The_Adversary wrote:Just checked: "world-renowned" appears no less than 35,152 times on en.wp, typically on WP:BLPs.
Why should that word ever be needed in an encyclopaedia?
Jake wrote:I guess I could see it for direct quotes, but if you're including a direct quote that uses that term, you're probably just using the quoted person as a proxy because you don't think you can get away with it yourself.
The_Adversary wrote:Well, the handful that I checked: not a single one of them had a source for "world-renowned".
It is a particular failing of many a dumb Wikipedian, to believe that if you're saying something that isn't in a source, then you're guilty of original research. And in most cases, you would be. There is an exception every encyclopedian understands though - the distillation and summation of multiple authoritative sources into one phrase that adequate conveys the representative sentiment. You can imagine a hundred different ways that sources would convey that someone was world renowned, without including "world-renowned". Editors can and should be trusted to be capable of that sort of interpretation without loss of meaning, and indeed there are good reasons (copyright) that this skill should be second nature.
Now, dare we assume good faith that this particular Wikipedian/ocrat was aware of this basic aspect of the theory of Wikipedia editing? Their use of quote marks says no, or worse, they don't know what quote marks are for.
It is hard to think of any case that does specifically use the phrase, that would be worthy of quoting in an encyclopedia. Not exactly Gettysburg Address material. And that
is the reason you would deny it, not because you think the editor is trying to circumvent a rule that does not and need not exist.
As for why an encyclopedia would contain this phrase, why would they not? Is this idiot perhaps assuming that everyone mentioned in Wikipedia would be world-renowned for something? Surely not. Are they perhaps thinking the phrase is too imprecise or subjective to be useful? Maybe. But there can be no doubt the phrase is a commonly understood one, and therefore it is unlikely to be a case there would be much disagreement among sources. Again, to an encyclopedian, applying such judgements would be second nature.
Perhaps we can infer something from the choice of thread title - "Puffery". I've got nothing, unless the point was to argue the use of the phrase is always an example of unjustified promotion. Again, that sounds too dumb to be the reason. Wikipedia does indeed have a problem with puffery, although the solution is obviously to remove it where it isn't warranted, thereby aligning the occurrence of the phrase in their texts to its real world usage, rather than deleting it wherever it is seen.
Still, I guess that is a little too complex and time consuming solution for a Wikipedian like this, and a little difficult when you have no means to manage such work. They looked at a couple of sources here, sure, but many of Wikipedia's problems can be attributed to them not really liking the prospect of spending their days checking articles against sources. They prefer formatting, fighting and mutual grooming. They can spot when there isn't a source at all, sort of (they often miss newbies putting it in the wrong place), but so could a monkey really. Monkeys don't write encyclopedias. Until Wikipedia.
Wikipedians will often turn up at an article and fight the person who used a phrase like this over whether such a description is warranted. It is one of the few times they are happy to diverge from the mantra of 'we follow the sources', except in the distorted direct quote interpretation. And looking for direct quotes is a common tactic used by that particular sort of time wasting moron, the people who should not be within a million miles of an encyclopedia's edit button.
You can find dumbassery like this all over Wikipediocracy. And more often than not, Mr. "I've never been a Wikipedia editor" Jake can be seen right in the middle of it, not spotting what is right in front of his face, instead just finding something banal to say to keep the idiots interested. It's all about their Alexa ranking and their Wikipedian approval ratings.
Just another example of how the only women who find Wikipedia attractive, are often drawn from the lower end of that gender pool's skillset. Just shut the fuck up and to go do something you are qualified to speak about. Picking up dogshit maybe.