Talk:Kappa Kappa Psi

Category:Kappa Kappa Psi Wikipedians

I created a category for Wikipedians who are members/alumni of Kappa Kappa Psi. To join, just add [[Category:Wikipedians in Kappa Kappa Psi]] to your User Page. Cmadler 01:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

FA issues

The article is predominantly sourced to itself and lacks independent sources Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Bumbu, I accept that for GA of FA status the article should be reviewed. My own sense is that this is a good article, well sourced, and a solid improvement over the baseline of Greek Letter society articles. I have no affiliation and offer this as someone who works to improve these articles. You note a previous discussion over citations. I just reviewed each of the citations. Considering 80 references, here is what I found:

• 30 items - Self-referenced to the national website (allowable, as long as this fills in information otherwise in-part sourced independently)
• 4 items - to books and unimpeachable third party publications, such as Baird's Manual. Several used multiple times because of the quality of the reference.
• 2 items - to academic or discipline-centric journals
• 12 items - to independent news sources, some national, some reliable local news, some daily or weekly school newspapers
• 1 item - to an independent, printed magazine
• 4 items - citing back to local chapter websites hosted by colleges
• 9 items - citing the society's published magazine, stretching back ~100 years (the Podium or the Baton) (Self -referenced, but in context, reliable and more permanent than 'just' a website)
• 11 items - citing an article published by a college or university, but not a school newspaper
• 6 items - citing a personal website or another Greek organization's website
• 1 item - citing a governmental site.

My analysis is this: This page needs upkeep. Some of these references are unnecessary, and many are archived. It appears that zealous editing by detractors has focused on this particular group, while legions of other Wikipedia articles are ignored for any degree of citation policing. Smells like bad faith to me (not accusing you, Bumbu). Would that many of the Greek Letter organization articles have had this much effort put into them for historic detail and decent writing, we'd have a far better resource. I further surmise that the zealous sniping of this page has likely browned off many new editors, seeking to add useful content about a group they care about in good faith and who are learning to follow the rules about neutral content. My own concern is to support the growth of good new editors, and I am regularly an Inclusionist here, and not a Deletionist**. I find that the citations easily support a removal of the tag asking for more citations. If anything, many citations can be trimmed, or combined. I do not believe that any prior detractors have spent the time I have in reviewing these citations, at least in their current form. On this basis I am taking two actions: removing the unnecessary tag asking for MORE CITES, and adding a summary in the To Do tag on the Talk page, asking for someone who is familiar with this group to clean up, combine or otherwise improve the many citations here. I will leave the Class rating as is, as Bumbu is correct that an independent review process should occur (there is a group that does this). And I will respectfully sign off with kudos to the writers of this article who appear to have worked hard to learn the process and offer fine content in good faith. Jax MN (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

** As to "Inclusionism" versus "Deletionism", this is an old debate on WP. See Jason Scott Sadofsky's Notacon presentation on the "wasted effort" subject. I support Inclusionism, over Deletionism, which, if the Deletionist win would make Wikipedia less useful. I stand with others in noting that Deletionism is a hold-over philosophy, constrained by print-era thinking. "Deletionism" harms Wikipedia, by contributing to WP community disintegration, and decreasing the motivation of new authors and editors. Further, I don't see the point of aggressive deletion or sniping WITHOUT ATTEMPTING TO FIX ANYTHING OR OFFER SUGGESTIONS when, a) the society exists, b) it has good references, c) the article is readable and well-formed, d) a motivated group of editors is actively involved in improving stubs and articles as they improve, and e) this society is uncontroversial (compared to the flurry of self-promotional or silly articles created each day. See Wikipedia:Obscure does not mean not notable. (also Jax MN (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC))

References