The Closed, Unfriendly World of Wikipedia • Hacker News Board

Re: The Closed, Unfriendly World of Wikipedia

#231

Post by modeless » Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 8:23 AM UTC

bobsoap wrote: post #225

modeless wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His "contribution" was arguably wrong, his effort was minimal, and his attitude was poisonous. If you want an encyclopedia where the opinions of "domain experts" trump consensus, then use Citizendium.

What you're effectively saying is that contributions to Wikipedia should be reserved for people who are highly involved with Wikipedia already. Outsider? No chance. Why allow every peasant to add stuff, right?. I derive this assumption from your statement that his contribution, effort and attitude was "wrong", "minimal", and "poisonous". I don't see any of that. I see a rant following a genuine effort to contribute,…

His "genuine effort to contribute" consisted of proudly ignoring instructions and refusing to read documentation, being mad that his "expert" opinion didn't carry the weight he thought it deserved, and dropping excessively long drive-by rants in various inappropriate locations, including the talk page of an editor whose only offense was volunteering some (sorely needed) advice with a (slightly) wrong link.

Contributions to Wikipedia aren't reserved for people already involved, but following prominently posted instructions and reading some documentation are requirements, for good reason. This is not the story of a mature and reasonable person whose hard work was unfairly dismissed by the secret Wikipedia cabal. This is the story of a temper tantrum thrown by a self-proclaimed "expert" when his ego was damaged.

Re: The Closed, Unfriendly World of Wikipedia

#232

Post by corin_ » Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 8:25 AM UTC

greenyoda wrote: post #214

"About two weeks ago, Jessie Stricchiola let me know that her Wikipedia page had been deleted. Apparently, she wasn’t notable enough." Apparently, every fictional character from every forgotten TV show seems to merit their own page (see, for example, the amount of space that Wikipedia devotes to "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" and its cast of characters). It's hard to imagine why any real person wouldn't be "notable enoug…

Because a far higher number of people know about and have an interest in Buffy The Vampire Slayer than this Jessie person?

Re: The Closed, Unfriendly World of Wikipedia

#233

Post by neilk » Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 8:33 AM UTC

bane wrote: post #189

neilk wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, have you read WP:Notability? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability In one sentence: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Notability isn't really that much of a judgment call. Also, it doesn't necessarily apply to the creation of new articl…

But you know as well as anybody that quite often in AfD notability is firmly established and an overzealous WP nerd will just simply ignore it because they feel the need to protect the electrons they believe have come to serve them in their virtual fiefdom. And to be clear we're not talking about cases of obvious vandalism, there's plenty of cases where perfectly WP conformant edits are made, marked for deletion and…

I don't follow AfD closely. I'm a programmer. But I just had a look through the latest AfDs and I have to say there's little I disagreed with.

This one was sponsored by a very prolific Wikipedian, though, who has a particular affection for the rule that one event doesn't make you notable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion...

Which is totally outrageous. It's tempting to conclude the nominator was just an idiot, or possibly pursuing some conservative agenda. But by Hanlon's Razor, I assume that the nominator was just less aware of this story than others. Maybe it's a good thing that such articles can be challenged. I wish it had been speedy-kept though; it's embarassing to have the deletion templates on the article.

There is unanimous agreement that the article must be kept, so far. So, the system is working. Kind of.

Re: The Closed, Unfriendly World of Wikipedia

#234

Post by ErrantX » Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 8:35 AM UTC

kstenerud wrote: post #70

What Wikipedia really needs is for a UI expert to step in and fix what is essentially a broken UI. Requesting a reinstatement of a deleted page in a properly designed UI should take no more than a couple of clicks and 1 minute of reading, tops. Navigating a twisted web of broken or confusing or incorrect links with walls of text at every step does not a good UI make. All of the UI frustrations the op experiences snow…

Part of the problem here is getting developer time onto fixing up such an issue. a) I don't think the Foundation employs a UI expert and b) the community actually requesting serious feature enhancements has a history of taking. absolutely. forever. :)

(although; I agree, improvements to certain processes would be very handy)

Re: The Closed, Unfriendly World of Wikipedia

#235

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 8:40 AM UTC

knowtheory wrote: post #143

tptacek wrote: post #51

You can tell someone hasn't spent much time at AfD, the section of Wikipedia where people (anyone in the world, really) discuss whether articles should be deleted, by the outrage they express at the "arbitrariness" of Wikipedia's notability rules. Have you spent any time at AfD? Let me help you out: here's the AfD log for the week they killed "Jessie_Stricchiola": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_d…

The two rules you've outline are the primary reason i contribute very little to wikipedia. I can put together a well-sourced piece outlining the importance of a variety of subjects which i am indirectly involved in, and give a dispassionate description of its relevance to the community it serves and the world at large. Wikipedians, instead of saying "do that and have neutral 3rd parties check over your work", instead…

[deleted]

Re: The Closed, Unfriendly World of Wikipedia

#236

Post by BasDirks » Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 8:42 AM UTC

"I’m a notable person on Wikipedia, as well as an expert in search marketing. So for what it’s worth, you’re seriously questioning whether Jessie should have her own page? That’s just crazy.

