251–260 of 441 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SISC is there because it's not notable, so the busybodies haven't even noticed the page exists. Odin, however, is notable, and that put it on their radar as a target for attacking its notability.
And here's the persecution LARPing the article talks about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although, didn’t it appear in a popular culture reference? I seem to remember an episode of “elementary“ that mentioned it.
Oh, sure, the "In Popular Culture" section is a prerequisite for every Wikipedia article. ;-) In seriousness though, the Malbolge article (2003) significantly predates the TV series in question (2012--2019). I wouldn't be surprised that writers got the info from Wikipedia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if the perception of Wikipedia is „truthful“ and „reliable“. I’m saying neither, but in that case the article on Wikipedia puts weight behind the statements on the webpage. I do see your argument: „But it would be adjusted to reflect the truth about it“. Honestly I don’t know enough about Wikipedia to agree or deny it. But given the amount of articles on it, i would lean in the direction that the motivation of a…
They can just strip out any problematic content and protect it. At least leave the lede and the infobox and whatever else can be salvaged. Deleting the article means you can't even see the edit history to see why it was deleted. Whatever good work was done by other editors is gone cannot be built on. It's extreme.
You can see why it was deleted without that. Picking an example deleted article; the very first line, in a red box, is the deletion log entry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xpanceo
> 00:57, 28 June 2026 .... deleted page Xpanceo (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xpanceo (...))
Click on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio... and you will see all the reasons why it was deleted.
Wikipedia still has the full edit history of deleted articles, they can be restored upon request. The "hard work lost" argument is moot.
It's more important to speedily remove spam; keeping non-notable articles available is a huge win for spammers who put them there, every minute of endorsement by Wikipedia by continuing to exist there is a blessing. Wikipedia should keep the lede and infobox of the "EWKRHEKWJ.COM VIAGRA SALES COMPANY" article about how EWKRHEKWJ.COM sells the very finest viagra and cialis at the lowest prices, and their address is https://EWKRHEKWJ.COM ... because think of the hard work they must've put in to the article? Just leave that up and protect it? No thanks!
I have never been a wikipedia contributor (let alone a mod), but their points seem fair. Maybe not fair for the particular case, but fair for the general case. People who ridicule wikipedia policies should at least acknowledge that the modern internet is a very low trust society with millions of bad actors trying to push their agenda at the expense of others. And now with AI bots running amok the headache increases t…
But is trusting the CEO worse than trusting newspapers? Argument of Casey was that it is not.
> My hypothesis is quite simple: I don't think GingerBill ever cared about Wikipedia's standards for programming. He follows several right-wing figures on Twitter, who have long since made up their mind that Wikipedia has been ideologically captured by activists and "the woke". What a sh*tshow. When I look up a programming language on Wikipedia I am trying to learn about the programming language only. What does the p…
He’s saying that to say that’s why Bill is acting like he is. Saying he doesn’t care while making a lot of noise like he cares. Complaining about rules he hasn’t looked up. Then accusing the mods of bias simply due to their deletion of the article, despite the mod nominating being more ideologically aligned than not.
I have never been a wikipedia contributor (let alone a mod), but their points seem fair. Maybe not fair for the particular case, but fair for the general case. People who ridicule wikipedia policies should at least acknowledge that the modern internet is a very low trust society with millions of bad actors trying to push their agenda at the expense of others. And now with AI bots running amok the headache increases t…
Interesting article (I tend to agree with you re SNG in the programming field). But unfortunately I couldn't easily absorb the substance as your site needs some work on mobile: - text completely overflowing the background - body text is arguably too small - the masonry grid layout of posts does not work visually - footnotes appearing out of order
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you YCombinator is a real company unless you met pg? Look at it being well known with real useable products, might be something to try to look for...
Because plenty of secondary sources have covered it. Wikipedia's philosophy is that it summarizes reliable secondary sources. You're asking for Wikipedia to change its fundamental philosophy so that editors go out and gather primary evidence themselves, debate it, and then deduce what's true by themselves. That would work if Wikipedia were edited by a select group of highly qualified people you can trust, but it's no…
It's simple; get coverage in reliable sources,[0] and the article can come back. That really doesn't seem to be too high a bar to cross.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
I am a terminally-online person, and I do program. I am not interested in neolanguages. This article is literally the first time I've heard of Odin (the language), and I only clicked it because I thought it was about the Norse god, not some invented language. There are various bounds for notability in Wikipedia, and no matter how much of a fan of the new thing you are, you are encouraged to root around for sources. H…
It's possible I'm in a bubble, but it would be a fairly notable bubble.
Things that are perhaps niche but growing should be an argument for keeping them.
Isn't Wikipedia a compendium of facts? Odin's existence is one of those facts. /shrug