Talk:Vole

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vole is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

1 Usage of Vole in Reference to Microsoft
2 Proposal for Disambiguation
3 Vole/Mole?
4 Containment
5 Salmonidae (a fish) prey on voles?

[edit] Usage of Vole in Reference to Microsoft

A number of people appear to refer to Microsoft as "The Vole" and sometimes also refer to "Vole Hill, Redmond" as a pointer to Microsoft.

Finding such occurrances is easy, but I can't find any reference to where this phrase arose or what the rationale is for it.

(I suspect it may have started with www.theinquirer.net because that's where I've seen it used most often - but why?) -User:203.167.249.253 00:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The term stems from a rather nasty critter found in the videogame "Quake" that was called "The Vole," its use began among the zealot GNU/OSS (including Linux) group and has spread to places such as The Inquirer.

It's in the same manner as "Windoze," or "M$." Those with functioning brains do not use the term, similar to how the term "Linsux" is avoided. I hope that helps. -User:206.156.242.39 09:36, 21 Apr 2005 UTC)

"Those with functioning brains do not use the term"

Is it necessary to turn this discussion page into a flamewar? It's a mildly amusing pet name. It doesn't reflect the intelligence of the user. -User:68.149.127.173 00:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reference to vole is entirely inappropriate, POV and unfit for an encyclopedia. Not just that, but it links to The Inquirer which wouldn't make sense anyway. Wikipedia documents slang, but only in articles specifically related to slang. To suggest that a slang term, especially a less commonly used one, be mentioned in an unrelated encyclopedia article is silly. And it does tell something about the speaker, it's a nick-name slang tends to be very childish. -Nathan J. Yoder 05:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I could care less about Microsoft voles, but this seems quite extreme to me. I think a quick notice that there is a common slang usage of the term vole is completely appropriate. --Aranae 06:30, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

For the validity of the vole reference please see here: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.wikipedia/browse_thread/thread/c80e09fb8428be77/1e3621b1dc17204c?hl=en#1e3621b1dc17204c

It makes sense to link to The Inquirer page because that is where there is further information on the term and it seems it was The Inquirer that coined the phrase or brought it into more widespread usage.

The fact that it is less commonly used is not really a strong point i think - Wikipedia should be comprehensive enough to cover such things - especially if they turn up in google news ( see below ) also please refer to the above newsgroup post.

The article Vole is not unrelated: If you are searching for uses of the word Vole as i was when i first came across the term in google news and tried to find out about it. I searched wikipedia for vole, i drew a blank when i did that - which was why i decided to create a link to the Inquirer site for others on such a quest as myself.

As for whether the term is childish or not or what the mindset of the 'speaker' is not relevant here i think. What is relevant is that Wikipedia should provide information on items in use on the web and eleswhere again please see the newsgroup link above for further information.

I found the deletion process (referenced in the newsgroup article)to be an unsatisfying affair ( Taking the time to put together a reasoned argument only to be met with single liners or single words such as "unencyclopedic" is sapping to say the least( non of the terms used were supportable by their normally accepted definitions)).

I will not re-add the link just now as an act of good faith although obviously we both feel that we have the right to supersede the other.

If you do not agree with my argument above and re-instate the reference to the Inquirer nickname - where do we go from here? 24.215.220.246

I think that the link to The Inquirer page on Wikepedia is much more interesting and explanatory than a link to the article itself. --ReallyNiceGuy 07:04, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

To start, would the anonymous users please sign your posts, please see Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages. In any case, it has already been established from the VfD for Microsoft Vole that this slang term is unverifiable and non-notable. If someone wants to add slang, they should do so in wiktionary:Category:Slang on Wiktionary, not here. Even then it's questionable since wiktionary does not exist for every obscure slang term. Being in google news is totally meaningless, since google includes many obscure and local news articles from lesser know news sources.

Google news is just a google search limited to news websites, they don't publish their own articles, it's JUST A PORTAL. Thus, being in google news is no more special than being in a google search as google in no way, shape or form pretends to give any validity to a news source by its inclusion. Precedent has already been set that appearing in google does not make it worthy of inclusion and further that inclusion in some small publication does not make it worthy of inclusion. Many articles have been deleted since they were only from local publications about some person (which DID show up in google news--google indexes local news sources). The Inquirer is the ONLY news source that uses it and thus it is not even noteworthy. -Nathan J. Yoder 16:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The votes for deletion page simply showed that there were more delete votes than keep votes. However nowhere in the argument did anybody demonstrate that it was either non-notable or unverifiable.