The page should be restored, and immediately. She’s clearly notable."

These lines make it clear enough what kind of clown we're dealing with.

Re: The Closed, Unfriendly World of Wikipedia

#237

Post by ErrantX » Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 9:00 AM UTC

neilk wrote: post #233

bane wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you know as well as anybody that quite often in AfD notability is firmly established and an overzealous WP nerd will just simply ignore it because they feel the need to protect the electrons they believe have come to serve them in their virtual fiefdom. And to be clear we're not talking about cases of obvious vandalism, there's plenty of cases where perfectly WP conformant edits are made, marked for deletion and…

I don't follow AfD closely. I'm a programmer. But I just had a look through the latest AfDs and I have to say there's little I disagreed with. This one was sponsored by a very prolific Wikipedian, though, who has a particular affection for the rule that one event doesn't make you notable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion... Which is totally outrageous. It's tempting to conclude the nominat…

Actually; that is a prime example of where the deletion process is failing - because the only option is "delete or not delete".

That article is a problem; if you read it, it is not a biography, it describes an event. Which, I suspect, is the point the nominator was trying to make.

For a reader, the content is better presented in an article on Women's rights in Egypt (or activism in Egypt) with the title redirected there.

Alternatively there is always Wikinews.

Re: The Closed, Unfriendly World of Wikipedia

#238

Post by alexchamberlain » Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 9:01 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #51

You can tell someone hasn't spent much time at AfD, the section of Wikipedia where people (anyone in the world, really) discuss whether articles should be deleted, by the outrage they express at the "arbitrariness" of Wikipedia's notability rules. Have you spent any time at AfD? Let me help you out: here's the AfD log for the week they killed "Jessie_Stricchiola": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_d…

It is simply ridiculous that non-experts are deciding whether a page stays or goes. Wikipedia should take a leaf out of scientific journals (you know, the real place knowledge is shared) and appoint boards of editors who are proud to use their own name on the internet and have a reputation built on real knowledge in their domain. They can then decide who is notable or not according to their own rules.

Besides, I thoroughly believe that Wikipedia should allow far more articles in, and people can make their own decisions whether to read them or not.

Re: The Closed, Unfriendly World of Wikipedia

#239

Post by wpietri » Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 9:04 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #219

wpietri wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under ideal circumstances, what contribution would you have wanted him to make?

Under ideal circumstances he would have "known" the article was great and really important; he would have heard it got deleted; he would have gone to wikipedia and found short simple clear advice about what is included and what isn't included. Preferably in one place. Then he would have realised that the article was not a good fit for Wikipedia, but he would have met some people who were not fucking wingnuts and who…

Ok. So your ideal contribution from him in regards to this is no contribution at all, right?

I agree it would be great for him to have a lot of love and handholding to get to the point where he realizes that he's in the wrong. And equally that it would be great for him to get enough support that he goes on to edit other things.

But honestly, I don't expect that he would ever do that. He's a legitimately busy and important guy, and he also clearly thinks he's pretty darned important. He wasn't really willing to engage seriously with Wikipedia or to take a little time to understand what was going on. All he really wanted to do was bitch until he got his way, or until he got tired of bitching.

So although I agree with a lot of your concerns about Wikipedia's user-hostile software and newbie-hostile community, in this case I'm not so sure there's a problem. I have actually spent time calming people like him down on AfDs; it's a thankless job. Maybe it's better for everybody if people promoting their pal's pages just go off in a huff immediately without further taxing the patience of Wikipedia volunteers.

Re: The Closed, Unfriendly World of Wikipedia

#240

Post by Vivtek » Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 9:08 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #208

Vivtek wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the complaint is not that there are processes - clearly there must be - but that the processes are opaquely documented, poorly tracked, not transparent to start with, and arbitrarily and often capriciously enforced.

Are they opaquely documented? I went to Google, typed in "Wikipedia deletion policy" and got what seems like some good documentation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy Imagining it from Sullivan's perspective, I read down to the bit that says "If you disagree: Take the matter to Wikipedia:Deletion review", which leads me here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review Reading down a…

And if you don't like it and won't get involved,

Yes, thanks. I have no particular opinion; I just said that was the complaint, and it's not the first time I've heard it. I've never made more than casual and minor corrections to Wikipedia, and I've never been notable or known notable people who Wikipedia deemed worthy of deletion. And I do know spam and loathe self-promotion by meaningless hordes, so I can understand where Wikimedia editors are coming from. But I also know when a culture is not particularly outsider-friendly, and I stay over here, thank you.

I might add that complaining that I'm not doing enough free work to fix Wikipedia is also not going to help. I'd love to delve into the history and process of Wikipedia's culture, but I'm going to get about six minutes of sleep tonight already.