Wikidata talk:Notability

Add discussion
Active discussions
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Notability.
Use the "Add topic" button in the upper righthand corner to begin a new discussion, or reply to one listed below.

For discussion of the "Exclusion criteria" section of this guideline, please see the /Exclusion criteria subpage.

Doubt?!Edit

Is having good statement references, sitelinks, and Google knowledge panel enough for notability?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr.VaiBH (talk • contribs) at 18:00, 17 августа 2021 (UTC).

  • No.
And on personal note - you just turned 18 years old. Quit trying to rush it. The internet never forgets. You are only going to end up tarnishing your name and making yourself look like a fool for the rest of your life. Snackmurat (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikinews pagesEdit

I’m not sure if this has been highlighted before but criterion 1.6 should be expanded to exclude any mainspace pages in n:Category:Developing or n:Category:Review, and subpages of n:Wikinews:Story preparation. Such pages are the equivalent of the Draft namespace in other wikis and have not yet met the criteria for publication. If they do not meet the criteria, they will be deleted. It makes no sense for them to have WD items until they are published. I have raised this because I could not find WD guidelines on these specific pages. [24Cr][talk] 14:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I guess this is for Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion criteria. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek: How do we add it there? Hold a vote or add it until someone challenges it? [24Cr][talk] 11:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Propose to add Wikimedia Toolforge tools to inclusion criteriaEdit

Currently inclusion criteria #1 is a listing in almost every part of the Wikimedia platform.

I propose to add Toolforge to inclusion criteria, such that any tool hosted there can have a Wikidata item. Toolforge is a Wikimedia platform tool development space.