Obscurity is not a reason to be excluded - indeed it is just what wikipedia is about please see Technopilgrims's quote here "...where Wikipedia is likely to be more authoritative than traditional encylopedias: new knowledge, obscure knowledge, and controversial knowledge." ( http://weblog.siliconvalley.com/column/dangillmor/archives/010745.shtml ). Obscurity i believe is not a reason to exclude a term - in many ways it's a reason to include since people who come across the term are less likely to know what it is.

Although google news is "JUST A PORTAL" it is special since it's "front page" is viewed by an average of 20% of Internet users daily ( http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=3m&size=large&compare_sites=&y=r&url=news.google.com ). Since The Inquirer is one of the news sources that google news draws upon then it's articles are much more likely to be seen by people and thus although the term may have started off in a niche area it is rapidly gaining visibility. It was in fact the reason that i came across the term The Vole in the first place as it was a headline in the Sci/Tech section. So there i was a non-Inquirer user ( in fact i had never heard of them ) reading an article placed before me as a headline ( and that headline was potentially seen by 20% of the Internet ) and coming across this term. So i would say that 'being on google news' is more significant than simply searching for a term in google search. I think this make the term eminently valid for inclusion.

Even if the Inquirer were the "ONLY news source" ( infact it isn't http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=microsoft++%22the+vole+%22+-inquirer&btnG=Google+Search ) that does not preclude it from an entry in wikipedia. Essentially i think that my own experience as that of a non-Inquirer user who came across the term while going about my everyday use of the Internet makes this a valid article - or as it has now become a simple redirection to the The Inquirer entry on wikipeidia. I may be the only person ( infact I'm not as i can see from this talk page ) who decided to contribute to explaining the term but i was certainly not the only one who was mystified by the term when it came up.

Again although I disagree with you removing the link I will not revert your edits - as an act of doubleplusgood will. Winston Smith May 13, 2005 at 01:32:27 ( UTC )

'However nowhere in the argument did anybody demonstrate that it was either non-notable or unverifiable.'

The burden of proof is on those suggesting that it is notable to establish that it is. They already googled and there weren't that many hits. If you do a google search excluding references to the rodent on English language pages, you only get about 10k hits, mostly from the inquirer and blogs. That is not notable in the slightest.

'"...where Wikipedia is likely to be more authoritative than traditional encylopedias: new knowledge, obscure knowledge, and controversial knowledge."'

You're misrepresenting what was meant by this quote. He was referring to obscure knowledge in general, not obscure slang. This is an encyclopedia, not reference for every single slang term under the sun. Furthermore, slang is a matter for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia, unless you are writing something documenting the history of notable slang (an analysis that goes beyond a simple etymological description) or listing many slang terms.

The justification for obscure knowledge makes sense, because it's still knowledge even if it's not well known. This, however, is just a piece of slang, not something worthy of mention.

'Although google news is "JUST A PORTAL" it is special since it's "front page" is viewed by an average of 20% of Internet users daily[...] So i would say that 'being on google news' is more significant than simply searching for a term in google search. '

As I already stated, google news indexes as many news sources as it can find, regardless of their prominence. This includes everything for all the tiny local gazettes to the biggest newspaper publications in the world. Thus, being in google news means only that Google recognizes the source as a news source and nothing else. Simply being a news source doesn't warrant inclusion, thus you must evaluate the news source on its own merits. Considering this is a less popular source and it's the only source that uses the term, it is obscure. If you didn't follow this guideline, people could create articles on every tiny little news piece from every tiny paper on everyone and everything. You'd be flooded with tens of thousands of garbage articles every year that no one cares to read.

'that headline was potentially seen by 20% of the Internet'

That's a massive stretch.

'the term may have started off in a niche area it is rapidly gaining visibility.'

The burden of proof is on you to establish this. You can't just go around making any claims you want and not back them up.

-Nathan J. Yoder 12:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Big iron's recent edit seems to be the most appropriate solution to me. It doesn't elevate the term to the same level of importance as the seeming disambiguation style did. It's a brief factual statement. Some (not "all", "most", or even "many") people do use the term vole to refer to Microsoft. I think it's been established here that the statement as worded is factual. --Aranae 15:22, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

'However nowhere in the argument did anybody demonstrate that it was either non-notable or unverifiable.'

