User:Lurker/List of x labelled the y ever
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have a thing about Wikipedia articles entitled "X labelled the Y ever" or "list of x considered the y ever", or similar. Since they often come up on AfD (sometimes to meet with a no consensus keep, which leads to being relisted soon after) I thought I'd start a discussion about these articles, or at least have something to link to rather than repeating myself.
This is an issue which keeps coming up on AfD, so perhaps a debate about this sort of article is better than constantly nominating individual articles of this type.
Contents |
[edit] Why I don't like these articles
At first glance, some of these articles are good. They are well-sourced (because people like me mercilessly ask for citations and delete any entry which is lacking) and can be interesting to read. But I have a few reasons why I consider articles of this type to be intrinsically unencyclopaedic.
[edit] What is a source?
Citation inflation is a phenomenon in academic circles where papers cite excessive amounts of other papers. Often, the author wishes to give a paper an air of authority by citing a lot of other papers. If it cites a lot of sources, then it must be well-researched. And if it is well-researched, it must be good, right?
A similar phenomenon occurs in greatest ever! articles. The articles are defended on the grounds that they are "well-sourced". However, what does this term mean? The implication seems to be that if an entry contains with it a link to an external source, then its inclusion in a Wikipedia article is valid.
However, I consider the validity of a source to be of crucial importance. A Times leader is an authoritative source, a scientific paper is an authoritative source. A teenager's blog is not, under normal circumstances. Sources used in Wikipedia often fall somewhere between these two extremes.
So how do we classify the sources used in greatest ever! articles? Often they come from notable organisations or individuals in the mass media- Well-known TV stations, review sections of broadsheet newspapers, critics whose writing tends to be of a higher standard than the material they review. Surely those sources have notability in spades.
However, they are still matters of opinion. A critic's opinion, poll respondents' opinion, whatever. Not that opinion pieces shouldn't be cited in Wikipedia, the Federalist Papers are made up of people's opinions after all. But is a film review enough? Is consistently appearing at the top of magazine polls enough to justify inclusion in an encyclopaedia? Or does allowing polls and reviews to become criteria for inclusion lend undue weight to these sources?
It's one thing to have an article which refers to other people's opinions, indeed, it is hard to have an article worth reading which doesn't. But an article based entirely on people's opinions? That is what makes these articles unencyclopaedic, in my opinion.
[edit] Selecting the entries
How many films have been labelled the worst ever? How many albums have been acclaimed the greatest ever? Surely too many to count. What, then, determines which of these merit inclusion in a greatest ever! article? One could choose consistently appearing in polls of this nature, or choosing only those at the top of polls, but this does not narrow the field enough. Even choosing only items which have appeared in multiple polls won't do it- there have been a lot of greatest ever and worst ever polls. Choosing items which have only appeared in significant polls carries with it the question "what is a significant poll?" Items, then, appear in greatest ever! articles because a wikipedian has chosen it to be there, out of several items which could have fit the criteria, and would have if wikipedians with other tastes had been compiling the poll.
[edit] An opinion shared is not a fact
AfDs on greatest ever! articles tend to include someone saying "it's not opinion, it's cited". The implication seems to be if you can link to someone who agrees with your opinion, then your opinion becomes a fact. Ancient alchemists tried to find a mysterious substance known as Truth. Now we know what it is- a hyperlink. A statement of opinion, linked to someone else's opinion, becomes a fact.
A reference article may contain the author's opinion, but it is usually qualified, backed up by facts. A review has no such requirement, neither does a poll. These are based on the author's or respondents' opinions. Becasue of this, I don't believe being listed in works of this nature should be reason for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. As I said earlier, Wikipedia articles should refer to other people's opinions, but not be based on them.
Opinion pieces can have Wikipedia articles, but those articles tend to be critical studies of the piece. Greatest ever! articles are not neutral studies of polls and reviews, they are articles which accept those pieces of work as The Truth.