I am proposing this in the context of a proposal to delete Toolforge SQL Optimizer (Q107357269), a tool in Toolforge which is may not meet the notability criteria here. Thoughts from others? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with items for tools, but my impression often is that the actual reason for their existence is that the developers can have an item as well. There are plenty of Wikimedians who would like to have an item, but can't right now. Leon Ziemba (Q108422301) and David Barratt (Q108422349), for instance, which are both linked from Toolforge SQL Optimizer (Q107357269) should not be existing in their current form. This really needs to be avoided. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
That’s a real concern, especially since there is already a long-standing double standard, i.e. items about Wikimedians of questionable notability have a lower chance to get deleted than other items. I don’t have a problem with items for tools but on the other hand: What specific purpose do they serve? --Emu (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: you can ask me about the reason for their existence. I'm documenting the tools because I think it's important and useful. Adding their creators/programmers is secondary and I couldn't care less if it strokes the ego of the people in question by having their own item. I try to keep notability rules in mind by making sure the items are linked. That said, I don't see what threat these Wikimedians of questionable notability pose to Wikidata. Lists like this collect people who don't have a Wikipedia article, but who probably (without checking them now) all are linked to the conferences they attended, talks they gave, (Wiki)projects they started, books or tools they wrote, etc. and I just don't know what's the problem there. There's obviously a bias here, where it's more likely that a librarian who is also a Wikimedian has an item than someone who's just a librarian. But projects to address the gender bias also don't resort to removing articles about people from over-represented groups, they focus on the under-represented groups.
I'm sure there's a small number of people who are so eager to have their own Wikidata item/Wikipedia article that they resort to bending or breaking one of our rules, such as editing their own items or creating items to justify their own. But those cases should be dealt with individually by admins and I don't think a witch hunt for Wikimedians of "questionable notability" is necessary.
@Emu: the use these items serve is in existing. They can document and collect info about the tools, which is sometimes spread in several places. They can serve to answer queries about the Wikimedia ecosystem. They could serve as the basis for infoboxes. They could serve any number of uses I didn't even think of or list here. And the more complete and rich the dataset is, the more can be done with it. That includes the authors of the tools for me. I don't even know why I'm explaining this here, because the preceding paragraph applies to every single class of data we're collecting here.
I don't know if you remember how it was when you started editing? I've been here for years and I'm still discovering crazily useful tools. Our documentation is great, but it can always be better and meta-documentation is a prime way to support any project or endeavour. That is what I (and I'm sure many others, who will probably chime in; @Jura1?) am doing. I'm also interested in creating tools of my own, so I'm creating the dataset I want to exist. I want to look at a tool and see who made it, look at their github, look at their other tools, see what they do and how they did it.
Besides, this is our history we're documenting here. Do you want a future where we can list all of Magnus Manske's tools, but if you want anyone else, you're out of luck? So I definitely support @Bluerasberry's proposal to add Wikimedia Toolforge tools to the inclusion criteria. I'd argue to widen that to Wikimedia tools in general, because being hosted on Toolforge is pretty arbitrary.
@MisterSynergy: in regards to Leon Ziemba (Q108422301) and David Barratt (Q108422349). I wanted to add Leon Ziemba (Q108422301) since he's a prolific tool writer and a WMF employee to boot. They obviously don't want to go by their real name, so I added them under their username. Even though we're operating under an open-world assumption, I added David Barratt (Q108422349) to complete the set of authors, but since they probably didn't contribute to many other tools or any other significant projects, that item is more of a stretch. Although, there's no way to check that last statement without a full dataset of all tools and their authors. --Azertus (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Adding Wikimedians to Wikidata isn’t something I would compare to projects to address the gender bias. I’m not sure adhering to the rules the community decided on should be called “witch hunt”. Of course, rules can change, but you are basically asking for special treatment for Wikimedians. I don’t think this is a particularly good policy. --Emu (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not asking for special treatment. I'm saying they serve a structural need when I'm adding or linking tool authors.
The comparison was that Wikimedians are probably over-represented and that the solution to that is not deletion. --Azertus (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, well. I’m not so convinced about the structural need of most Wikidata tools either, to be honest. If we apply this standard, we might as well create items for everything on CTAN, CPAN, and all the other *ANs – and on Github and so on. And why stop there, why isn’t everybody on Crunchbase or Twitter notable? Seems like a very slippery slope to me … I’m sure it would be neat to have all this information on Wikidata but there is the danger that we risk our reputation if we grant preferential treatment to stuff just because we like to use it. --Emu (talk) 10:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@Emu, Azertus, MisterSynergy: How would any of you feel about the establishment of a Wikidata:WikiProject Wikimedia Foundation, which made items for people listed at https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/staff-contractors/ and also for developers, many of whom like Musikanimal are not listed there. I know there is a bias in letting in people for one company when this is not a general practice, but we are operating in a Wikimedia environment and it is helpful to be able to interlink people, projects, and tools. I do not think Wikidata has ever tried to model all the people in an organization or an organization's publicly announced projects and tools, but the Wikimedia Foundation might be a special case because it is so central.
Modeling the Wikimedia Foundation would not address the issue of completeness in modeling other contributors to tools, especially people like David Barratt (Q108422349) who may have less online presence. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
This is a pretty Wikipedia-esk approach to notability that we usually do not practice here. Items about entities (humans, organizations, events, etc; concepts in general) are notable if there is independent/third-party material available about them, and this material appears as references on the item page. So, the poor referencing situation is what concerns me here: I am unable to verify this information against a serious external source. This is something which I need to do relatively often in admin capacity, and those situations create a lot of difficulties here with promotional items. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: I am glad that you have a similar opinion as I do on this point. Nonetheless, from my point of view, it is not the case that this phenomenon, which you call the “Wikipedia-esk approach to notability”, does not occur here in Wikidata. This phenomenon often occurs in relation to links in the Wi-kimedia namespace. There is no question that such links make data objects relevant. The only question is how these data objects should be structured. Even if this topic is a little off-topic, I would like to give you an example. The data object Wikiexpedition West (Q29999758) has a link to the Wikipedia namespace of the Czech-language Wikipedia, about which the data object is probably relevant. But the data object has no independent sources; nevertheless, this data object makes the participant Adam Hauner (Q10379735), for example, relevant. At least from my point of view, that can't be the case. --Gymnicus (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I've looked at that page before and definitely didn't think "I'll import all of them". I prefer going the other way, so no thumbs up or down on this from me. I've been mulling over a "Meta WikiProject", where I'd collect all the ways where we can work on improving meta-documentation of Wikimedia in general. I'd planned on creating that or talking about that during the upcoming Data Quality Days. There's property documentation (already has its own project); grant proposals and grantees; WMF projects; tools, extensions, scripts & bots; etc. If it's about Wikimedia and it helps us in creating better content for Wikimedia, it should fall under the purview of the Meta WikiProject. Re-recreating an org-graph, with WMF as a case study, is interesting, but separate from that. Btw, Musikanimal is present on that list, but under his real name. --Azertus (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: I don’t think that’s a good idea:
  • “but we are operating in a Wikimedia environment”: But that’s exactly the problem – we aren’t objective about the Wikimedia environment and we never can be. Of course we have to have coverage about Wikimedia and its projects, but we should be extra careful not to even appear to be biased about selection and data.
  • “and it is helpful to be able to interlink people, projects, and tools”: Sure it might. But you don’t need Wikidata for that.
  • ​“the Wikimedia Foundation might be a special case because it is so central”: But exactly how is it special and central? It’s a moderately sized organization with some 125M revenue per year and some 450 employees. It provides most technical services, helps to organize and provides limited legal services but otherwise it isn’t really involved in creating the dataset. We would never consider modeling the whole operation on Wikidata without discussing for every single item why it should be notable. It’s special to us (or some of us), but it’s not at all special to the dataset Wikidata is providing.
So in the end I feel that this project, as interesting as it might be, would lead to a lot of questions about the impartiality and plausibility of our dataset. I don’t want that. --Emu (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Since a slippery slope (Q876455) argument is not only a fallacy but it's also a hypothetical, I'll reply with a hypothetical of my own. A couple of years from now, is anyone going to say "Oh no! Wikdata has mirrored all of CPAN, and since it's semantic and linked data, its search and querying capabilities are a great improvement over the original. And since the data is linked to CRAN & co, we can follow an author across programming languages and we can easily find their other works, books, projects and other creative outputs."? I don't think so.
Funny you should say this, by the way. Since we have 1204 items that are missing an item for their subject (R packages). One of my (possible) future projects here. To be clear, I'm not advocating for a mass C?AN or Github import. But I'm pretty confident there'll come a point in the future (when we're bigger and data quality of current items is up) where it'll feel natural to do so. --Azertus (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Interesting discussion. Treating Wikimedia different than other organizations does not sound like a good idea to me. If anyone feels strongly about having items for all tools they can always set up their own Wikibase and have them there along with other stuff describing Wikimedia. Thanks a lot for sharing the query Azertus, I support import of all the mentioned R packages :)--So9q (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Emu: It may be a little strange based on our history, but you speak to me from the bottom of my heart. The double standards here are already very high. An example is Mr. Merz, the new product manager at Wikidata. The data object to him had no links to sister programs, no independent and reputable sources and also no structural use. Nevertheless, based on a greeting in Wikidata:Project Chat, ie on a "company page", the decision was made to keep it first. Only after I played the poison dwarf again on the side of the admin, who decided in the case, the data object was then deleted. From my point of view you can clearly see that many administrators are blind to the Wikimedia eye or simply do not have the courage to oppose Wikimedia. You can understand that, who wants to decide against Wikimedia and thereby perhaps obstruct a career in the management team. But then you also have to be aware that other people or companies also try to organize merchandising here if Wikimedia continues its own merchandising undeterred.

