User talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Weak

Yo, this is pretty weak, you can do better. I've seen you do better. Polygnotus (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I think that you should spend some time (i.e., more than a few minutes) thinking about what your beliefs are about suitable content for Wikipedia. Once you understand and can articulate, e.g., why you believe that "encyclopedias are not in the business of giving book recommendations", even though some encyclopedias (including, but not limited to, this one) provide book recommendations, we might be able to have an interesting conversation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Condescending, ABF, word games. Bad day? I get it, I am having a bad day too. Polygnotus (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not playing word games. I know your account is only a few years old, but you know that if you write about something being "notable", then people can – and should – assume you are using Wikipedia's jargon, and not a synonym for subjective importance.

BTW, one of my favorite on-wiki bad-day remedies is to read Wikipedia:WikiSpeak or other pages in Category:Wikipedia humor. If you've got time, perhaps you'd find something fun. I haven't read them all, so if you find a good one, feel free to share a link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. Quickly posting an attempt at a gotcha gets awkward when you are misinterpreting someone.

My account may be only a few years old, but my knees are not.

you know that if you write about something being "notable", then people can – and should – assume you are using Wikipedia's jargon, and not a synonym for subjective importance.

I wasn't using the word notable as a synonym for subjective importance. Polygnotus (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion over there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

If you are right and you know something I don't or have a pov I hadn't considered then I will immediately steal your opinion and adopt it as my own. If not, then you are wrong (or at least that is statistically likely) and I will probably be too lazy to really put much effort into trying to convince you. Neither feels satisfying. Polygnotus (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Book recommendations

I don't think Wikipedia should try to give book recommendations because I believe that one size fits all recommendations for books are basically worthless.

We only know the topic, but we know nothing about the potential reader. We don't know their:

• level of maturity (not the right term, but something like that, it is more complicated than simply their age)
• level of experience with the topic at hand, and underlying topics
• how skilled they are reading various languages
• if they have access to those books (some are very expensive or hard to get depending on where you are geographically)
• what their approach to the topic is/which aspects they are interested in

Lets say the topic is a military conflict. Do you want a dry overview of gear and formations used? Should I recommend the diary of a civilian who lived through that period? A historian who studied the military tactics? Are you interested in the politics, the type of weapons used, the suffering of the people? Would you like a story of betrayal and redemption, or a book that lists the tank variants?

Lets say the article is Java (programming language). Maybe you are curious about Java's place relative to other programming languages, maybe you are an expert programmer who wants shave milliseconds of transaction response times, maybe you are a child who barely knows what a programming language is and just needs to write a book report on a rainy afternoon.

Without asking a bunch of followup questions a book recommendation is very unlikely to be suitable, because people are incredibly diverse.

Another problem is that it is very very difficult for others to maintain a list of book recommendations; you'd need to have an overview of which books are available that deal with that topic to know which to recommend and which not to recommend. If someone adds a book to the Further reading section of an article about a topic I know little about, it is near impossible for me to check if that is a worthwhile addition or not. I'd have to read all those books to know how much it overlaps with the others, and I'd have to do a serious amount of work to figure out how respected the author is in her field. Brittanica does book recommendations, but they do not have the same problems because the articles are written by people who are (allegedly) experts.

Polygnotus (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Britannica has all the same problems about the one-size-fits-some recommendations that you decry above.

The fact is that the community has decided to have Wikipedia:Further reading sections, and unless you can get them banned, we are (sometimes) doing this. If you don't like them, you can close your eyes and pretend they don't exist while you scroll past them. You're a WP:VOLUNTEER; if you don't feel capable of maintaining the list, then you don't have to. There is no requirement for you to "to check if that is a worthwhile addition or not" or "do a serious amount of work to figure out how respected the author is in her field". One of Wikipedia's strengths is that people can contribute what they can, and can ignore the things they don't feel competent at. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Brittanica does book recommendations, but they do not have the same problems because the articles are written by people who are (allegedly) experts, and set in stone when published, and their book recommendations are clearly aimed at a specific group which does not at all match with Wikipedia's readership (Wikipedia's is far far more diverse). Polygnotus (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

What is the "specific group" that Britannica is "clearly aimed at"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how familiar you are with Britannica but compare for example https://www.britannica.com/art/drawing-art with Drawing. Those texts are clearly aimed at different groups of people, and on Wikipedia the barrier to entry is far lower.

See also the "Additional Reading" section, go to https://www.britannica.com/art/drawing-art/additional-info and scroll down a bit. Polygnotus (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

If these articles are "clearly aimed at different groups of people", you should be able to say which text is being aimed at which group. If you can't, then it's not so "clearly" aimed, right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be relevant. You can read the texts and draw your own conclusions. This text:

Drawing as formal artistic creation might be defined as the primarily linear rendition of objects in the visible world, as well as of concepts, thoughts, attitudes, emotions, and fantasies given visual form, of symbols and even of abstract forms. This definition, however, applies to all graphic arts and techniques that are characterized by an emphasis on form or shape rather than mass and colour, as in painting. Drawing as such differs from graphic printing processes in that a direct relationship exists between production and result. Drawing, in short, is the end product of a successive effort applied directly to the carrier. Whereas a drawing may form the basis for reproduction or copying, it is nonetheless unique by its very nature.

is aimed at a different audience than this text:

A drawing instrument releases a small amount of material onto a surface, leaving a visible mark. The most common support for drawing is paper, although other materials, such as cardboard, vellum, wood, plastic, leather, canvas, and board, have been used. Temporary drawings may be made on a blackboard or whiteboard. Drawing has been a popular and fundamental means of public expression throughout human history. It is one of the simplest and most efficient means of communicating ideas. The wide availability of drawing instruments makes drawing one of the most common artistic activities.

