11–20 of 41 posts
Jason Scott proposes a different set-up[1], where he compares an evolution of Wikipedia to how newsgroups got set up, with different servers choosing to retain articles based on whatever rules they are run by. He, of course, envisions himself subscribing to one that would retain everything , notability be damned. [1] http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/2646
My longstanding beef with deletionism is that it goes against the Wiki Way. If Ward's wiki had operated in the same way, it wouldn't have been anywhere near as influential and useful.
As a "deletionist" (at least in theory if not in practice) I welcome this project. I'm glad that somebody is finally doing this, instead of just sitting around complaining that wikipedia isn't what they want it to be. Complaining that wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information is like complaining that Target isn't a fine lobster restaurant -- it was never intended to be and it's fine the way it is. T…
Nobody's making that complaint, so that's a classic straw man. The complaint is the legitimate information is being kept off the project by people who don't think it's important enough for wikipedia. I recently argued against the proposed deletion of an article on a charter school at its AfD. Despite the school being mentioned in many articles, people were arguing that elementary schools simply aren't worthy of mention on Wikipedia. It is this attitude that we oppose, not that "that wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information".
I see the most promising line as actually being something considerably different from Wikipedia, rather than an opposition to it, which despite the top-line rhetoric does seem to be what the proposal is hinting at. Wikipedia aims to be a summary of existing sources (books, journal articles, newspapers, etc.), with citation to where it got its material, but originating nothing; basically, the ultimate tertiary source.…
As a "deletionist" (at least in theory if not in practice) I welcome this project. I'm glad that somebody is finally doing this, instead of just sitting around complaining that wikipedia isn't what they want it to be. Complaining that wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information is like complaining that Target isn't a fine lobster restaurant -- it was never intended to be and it's fine the way it is. T…
"Complaining that wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information" Nobody's making that complaint, so that's a classic straw man. The complaint is the legitimate information is being kept off the project by people who don't think it's important enough for wikipedia. I recently argued against the proposed deletion of an article on a charter school at its AfD. Despite the school being mentioned in many arti…
Well, I've met at least one person who advocated the idea that wikipedia should contain any information that was true. When I asked him if I then should be able to create a many-terabyte article entitled "List of random numbers that hugh3's computer generated at [such and such a date and time]" then he said it should. So there are certainly some folks taking up that extreme position.
Otherwise you're just arguing at the margin. Maybe the notability criteria for schools are too strict. Maybe they're not. I can't think of anything about which I give less of a damn. (For what it's worth I checked, and my high school is certainly listed while one of my two primary schools is and the other [no less intrinsically notable] redirects to the particular suburb in which it is located].)
After years of complaints and issues with rampant deletionism and abusive editors, Wikimedia has finally started to collect statistics on how this has negatively effected the quality, depth and breadth of the project.
I can't find the Wikimedia Foundation report on this (it coincided with the great programming deletion incident), but it was almost universally negative. Some of the more recent data collection tells a similar story, it shows that new users, while attempting to make good faith contributions, are quickly drummed out of the place by established wikipedians via negative comments and rampant deletionism.
Despite this, and years of evidence that this is a serious problem (to the point of being blindingly obvious) with the project, the foundation hasn't taken any particular move to rectify it. I fear they will never get around to doing anything, or the response will be tepid and pointless.
With bits being basically free these days, there's just no real reason to limit Wikipedia to just being a duplicate of a Paper-and-Ink encyclopedia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Complaining that wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information" Nobody's making that complaint, so that's a classic straw man. The complaint is the legitimate information is being kept off the project by people who don't think it's important enough for wikipedia. I recently argued against the proposed deletion of an article on a charter school at its AfD. Despite the school being mentioned in many arti…
Nobody's making that complaint, so that's a classic straw man. Well, I've met at least one person who advocated the idea that wikipedia should contain any information that was true. When I asked him if I then should be able to create a many-terabyte article entitled "List of random numbers that hugh3's computer generated at [such and such a date and time]" then he said it should. So there are certainly some folks tak…
Absurd examples like people's cats and random numbers are not really the problem and I suspect you know that. The problem is not the notability guidelines per se. It's the abusive use of the guidelines (evoked as gospel) by deletionists to keep n00bs out of their playpen.
How is this different than everything2?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody's making that complaint, so that's a classic straw man. Well, I've met at least one person who advocated the idea that wikipedia should contain any information that was true. When I asked him if I then should be able to create a many-terabyte article entitled "List of random numbers that hugh3's computer generated at [such and such a date and time]" then he said it should. So there are certainly some folks tak…
On notability, if wikipedia only contains things that are generally known, what's the point of putting that information in a reference resource? The point of a resource like WP is so people can find things that they may not know. Absurd examples like people's cats and random numbers are not really the problem and I suspect you know that. The problem is not the notability guidelines per se. It's the abusive use of the…
Now there's a strawman. All the facts on wikipedia are widely known to some group of people, but nobody knows 'em all. Though actually, you've just given me another excuse to link to my new blog in which I'm (perhaps slightly facetiously) attempting to become an expert on everything by reading every one of wikipedia's 3.5 million articles: http://projectomniscience.blogspot.com/ ... I only started it two days ago but I've already done both aardvarks and zebras.
Absurd examples like people's cats and random numbers are not really the problem and I suspect you know that.
They would be, if you removed the notability guidelines. Well, the cats would be.
It's the abusive use of the guidelines (evoked as gospel) by deletionists to keep n00bs out of their playpen.
Possibly. I've never actually tried editing wikipedia, only reading it. On the other hand, I have been through Articles for Deletion a few times and the vast majority of stuff that gets deleted clearly is crap -- vanity articles and the like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Complaining that wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information" Nobody's making that complaint, so that's a classic straw man. The complaint is the legitimate information is being kept off the project by people who don't think it's important enough for wikipedia. I recently argued against the proposed deletion of an article on a charter school at its AfD. Despite the school being mentioned in many arti…
Nobody's making that complaint, so that's a classic straw man. Well, I've met at least one person who advocated the idea that wikipedia should contain any information that was true. When I asked him if I then should be able to create a many-terabyte article entitled "List of random numbers that hugh3's computer generated at [such and such a date and time]" then he said it should. So there are certainly some folks tak…