That is why the fight against merchandising and self-expression also includes stopping Wikime-slide merchandising or, if I want to be even more dramatic, Wikimedia propaganda. It is very clear to me that I will not meet with approval from this. You can see that in the deletion requests that I made yesterday. There I am referred to as a straw man, for example. I don't know who I'm supposed to be the straw man for, but okay. Or maybe Andy Mabbett knows me personally and knows that I look like a straw man. Back to the topic: In my opinion, Wikimedia merchandising also includes the tools that are or are to be created here. They just serve to distinguish themselves and, as MisterSynergy has already said, of course they also serve to make the authors relevant and that cannot be the case in my opinion. Why should someone who has created an insignificant Wikimedia tool that has no reception should be relevant. Then we can also restore the one game by Roi Ben David right away, so that it has to be retained in any case due to structural benefit.

@Bluerasberry, Azertus: If your goal is really only to make the tools visible, then you can do this in other ways than via data objects. I also have to honestly admit that I don't understand how the data objects are supposed to improve the visibility of the tools. One way you can really improve visibility would be to create a page in the Wikimedia namespace. There is, for example, the page Wikidata: Tools and there you can also create a sub-item “Toolforge Tools” and explain these tools there and you have your visibility without creating unnecessary data objects that are not relevant. I would definitely support the idea of So9q. A data object space for Wikimedia internal matters would certainly have failed, then, similar to the Wikimedia namespaces, somewhat relaxed relevance criteria could apply there, but which then do not collide with the relevance criteria in the area of ​​Wikibase item (Q29934200) But I would put a question mark behind it, whether something like this would go down well with the developers at Wikidata. But you could still put forward this idea, because it is not for nothing else that there are the proverbs “wer nicht wagt, der nicht gewinnt” and “probieren geht über studieren” in German. --Gymnicus (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

make archives searchableEdit

Can we put in a box to make talk archives searchable? That would be very helpful. Thanks. -Animalparty (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Return to the project page "Notability".