"The burden of proof is on those suggesting that it is notable to establish that it is. They already googled and there weren't that many hits. If you do a google search excluding references to the rodent on English language pages, you only get about 10k hits, mostly from the inquirer and blogs. That is not notable in the slightest."

Firstly let me say that there are well over 28,000 hits that refer to vole in the context of Microsoft ( and an unknown quantity of others that will not be counted because Microsoft is not be mentioned in the article at all as well as those not counted because i have only included results of pages written in English ) please see this link for verification: http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+vole+-powerpoint+-site:encarta.msn.com&hl=en&lr=lang_en&as_qdr=all&start=10&sa=N

If we use google hits as an indication of notability, perhaps one could come up with a notability index based on google hits however you would still have to have an agreed index of notability which would be subjective.

A quick survey of some googled wiki entries to see their score in hits sees the following:

Michael Servetus gets a score of 14,100 hits on google. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&as_qdr=all&q=%22Michael+Servetus%22&btnG=Search&lr=lang_en

Kruithof Curve gets a score of 937 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&as_qdr=all&q=%22Kruithof+Curve%22&btnG=Search&lr=lang_en

Microsoft Vole gets a score of 28,000 hits http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+vole+-powerpoint+-site:encarta.msn.com&hl=en&lr=lang_en&as_qdr=all&start=0&sa=N

In this case you would argue that Microsoft Vole although scoring 28,000 hits has a low quality rating because it's mostly from The Inquirer and blogs ( by the way i didn't see that when when running the above google query). I would say that there would be a considerable debate as to why blogs are low quality since they are written by humans for humans, the very ones who may check wikipedia to find out what "The Vole" means. As for saying that the hits are mainly from the Inquirer i would have to disagree with that also. A search of google referring to vole in the context of Microsoft and not including The Inquirer is 22,700:

http://www.google.com/search?q=vole+microsoft+-powerpoint+-site:encarta.msn.com+-site:-theinquirer.net+-site:-theinquirer.org+-site:-theinquirer.co.uk+-site:-www.the-inquirer.com&hl=en&lr=lang_en&as_qdr=all&start=0&sa=N

If other entries, that scored less than the vole nickhname in google hits, are considered notable then ...

I think it could be argued that using a notability index would support the case for the inclusion of a link about the vole nickname.

I'm sure you find this unsatisfactory. I find the term not particularly useful in essence. Notability does seem to be a subjective thing. I suppose that estimating something as being "worthy of note" ( www.m-w.com ) is always going to be problematic. Worth in this context is not quantifiable ( as i hope the demonstration above showed). Perhaps one day a vote on notability could be organized by a statistically significant proportion of the wiki community ( although that is a self selecting community ). Then one could say categorically that this term is 'not notable to the current majority of the wiki community' - one could come up with a term that would be not wikinotable which would be a useful term. Until then i would say that notability in this case is not provable either way i.e. it cannot be proved to be non-notable.

'"...where Wikipedia is likely to be more authoritative than traditional encylopedias: new knowledge, obscure knowledge, and controversial knowledge."'

The justification for obscure knowledge makes sense, because it's still knowledge even if it's not well known. This, however, is just a piece of slang, not something worthy of mention.

It is not knowledge vs slang but instead knowledge of slang. It is true that the slang term 'The Vole' is not of itself 'knowledge'. Knowledge is defined as "The fact or condition of knowing something" ( www.m-w.com ). Based on this definition knowing what the term "The Vole" means counts as knowledge. Knowledge of a slang term is subset of knowledge. Thus the justification for obscure knowledge stands.

Perhaps it should be in the wikitionary slang category but then so should many wikipedia entries that cover slang. Really i just wanted to point to The Inquirer wikipedia page which already has some rudimentary knowledge of the term.

I'm not suggesting that the news sources ( currently 4500 ) selected by goole news are of any merit I am just saying that with or without merit to have an article on the news.google.com headline page has a huge reach. I can't tell you how many people came across the term The Vole that day via that article but i think it is safe to assume that it was probably a lot. To put forward as evidence of an article's reach the fact that it appeared on the news.google.com headliner page does not mean wikipedia will be flooded with tens of thousands of "garabage articles every year" that "no one cares to read". This is because just being a source doesn't mean that you get selected as a headline ( i've no idea why an article gets selected as a headline but the point is not every news source gets selected ). Currently to even be selected you would need to be one of the 4500 sources and then you would be required to submit an article to whoever was the editor ( even of a local gazette ) who would then determine whether it was worthy to publish and then it would need to be selected for a headline and finally the article would require reference to a term or concept that is currently not in wikipedia - so if one points out that an item gains additional exposure when appearing as a headline on news.google.com this does not, i think, open the flood gates for aforesaid "garbage ... that on one reads".

