadays. I made a small correction on the ARM Cortex-M page (the listed instructions available in <i>ARMv8-M base</i> were wrong), I cited the relevant ARM document in the change. Nope, got reverted back to the wrong thing... Pretty sure I know this architecture approximately 1000% better than the joker who reverted this, but OK, whatever, let everyone have the wrong info. I gave up.
评论 #32287878 未加载
mixmastamyk将近 3 年前
Reminds me of a few months back when I tried to link Amy Winehouse&#x27;s &quot;Mr. Magic&quot; to the great original Grover Washington piece of the same name. Same name, same music, some Wikipedia support in other places, though not extensive. Both on Youtube, takes seconds to confirm.<p>Some pedanto reverts it every time I tried. Says &quot;it&#x27;s not in the booklet&quot; (of the CD). Believe the thinking is that reality is not good enough, it must be confirmed by an authority. A disturbing enough idea in itself.
YeGoblynQueenne将近 3 年前
The author is calling everyone who doesn&#x27;t agree with him about Faulconer&#x27;s notability a &quot;troll&quot; (and more times than one in the article).<p>&gt;&gt; In the spirit of Wikipedia procedures and reliable source documents, I want to add a few endnotes to this article.<p>&gt;&gt; TROLLS (Par. 3): Here’s my conversation with Faulconer on the use of this word:<p>&gt;&gt; Ted: People may question the suitability of the word trolls here—some of these trolls are Wikipedia editors &gt;&gt; Bruce: When they act in this way, they behave like trolls. So it’s a fair word. &gt;&gt; Ted: Yes, that’s my considered judgment too.<p>That&#x27;s not a &quot;considered judgement&quot;. That&#x27;s just a flame. Very disappointing.
评论 #32257464 未加载
stevenjgarner将近 3 年前
There is a redirecting Wikipedia page for Bruce Faulconer [0]<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Dragon_Ball_Z" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Dragon_Ball_Z</a>
评论 #32254846 未加载
syrrim将近 3 年前
Some factor needs to determine what the content of page on wikipedia ends up being. Since &quot;anyone can edit&quot; (credentials are not used as a filter), the content is determined by whoever is most persistent. There are also various processes in place to ensure that content is verifiably correct, and wikipedia largely succeeds in that regard. However, basically everything else, including what information is included, and what spin is put on that information, is decided by the wikipedia editors. They succeed in this regard by being willing to spend the most amount of time camping pages, reverting any change they disagree with, and forming cabals of editors willing to stand up for one another when an editing war emerges.<p>Given wikipedia&#x27;s funding, it ought to be possible to pay for credentialed experts to curate the editorial bend of articles in their area of expertise. This would have its own issues, namely of causing a bias towards institutionally favoured interpretations, but I think that would be preferable to the status quo.
glasshug将近 3 年前
Please read the discussion that deleted this article: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion&#x2F;Bruce_Faulconer" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...</a><p>It&#x27;s a hard problem. Volunteer editors are spread thinly over millions of articles, some of which (like &quot;Bruce Faulconer&quot;) are about living people that are really important to get right.[1] The project has settled on the guideline of _notability_, meaning that articles are kept only if they have significant coverage in reliable sources.[2] Proving a negative is not really possible, but it works okay most of the time.<p>It&#x27;s worth thinking about alternate policies you could set up.[3] You could decide deletion based on whether a figure were &quot;known and beloved all over the world,&quot; as the author suggests, which is difficult to define. You could could keep everything,[4] which some alternate Wikis have tried. You get unmaintained pages and probably libel.<p>Gioia criticizes the barrier to contribution, which is also a difficult balance to reach. Some processes are just inherently complex and involve reaching consensus among hundreds of people. Others could be simplified, but every hour spent discussing and implementing improvements is an hour taken from improving the content.<p>The policies are under constant discussion and change,[5] and no one thinks we&#x27;ve reached the perfect balance between these constraints. See, for example, this month&#x27;s headline case at the Arbitration Committee around deletion.[6]<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Biographies_of_livin...</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Notability" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Notability</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Deletionism_and_inclusionism_i...</a><p>[4] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;meta.wikimedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Inclusionism" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;meta.wikimedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Inclusionism</a><p>[5] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy...</a><p>[6] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Arbitration&#x2F;Requests&#x2F;Case&#x2F;Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Arbitration&#x2F;Requests...</a>
评论 #32255134 未加载
评论 #32255318 未加载
评论 #32255026 未加载
评论 #32256839 未加载
评论 #32257327 未加载
评论 #32255787 未加载
chiph将近 3 年前
From what I&#x27;ve seen, the key to keeping pages up on Wikipedia is to have a lot of verifiable references &amp; citations. If you do this like you&#x27;re writing a college paper, rogue editors have much less power. Challenges to their reverts &amp; deletions are also more likely to succeed.<p>A good example of this is the article for the unloved Honda Ridgeline pickup. Jalopnik did an article about how the Wikipedia page for it is astonishingly detailed and (exhaustively) referenced.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;jalopnik.com&#x2F;the-story-behind-the-honda-ridgelines-wildly-unusually-1821813634" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;jalopnik.com&#x2F;the-story-behind-the-honda-ridgelines-w...</a>
评论 #32257165 未加载
kevinpet将近 3 年前
&gt; Just a few months before Donna Strickland won the Nobel, a Wikipedia editor had smugly insisted that she wasn’t a notable physicist.<p>I heard about this at the time, and it stood out to me as totally missing the point. It&#x27;s completely 100% possible that winning the Nobel Prize elevated Dr. Strickland from not notable to notable. A physicist who has done work that could win a Nobel Prize is probably getting close to notable but it&#x27;s hard for an encyclopedia that doesn&#x27;t engage in original research to adjudicate that. Actually winning is that third party recognition that wikipedia&#x27;s notability standards are supposed to rely on.
