141–147 of 147 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not the definition of notability used by Wikipedia.
That's the point of all of this isn't it? Wikipedia's standard/definition of notability, or their method for determining it, is broken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are typos that common? I recall there are at least some bots or human-assisted bots that clean those up. I didn’t mean to imply it’s hard. Just that the default way to create an article is to use AfC for someone new to WP. It’s not surprising that someone used that because it is pushed really hard. That is, it’s easy to bypass, but the fact that they picked this method isn’t surprising. It’s like saying “Sure, you to…
Again: as an obstacle to articles about scientists, we're talking about something applies essentially only to the first article you create on the site.
> The author of the draft essentially asked for that not to happen, by using the AfC process.
That’s not fair. They were just using the default flow for new users. They didn’t “essentially ask” anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again: as an obstacle to articles about scientists, we're talking about something applies essentially only to the first article you create on the site.
I’m more pro-WP than anyone on this site. It’s just this part I take issue with: > The author of the draft essentially asked for that not to happen, by using the AfC process. That’s not fair. They were just using the default flow for new users. They didn’t “essentially ask” anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think some wikipedia editors (and editor brigades like "Philip Cross") are making a living from the activity you describe.
Absolutely. Wikipedia itself acknowledges the problem: Many Wikipedians have seen the effects that paid advocates can have on an article. These paid editors tend to make obviously biased edits, be very persistent, and are easily identifiable. But some of them are much more sophisticated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
[0] https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/j4hl36/112-the-proph...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m more pro-WP than anyone on this site. It’s just this part I take issue with: > The author of the draft essentially asked for that not to happen, by using the AfC process. That’s not fair. They were just using the default flow for new users. They didn’t “essentially ask” anything.
I could probably write that more precisely, though I stand by the gist of what I said. If we don't disagree about anything else, we can probably leave it at that: you have a valid point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm beating a dead horse here, but I want to repeat myself: you don't have to use the AfC process at all. You can just create a new Wikipedia article directly, without any admin review. You go through AfC because you choose to do so, not because Wikipedia has a whole complicated flowchart that gates which new articles can be created. Before Donna Strickland was awarded her Nobel, nobody opted to do this. So the real…
> I'm beating a dead horse here, but I want to repeat myself: you don't have to use the AfC process at all. You can just create a new Wikipedia article directly, without any admin review. You go through AfC because you choose to do so, not because Wikipedia has a whole complicated flowchart that gates which new articles can be created. It's a bit sad that so many commenters do not understand this basic fact. Looking…
Wait, is it somehow not still forbidden for that use? What kind of clown show are these teachers suffering?
Glad I got this entry in during the early days of wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduardo_Corrochio . It has been wittled down numerous times over the years but the skeleton of the man's life remains.
Is this page purely a Seinfeld reference?