'that headline was potentially seen by 20% of the Internet'

That's a massive stretch.

Yes I agree that the use of 'potentially' is not helpful here. Let's just say that it was on news.google.com as a headline and that news.google.com has a reach of 20% of the Internet. ( http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=3m&size=large&compare_sites=&y=r&url=news.google.com )

'the term may have started off in a niche area it is rapidly gaining visibility.'

The burden of proof is on you to establish this. You can't just go around making any claims you want and not back them up.

It is widely believed that the term began with the Inquirer in 2001 ( the year that wikipedia was founded ). Currently there are about 22,700 hits on google referring to "The Vole" in the context of IT that are from sources other than The Inquirer.

Winston Smith 21:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep your responses brief, that response is way too long and spaced out.

Firstly let me say that there are well over 28,000 hits that refer to vole in the context of Microsoft

That's still not notable for a slang term.

Michael Servetus gets a score of 14,100 hits on google

False analogy. You're comparing slang to a person. Not just that, but you're comparing a person (and a term) who is recognized within their speciality. If you're dealing with something technical, like a specialty, the google test is negated if it's well recognized within that technical community. There's a big difference between a few people using a slang term and a term that is officially recognized and used within a scientific or other specialty.

This makes me doubt whether or not you understand the meaning of a google test.

I would say that there would be a considerable debate as to why blogs are low quality since they are written by humans for humans, the very ones who may check wikipedia to find out what "The Vole" means.

Everything on the internet is written by humans for humans, what's your point? That doesn't even make sense. Following your logic I can add anything to any wikipedia and it would automatically not be low quality since I'm human.

Blogs have long since been a big problem with google (see Google bombing) and this is why google is working on trying to seperate out blog pages from the rest of the web. Blogs are just a giant collection of idiots giving and reinforcing eachother's opinions.

They create an artificial impression that something is well recognized, when it isn't. If a single popular blogger writes about something, more than likely many thousands (at the least) other bloggers will automatically write about it. A popular blogger could make up a new term like 'mufasakasa' and within a few months it would get at least a couple thousand hits in google. Does that mean it should be included?

Furthmore, wikipedia is not a "blog slang" dictionary. If it's rarely used outside of blogs, then it's really just blog slang. Most people have never heard that term and that applies even within non-blog technical communities. That would fall under a similar principle to the "no original research" principle for wikipedia. If a bunch of bloggers write about some new theory another blogger came up with, should it then be included in wikipedia? No, clearly not. The same applies to slang.

Now you're just arguing semantics to twist the guys words. When he was referring to knowledge, he wasn't referring to literally every single thing that every person could possibly know. "I just took a shit" is knowledge, but it's not something that should be included in wikipedia. In order for knowledge to be included in wikipedia, it must be something of interest and noteworthy either in the general population or within a well recognized (technical/scientific or otherwise) specialty.

I can't tell you how many people came across the term The Vole that day via that article but i think it is safe to assume that it was probably a lot.

No, it is most definitely NOT safe to assume that. The burden of proof is on you. At any given time there will be numerous headlines on the main page and they're changing constantly. There are roughly 20k people who view _any part_ of google news AT ALL. It's not safe to assume what they will actually look at, especially considering news stories quickly get pushed to the bottom of the page. Mosts people will just be using google for the news search anyway, not the headlines as they can use other sites that have humans select them. Not just that, it's not even relevent anyway. Slang inclusion would be determined by its use, not by how many people happened to skim past an article title.

To put forward as evidence of an article's reach the fact that it appeared on the news.google.com headliner page does not mean wikipedia will be flooded with tens of thousands of "garabage articles every year" that "no one cares to read".

Yes it does. You're settting a precedent here that it's ok to include something simply on the basis that it was a headline on a google news _subpage_ for some brief period of time. Therefore, if that is allowed, anyone following that precedent can post hundreds, if not thousands of articles on a given day on that basis.

( i've no idea why an article gets selected as a headline but the point is not every news source gets selected ).

How is that a valid point if you don't even know how they get selected. In order for that to be a valid point you _must_ know the selection process. I could make a news page that selected news totally at random, but following your logic it wouldn't matter that that's the case because the point is that "not every news source gets selected."

