91–100 of 100 posts
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?
What's wrong with every software ever written having a Wikipedia page if someone cares enough to make one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Buffy_the_Vampire_Slaye...
Yes, deletionism is getting ridiculous on WP. And it's only going to get worse, due to evaporative cooling of group beliefs . http://lesswrong.com/lw/lr/evaporative_cooling_of_group_beli... But what to do about it? Various people have mentioned the idea of a WP fork. This has been tried before, a number of times. These tend not to go anywhere. The problem seems to be getting a critical mass of people to work on it. A…
Speaking as a former admin and an eventuo-inclusionist: if I went to close an AfD and saw that particular tactic being used, the keep side would've just lost at least 2 votes' worth of influence.
Don't have the patience to read the whole deletion policy page. Why would they want to delete such a thing? Is it inconceivable that some day somebody might stumble across the word "dwm" and look it up on Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Miami33139 is trying to remove every free software from wikipedia (ejabberd, many IM clients, dwm…).
Don't have the patience to read the whole deletion policy page. Why would they want to delete such a thing? Is it inconceivable that some day somebody might stumble across the word "dwm" and look it up on Wikipedia?
People don't want Wikipedia to be dump for all possible information.
Personally I want EVERYTHING in it, even if it's not notable, I don't care. The guideline should be: would 1 other (un-involved, un-related, etc) person on the planet be interested it? Then put it in.
I want to see a page on tips and techniques on laying brick, and page on the history of the coffee house down the corner from where you live. Everything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I don't get it, what's wrong with every single open source software being a valid topic for a Wikipedia article. Every piece of open source software is of more interest than any pop singer.
What about the one I wrote in my basement?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If people are complaining about their articles getting cut, doesn't that mean that they care about those articles and would maintain them? Wikipedia is actively spurning volunteers and reducing that "finite number" with deletionism.
Not necessarily. I think people are more likely to complain than do the grunt-work of active maintenance. It's certainly easier to do so. And creating an article doesn't indicate commitment. I think there are problems - from what I've seen, people outside of an area can be too quick to judge notability. But I find the attitude that nothing should be deleted naive.
The WP article does still lie in userspace waiting to be resurrected, but it's a complete waste of time to try and get it back into mainspace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_Th...
There are other options out there. Citizendium? If the article about dwm is deleted, re-write it at Citizendium. Why not?
Wikipedia is so 2001-2009. Its time is over, I think.
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?
Yeah, I don't get it, what's wrong with every single open source software being a valid topic for a Wikipedia article. Every piece of open source software is of more interest than any pop singer.
I'd say Ion is the father of modern tiling WMs.