I am not sure why you appear to be asking me to defend that claim, because you know that I am correct. Polygnotus (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I actually think you are incorrect. You assert that they're "clearly" undertaking a behavior, but it's not clear to me at all, and it's not clear enough to you to identify concrete facts to support your claim. You speculate on an intentional behavior at both sites ("aiming"), but that's almost certainly incorrect about Wikipedia. And you say that Britannica is aiming their text at a different group than Wikipedia, but you can't identify what any of the alleged aimed-at groups are, so how could you possibly know that they're different? If you asked the authors of the two articles, you might well get identical answers (e.g., "anyone with access to the internet who can read English" or "mostly high school and university students").

(You may be interested in Wikipedia:Readability tools.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I actually think you are incorrect I do not.

it's not clear to me at all It is to me.

it's not clear enough to you to identify concrete facts to support your claim You have no evidence that I can't.

almost certainly incorrect about Wikipedia That claim is certainly incorrect, and you are almost certainly unable to read minds.

you can't identify what any of the alleged aimed-at groups are You have no evidence that I can't.

I don't think it is relevant and it would be a waste of both our time, and perhaps even a distraction, to dwell on something so unimportant.

I love spinach. Spinach lasagna is one of my favourites. Polygnotus (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

If you were able to, you would have already.

I've been through enough arguments about our WP:AUDIENCE over the years to be confident that the (many) authors of Drawing did not have any particular audience in mind. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

If you were able to, you would have already. Knowing me that seems unlikely.

But we can't move an inch in the direction of absolutism and proof, because ultimately words do not map 1:1 on reality, your senses are lying to you, borders become gradients, language grasps at shadows and everything and nothing is static, fluid and in flux.

How can an audience be different when there is none, and differences are figments of our lack of imagination? Polygnotus (talk) 06:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

That might be an interesting metaphysical question, except that you're the one claiming that Wikipedia and Britannica have different audiences. Are you abandoning your prior assertion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am abandoning the idea of knowability as a whole; the dream of a shared objective truth. I really hope this is going somewhere. Polygnotus (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I hope that works out for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Same. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Comparison of Text Readability Metrics

Readability Formula	Text 1 Score	Text 1 Grade Level	Text 1 Difficulty	Text 2 Score	Text 2 Grade Level	Text 2 Difficulty
Average Reading Level Consensus	13.35	College Level Entry	Very Difficult	12.09	12th Grade	Difficult
Automated Readability Index	15.10	College Graduate	Extremely Difficult	11.78	12th Grade	Difficult
Flesch Reading Ease	39.00	College	Difficult	41.00	College	Difficult
Gunning Fog Index	14.20	College	Professional	13.10	College Level Entry	Very Difficult
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level	13.83	College	Professional	11.42	11th Grade	Fairly Difficult
Coleman-Liau Readability Index	12.76	College Level Entry	Very Difficult	13.14	College Level Entry	Very Difficult
SMOG Index	12.39	12th Grade	Difficult	10.07	10th Grade	Somewhat Difficult
Original Linsear Write Formula	59.00	1st Year College	Difficult	65.00	11-12th Grade	Fairly Difficult
Linsear Write Grade Level Formula	15.90	College Graduate	Extremely Difficult	10.17	10th Grade	Somewhat Difficult
FORCAST Readability Formula	12.00	12th Grade	Difficult	12.17	12th Grade	Difficult

Promoting Wikipedia library

Getting the impression that you would like Wikipedia Library to be more well known and well used, you might be interested in this[1] which puts an indicator on a reference that you can access if through the Wikipedia Library. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I've joined the discussion there. Alenoach was also advocating for more free-to-read sources recently, and might therefore also be interested in a way to detect sources that could be accessed through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, even though I know that the Wikipedia library exists, it takes some time to search on the library if a source is available. So I only use it when I really want to check a particular reference I believe is available on the library. But since the library is only available to experienced contributors, I believe the solution should not be something that is visible to all Wikipedia readers, as it would be if it were integrated in the references. Maybe there could be (or there is) a Wikipedia gadget that makes it more user-friendly? For example, if in a Wikipedia article there is an ISBN (or the DOI of a paywalled article) for a book or article that is available on the library, the gadget could indicate that? Alenoach (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I've been putting {{Wikipedia Library}} on the talk pages for notable books/journals/sources/publishers that are available, as I run across them. But there are tens of thousands of sources available, and the list changes regularly. I think we need some way to automate at least some of this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts on this. Any further input from me might be limited for the next couple of weeks as I have just realised I am meant to be travelling next week and have a lot of non-Wikipedia things to do to get organised for that. Doesn't mean I won't be on Wikipedia in that time, but (a) I shouldn't be, and (b) I can't take on anything that requires a lot of commitment. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Characterisation

I am not entirely sure it is fair to characterise me as one of the "editors are trying to move forward with mass removal". All I have done is ask for where the requests were made, and when one request was made, provided some lists. I have not otherwise engaged with the process outside of the original RfC, where I left one initial note of unsure thoughts, and two weeks later two additional comments as part of a !vote. CMD (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I actually intended to contrast one group ("Some editors") against you ("An editor" who "kindly split out the list"). Perhaps I can make that clearer by changing "An" to "A different". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I think you used a couple of wordings, I haven't gone around and checked them all, but this wording I saw at the WT:CRIC post (one of the more active WikiProjects, although not what it used to be). CMD (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Someone's already replied to that comment, so I'd rather not edit that one now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

That's a bit disappointing. No good listing of 2000s first class country players (without Windies) goes unsomethinged. CMD (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)