You are arguing that it is somehow mertitious because it's included as a headline on the sci/tech page for a brief period of time. In order for that to be a valid point, you must establish that google's method for choosing news is representative of actual popularity and what people want to see. I've looked at the sci/tech page just now and see many technical articles that are of no interest to most people, even within technical circles. Google news is not that great at selecting technical articles.

Frankly, you'd have to naive to overlook the fact that there are many news sources that practically no one has never heard of showing up as headlines on the sci/tech page. Right now I can see them from Softpedia, I.T. vibe, WebProNews and some local news sources. I've never heard of any of those, have you? Google obviously has problems picking good sources for headlines.

Let's just say that it was on news.google.com as a headline and that news.google.com has a reach of 20% of the Internet

Why would you say that except to mislead? Google news and its subpages go through hundreds of "Headlines" per day, with most people just skipping the headlines to do a search. And stop saying that error, google news does NOT reach 20% of the internet. Alexa ranks it as having around 20-25k visitors per day, that's hardly 20% of the internet

Currently there are about 22,700 hits on google referring to "The Vole" in the context of IT that are from sources other than The Inquirer.

Having 22.7k hits after 4 years hardly qualifies as 'rapidly gaining popularity.'

-Nathan J. Yoder 23:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

See, you ARE causing problems. Now someone else just got the idea to add "pit of voles" as a slang term to the article, which has even elss hits, about 2k in google. Congratulations on trying to set bad precedent. -Nathan J. Yoder 01:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Gosh imagine! Someone added this while we were having this very discussion - that's quite a coincidence!!! However i think it's unlikely that this anonymous user put in the entry just because they saw the reference to the Microsoft Vole nickname. If someone has an intention to add something, I think they are going to do it anyway. I don't think if the Microsoft Vole reference was missing they would have done nothing! Also the entry is very unusual. Someone searching for 'Pit of Voles' instead of typing 'Pit of Voles' must have instead typed vole. Anyhow the reference that they put in should be under the "Pit of Voles" article. Perhaps someone can tell them that they need to create a page ( maybe i will if I can be bothered ). However let's deal with one issue at a time since dealing with all points at once takes up a lot of time ( for me ).

I have a question that would really help this discussion - please can you tell me what you consider to be the minimum number of google hits that would qualify a word to be considered slang? Winston Smith 21:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for Disambiguation

I propose that we move the main vole article to vole_(animal) or vole_(rodent) and create a disambiguation page for the other meanings. This should solve some of the edit/revert battles that are going on and frankly would remove unnecessary information that doesn't correspond to the bulk of this article. Proponents of the other meanings (mostly anonymous users apparently) would be free to flesh out full articles about the slang meanings of the word without diluting the main article.

Very few articles on wikipedia have other meanings paragraphs, this style of supplying definitions is more appropriate for a dictionary. Encyclopedias (Wikipedia included) tend to have full articles for each individual meaning of a subject.

I'd be happy to create the necessary topics and move information around if this would be an acceptible solution, although it might be easier if someone with more wiki-skills than I did it. Suppafly 21:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the rodent vole should still go here, but an alternate meanings section could be added to the top. See mouse, rat, hamster, squirrel, etc. These alternate meanings all derive from the animal vole, and the animal is far and above the principle meaning of the word. Alternately, the code {{otheruses}} could be added to the top of this page and a vole (disambiguation) page could be set up to account for the alternate meanings. See firefly for an example. I really disagree with having the page [[vole]] be the disambiguation page instead of the page for the rodent. --Aranae 00:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that, that would probably be a better solution. What's the best way to proceed? Suppafly 18:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I've made the changes mentioned above. Please feel free to edit or completely overhaul these. --Aranae 01:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks good! Suppafly 20:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vole/Mole?

Is it worth adding as section regarding he confusion between the two animals, and distinctions? Neither article has such a section, but I've many times heard people confuse the two or use the terms interchangably. ThuranX 04:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

They're COMPLETELY different, not even related!! Dora Nichov 11:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Containment

The how-to recommendations in this section aren't encyclopedic. Should be rephrased as abstract info, not instructions addressed in the second person.

[edit] Salmonidae (a fish) prey on voles?

This claim is unsourced, and on the surface seems very unlikely. I'm not an authority on voles or Salmonidae, but I'm suspicious this is vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.34.223.61 (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC).