Wiktionary:Votes/2022-05/FaCIAbook validation

FaCIAbook
Voting on: Do we accept the provided citations for the term FaCIAbook?

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Vote created: Kiwima (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  We are supposed to be descriptionist, not prescriptionist. This is clearly in use. Kiwima (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  per Kiwima. Jjamesryan (talk &#124; contribs) 02:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  This is a word that's clearly in use. Nothing more needs to be said. Binarystep (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  Clearly in widespread use. Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , but I agree with Sarilho and Vininn on that it could be resolved better on discussion pages. —Svārtava (t/u) • 13:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  but only because I added archive URLs to the three independent cites using the archiveurl and archivedate parameters. Archiving of websites is important, as sites fall off the web more quickly than you might think. At Wikipedia, where web sources are widely used, the archive links that are provided prove their worth time after time. While it's possible for content to disappear from the Wayback Machine too, it provides some measure of greater assurance that the citations won't all have disappeared after five years. I'm inclined to oppose these votes in future if no attempt is made to archive the online-only citations, although I'm open to discussion. This, that and the other (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , although this vote and its sibling votes are, in principle, wrongly created. We shouldn't have full-scale votes to gauge the verifiability of every single entry whose legitimacy is in question; this is an awful abuse of forum. (I'm bound by our prior vote and therefore can't oppose the concept of this type of voting in full, but I do think that the votes should at least be held elsewhere). Imetsia (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  - if the citations need a vote they are not good enough in my book. -  TheDaveRoss  13:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , the citations (sites) provided are too low-quality. I do find it funny to see the list of active votes ballooning into a list of active RFVs... well, I did say it'd be better to have actual policies like "reputable news sites are allowed" and not "vote on each word!"... - -sche (discuss) 15:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , NOTICE: I have added four more Internet Archive cites. What should Wiktionary be? I think of it as a crowd-sourced version of mainline dictionaries, extended beyond their scope to rarer terms, with translations. But how far is too far; how open is too open? From a holistic standpoint, I think it just helps the credibility of Wiktionary as a mainstream dictionary to stick with the permanently recorded media (OCLC, DOI, & c.) for the coming decade at minimum unless there's some really valuable and legitimate term that just barely misses the mark or something. For instance, the loathsome and vile term "nigfant" has already met the basic numerical requirement for Usenet/OCLC, so it seems okay. But I don't need this "FaCIAbook" 'word'. The old rules were good and I don't have to accept just anything that can be cited via Internet Archive captures- that's the point of the 2 week discussion: you can choose not to accept. It's not about descriptivism versus prescriptivism, it's about maintaining a legitimate dictionary in the eyes of the readers. Any dictionary that includes this type of ephemeral slang word is likely not reputable to a normal person. This 'word' falls solidly into a class I would refer to as 'crazy shit' and is uncitable by the old standard; it would not be too much to speculate that the few six or ten conspiracy theorists that have used the 'word' are probable mental cases. Shall Wiktionary cite the walls of the asylum next, if they be captured into Internet Archive? Let me show you how crazy you are Wiktionary: a word like Citations:Gezlik, which is the official name of a minor populated place in Central Asia, fails because it was only used in one English langauge article ever (so far). That's a legitimate English language term, my friends, but it was kicked. Yet this sludge is going to pass? I have to believe, from a holistic standpoint, that this is not the behavior of a credible organization. I mean, I would take a one-citation article about a word backed up by a normative system of translation any day before I would take an entry for an unpronounceable joke-term. Humbug, I tell you; humbug! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC) (modified)
 * 1)  —  [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 04:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  This should have been raised in a fora or a discussion page of the relevant pages. Pointless vote. Vininn126 (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Do we really have to have votes regarding specific entries? I feel like this can and should be settled in a RFV. Furthermore, it's not even clear to me what are the consequences of this vote. Shall it superseded the discussion in RFV if voted for or down? To me, it looks like we are setting an unnecessary conflict in procedures. (This is the same message I left in Votes/2022-05/elfism validation). - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  This is a job for RFV. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 05:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  This issue is not what votes are for. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Decision

 * Vote fails. It was a dumb vote, anyway. Zumbacool (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This should actually be a no consensus result. AG202 (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of descriptivism. I am in favor of the three cite rule. I am warming up to the two week discussion policy. But a conspiracy theory joke word that can't come close ("meet me halfway") to the hard durably-archived threshold is not yet appropriate for Wiktionary. If were to go under, Wiktionary would thereby become a junkyard of unverifiable dubious trash. If/when there are higher quality cites, or if/when Wiktionary is stronger as whole, this might be worthwhile. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Internet Archive has been around longer than we have. It's not going to randomly disappear one day, and if it does, that's probably because the internet itself no longer exists. Even our "durably archived" sources won't necessarily be around forever. What happens if Google shuts down its Usenet archive, for example? They've already taken down several newsgroups (including alt.2600, alt.drugs, and alt.suicide.holiday).
 * That's not even getting into the number of rare books I could cite without any objection, even though they may be impossible to verify unless you personally own a copy. I have a book that's never been digitized, and whose title only returns 3 ghits. Right now, there is only one copy for sale online, and it appears to be a different edition that might not be identical to the one I have. Despite all of that, it'd still be an acceptable source according to our current policies. How is an obscure book more "durably archived" than the largest digital library ever created?
 * We can't guarantee anything will be permanently verifiable, so at some point, readers are gonna have to just trust that we did our research. The internet is no more temporary than anything else, and for the sake of our coverage, it's time we stop pretending otherwise. Binarystep (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC) {edited}