Wikipedia talk:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information

Please discuss this essay here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Even if a list is "Discriminate" by Paul McDonald's definition, it does not mean it is notable, and therefore it cannot be presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone list.
For instance, there is no evidence that the List of The Brady Bunch characters is notable, either as as a group or individually. There is no evidence that the list is suitable for an encyclopedia, and therefore is likely to fail one or more of Wikipedia content policies. In this case, the list (as a single topic) fails WP:NOT#DIR, and as individual topics, the fictional characters in the list fail WP:OR, as their descriptions are a synthesis of information from various sources. Since there is no reliable secondary source cited in the list, it must be viewed as indiscriminate, because its content has been put togther for reasons unkown. The question remains answered, why was this list created? Since there are no reliable secondary sources to answer this question, the honest answer is that the list is a content fork from the more notable overarching article, The Brady Bunch. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the "discriminate" collection of information would need to not violate any other policy. I mentioned this in the article, does it need to be more clear? I was using the lists as examples, but I think now that I could expand that some more to give a reasonable expression as content might appear in an article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• On the contrary, a "discriminate" collection of information will fail other polices unless it passes WP:N. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm confused about your statement... to me, a "discriminate" collection of information could pass notability but fail another policy (say, WP:COPYVIO; or could pass other policies (like WP:NPOV, WP:COPYVIO, etc) and fail WP:N. I'm not saying that just because a collection of information is "discriminate" that it passes all others, I'm simply stating that a discriminate collection does not violate WP:IINFO.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I see what your saying, but that does not answer the question "why was this list created?" I think what you are proposing is that, in the absence of verfiable evidence of notability, we should use inclusion criteria based on subjective importance to judge which information should be allowed for inclusion on the basis that it meets your definition of discriminate. However, without verifiable evidence of notability, we don't know whether the lists will meet Wikipedia content policies. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.... first it's not "my" definition, it's Wiktionary's definition (and it's probably changed a little since I posted this essay). But I do not intend to imply that notability, verifiability, or any other "acceptable measure" (yeah, whatever that is!) should be ignored. I'll play with the wording some more, feel free to make adjustments as well--this is a community essay.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering

This seems like a reasonable start, although it's a bit on the inclusionist side for my own taste. I'm going to make a longer comment when I have time. Stifle (talk) 08:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No doubt it needs work, and your comments and changes would be a welcome addition.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Definition of "discriminate" is too broad

For a collection of miscellaneous information not to be considered indiscriminate, it is not enough for there to be thought and care (the main terms used in this essay) behind it; the organizing principle must be communicated coherently. Our system of open collaboration makes intention irrelevant on Wikipedia; the way content is organized and presented is what matters. Chick Bowen 23:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm agreeing in the abstract, but I'm not sure where you're going with this. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll try to explain better. I am imagining an AfD for an article that presents a bunch of trivial information related to a notable topic (which is covered in a different article) but too insignificant to be merged into the main article on the topic (the classic example is a page of individual sporting event results). My point is that the burden is not on AfD voters to determine whether there was there was thought behind the selection of data. If it seems random, it is indiscriminate for our purposes. This essay makes me uncomfortable, because it suggests that the intention behind a page matters rather than the contents of the page. Chick Bowen 21:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

If it's trivial information for a notable topic, then the issue is an editing issue and not a deletion issue. But I see the need (now, upon the input here) for adding detail about the importance of communicating to the reader the reasons for the collection of information. To me, that was implied and understood. Apparently not. No objections from me on making changes.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This essay misses the point

The heading of WP:IINFO says "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", but this essay is treating it as if it had said "Wikipedia does not contain indiscriminate collections of information". And a section title is merely a section title, after all. The policy should be understood by what the text itself says, which is to preclude three specific kinds of thing.

By the way, the essay reduces the in/discriminate dichotomy to the difference of whether something has been thought about or not. This reduces it to the game of "spot the connection between the items in this list". That's too trivial as a way of understanding a policy. --Stfg (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. I think you're over-thinking it, but have at it!--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

What the policy states, and what User:Stfg is saying, I think, is that Wikipedia ought to discriminate in what information to include. The wording refers to Wikipedia itself, that Wikipedia is not itself an indiscriminate list. --Gccwang (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"And a section title is merely a section title, after all."

BZZZT! Although I don't want to participate in the original discussion, this sentence alone is a mistake with ten times the damage potential of the essay missing the point. A section title is a very important part of a whole; the section heading of WP:IINFO is an immensely important portion of a very important whole. Please do not make the mistake of regarding or disregarding a portion of that founding policy in isolation. Cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This essay missed the point and then went into a lot of detail in the wrong direction. I don't think it's very useful at all. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Then what do you think the point should be?--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

This essay is wholly wrong

Many of the guidelines use "indiscriminate" as a synonym for "overly exhaustive" which is how pretty much everyone on Wikipedia uses the term. According to this essay, a list is only indiscriminate if it's just a list of random things. You can have your own opinions about what indiscriminate truly means, but at the very least, according to standards already written in guidelines, this essay is wrong. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)