Father of the moderm tiling WMs proposed for deletion in Wikipedia.

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 7:16 PM UTC

ig1 wrote: post #55

chaosmachine wrote: post #4

Wikipedia should disable "non-notable" article deletion for a year and see what happens. The rampant deletionist problem really hurts editor morale. People spend hours working on articles only to have them deleted, often for arbitrary reasons. For a site that lives and dies by its ability to attract new volunteers, they sure do their best to scare people off.

Wikipedia also lives and dies by it's reputation. People have tried forking Wikipedia with more inclusive policies numerous times (the code base and articles are open source), and they've all ended up filled with junk. I was involved with Wikipedia very heavily for it's first three years (not been involved for the last 5 years), and there have been periods when it went through more liberal stages of allowing a broade…

Post by applicative » Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 7:20 PM UTC

nollidge wrote: post #34

chaosmachine wrote: post #4

Wikipedia should disable "non-notable" article deletion for a year and see what happens. The rampant deletionist problem really hurts editor morale. People spend hours working on articles only to have them deleted, often for arbitrary reasons. For a site that lives and dies by its ability to attract new volunteers, they sure do their best to scare people off.

It seems to me that deleting an article should require nearly 100% "delete" votes, for if even a small group of people wish to keep it, it is obviously useful to them, and it gets in no one's way.

Post by applicative » Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 7:27 PM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #5

The pro-deletion side come across as dicks, but I think they're right. Does every piece of software ever written need a Wikipedia page? If you don't like where they're drawing the line, where would you draw it?

Post by acdha » Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 7:44 PM UTC

steveklabnik wrote: post #54

acdha wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely: I stopped contributing (content and money) to Wikipedia after non-notable deletions ~2006 took out most of my contributions. At the time it was noted that it was easier to list a porn star (anything with a major distributor was automatically considered notable) than an academic who hadn't managed to get a real dead-tree newspaper article written about them (journals, awards, etc. didn't count as much as 2…

The biggest problem is that blogs aren't considered a notable source: > Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

Post by aaronbrethorst » Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 8:00 PM UTC

steveklabnik wrote: post #54

acdha wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely: I stopped contributing (content and money) to Wikipedia after non-notable deletions ~2006 took out most of my contributions. At the time it was noted that it was easier to list a porn star (anything with a major distributor was automatically considered notable) than an academic who hadn't managed to get a real dead-tree newspaper article written about them (journals, awards, etc. didn't count as much as 2…

The biggest problem is that blogs aren't considered a notable source: > Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…