评论 #32257568 未加载
throwawayarnty将近 3 年前
I found Wikipedia most inconsistent when dealing with academics. Whether living academics are included or not has no relationship with whether they are prominent or influential. That is, May prominent academics do not have wiki pages, and many academics with wiki pages are not prominent.<p>Eg Donna Strickland did not have a wiki page until after it was announced that she won the Nobel prize. People who win Nobel prizes are not overnight successes and were prominent long before getting their prize.
mirages将近 3 年前
Just adding wikipedia discussion links so people can get a bit of context<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion&#x2F;Bruce_Faulconer" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;User_talk:FaulconerProductionsMusic" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;User_talk:FaulconerProductions...</a>
egberts1将近 3 年前
I was making a Wikipedia page back in 2004 about Deaf Cultures and Deaf Educators.<p>Both were summarily deleted.<p>So I started it again but under my User directory. That too got deleted.<p>So, Wikipedia editors are inherently anti-diversity.
评论 #32262769 未加载
8bitsrule将近 3 年前
It&#x27;s clear that B.F. has been connected with Dragon Ball Z - until 2003. The name-link has been redirected to that page. IMDB knows he continued to write music for TV series a couple of times ... up through 2013.<p>So? Lots of people have jobs in the music industry. What makes each of them <i>notable</i>? He has his own website, if anyone <i>has</i> to know more.<p>There are <i>thousands</i> of people <i>sure</i> they oughta have a WP page. I&#x27;m glad WP doesn&#x27;t always agree.
shp0ngle将近 3 年前
As a wikipedia contributor, I disagree.<p>You don’t automatically deserve Wikipedia article because you exist, or even because you did a good job your whole life. Even if you have tons of credits on IMDV. You don’t “deserve” wikipedia article. It’s not a collection of everything that exists ever.<p>The criteria for notability on wikipedia are actually quite clear and documented.<p>It’s not a badge for a job well done…<p>And if you disagree with that - fine, it’s creative commons, you can easily get all the articles with all their histories (wikipedia helpfully dumps all that periodically every day as giant XML), and the software is open source; you can fork it and create article on every living human being that ever existed.
评论 #32257073 未加载
unixbane将近 3 年前
&gt; A few days ago, composer Bruce Faulconer found that his Wikipedia entry had suddenly disappeared. This was surprising because his music is known and beloved all over the world—in fact, it has been heard in more than 80 countries.<p>Hmmm how do I already know from the first paragraph this article is bogus? Let me search this person I&#x27;ve never heard of. Oh, there&#x27;s nothing. He&#x27;s literally not noteable. &quot;Heard in more than 80 countries&quot; is something small independent internet artists did 20 years ago, and they didn&#x27;t get wikipedia pages either.
评论 #32255232 未加载
评论 #32256085 未加载
评论 #32255062 未加载
评论 #32255064 未加载
评论 #32255158 未加载
评论 #32255213 未加载
powera将近 3 年前
It wouldn&#x27;t be entirely unfair to say that Wikipedia&#x27;s policies are designed to keep people like Mr. Gioia off the site and out of the decision making process.<p>Considering that he doesn&#x27;t want to learn what Wikipedia&#x27;s policies are, or why they exist (and his calling people who disagree with him &quot;trolls&quot;), I am inclined to think that is a good thing.
评论 #32254697 未加载
评论 #32255312 未加载
评论 #32254769 未加载
评论 #32254709 未加载
评论 #32254798 未加载
评论 #32254616 未加载