Re: [WikiEN-l] The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is now well-known because it's been on Wikipedia for so long
The reason the name stuck is that Baader-Meinhof is a weird name, and one would not expect to see it multiple times independently in short succession. Hence the name Baader-Meinhof phenomenon (which is also the name of a book) is analogous to onomatopoeia in that both represent the thing they are describing in some way - this is also similar to homoiconicity. It's a perfect name - much better than frequency illusion - and a substantial number of people now know it by this name, in part due to its longstanding and interesting history of existence on Wikipedia, which has advertised it to hundreds of thousands of people and generated tens of thousands of websites which use it by that name. The article should clearly stay! On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 2:25 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 March 2014 09:20, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 March 2014 22:04, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: The article should reinstated, a section concerning the unique nature of its notability should be added. This argument doesn't seem to convince (though that does resemble reasonable popularity). The fourth AFD notes the problem in this case: really crappy sources. The sort of thing that would lead me to !vote delete without prejudice. linkto:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baader-Meinhof_phenomenon in Google shows that it hits Reddit and apparently 4chan a bit. Apparently StumbleUpon likes it too. This would account for the hit rates - it's an amusing thing people would like there to be a name for, c.f. The Meaning Of Liff - but still doesn't supply us with sufficient material to base a solid article on. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is now well-known because it's been on Wikipedia for so long
Wouldn't that be running afoul of the Citogenesis problem that Randall Munroe so succinctly pointed out in his xkcd web comic: https://xkcd.com/978/ Elias Max Friedman A.S., CCEMT-P אליהו מתתיהו בן צבי elipo...@gmail.com יְהִי אוֹר On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 1:19 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 March 2014 18:04, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: The reason the name stuck is that Baader-Meinhof is a weird name, and one would not expect to see it multiple times independently in short succession. Hence the name Baader-Meinhof phenomenon (which is also the name of a book) is analogous to onomatopoeia in that both represent the thing they are describing in some way - this is also similar to homoiconicity. It's a perfect name - much better than frequency illusion - and a substantial number of people now know it by this name, in part due to its longstanding and interesting history of existence on Wikipedia, which has advertised it to hundreds of thousands of people and generated tens of thousands of websites which use it by that name. The article should clearly stay! Now you just need sources to this effect. There's always writing them ... - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is now well-known because it's been on Wikipedia for so long
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:04:31 -0700, Brian J Mingus wrote: Wikipedia's policies are irrelevant: This phenomenon has entered the lexicon, and is now well known simply due to its existence in Wikipedia. I wouldn't say that Wikipedia's policies are irrelevant to anything regarding Wikipedia, as this would be tautologically false. However, there are always a whole bunch of often-conflicting policies to be considered (including Ignore All Rules), which might pull in different directions. With regard to a deleted article on a phenomenon lacking sufficient reliable citations, but which is starting to spread under that name (due in part to the past existence of the Wikipedia article, and various mirrored copies some of which still persist, and blogs and forum posts referencing it), the end game would likely be either that the idea and name spread enough to ultimately produce reliable sources allowing the article to be recreated and kept (at which point the past deletion would be irrelevant, and the article would belong under Wikipedia policy even if its past history included self-reference to Wikipedia itself), or it dies out without achieving notability and the deletion would stand. -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
