31–40 of 52 posts
I'll never understand the amount of vitriol Wikipedia volunteers must receive. Why is the deletion (or even deletion proposal) regarded as such a heinous act that people feel the need to attack and bully others? I find this kind of behaviour and rethoric wholly unacceptable.
"Those who control the past, control the future"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really,if that thing is cited on notable papers or books, it stays too.
Except if Google decides otherwise. And then Wikipedia follows suit.
If your original post does not come from a misunderstanding but some culture war bullshit or whatever, my bad probably, but i'd rather you go on reddit or something else, i'll probably still read you, but assume it's culture war or ragebait and leave you alone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why is the deletion (or even deletion proposal) regarded as such a heinous act that people feel the need to attack and bully others? FWIW I don't see this as an attack (with, perhaps, the exception of a couple of comments in the linked thread) and posted the link to the reddit thread as I see it more as an interesting observation around the myriad issues facing "legacy" languages and communities. To wit: * Google a…
> Google appears to be canon for finding secondary sources, according to the various arguments in the deletion proposals, yet we're all aware of how abysmal Google's search has been for a while now. Nobody is forcing you to use Google. If you can provide an acceptable source without the help of Google, go ahead. But the burden of proof is on the one who claims sources exist. > An article's history appears to be irrel…
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/08/the-perl-foundation-...
https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/13/perl_dev_quits/
20 seconds.
If I ran Wikipedia I would ban everyone involved in this spectacle.
The reasons for deletion don't seem that outlandish to me. I'd rather not see them deleted, but I also don't think this outcome is that surprising, nor would I describe it as a "memory wipe."
The CPAN page on Wikipedia has existed for 24 years, has dozens of references, yet an editor nominated it for deletion - I can't help but feel that as hostile. Fortunately this one has been voted "keep", but still...
The reasons for deletion don't seem that outlandish to me. I'd rather not see them deleted, but I also don't think this outcome is that surprising, nor would I describe it as a "memory wipe."
Deleted pages are no longer accessible, meaning the history of changes is gone. “Memory wipe” seems reasonable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google appears to be canon for finding secondary sources, according to the various arguments in the deletion proposals, yet we're all aware of how abysmal Google's search has been for a while now. Nobody is forcing you to use Google. If you can provide an acceptable source without the help of Google, go ahead. But the burden of proof is on the one who claims sources exist. > An article's history appears to be irrel…
These are all bad-faith takes. What are you doing? 24 years ago, some people wrote on Wikipedia instead of elsewhere. So the wiki page itself became a primary source. "The page shouldn't have been submitted..." This was a Wiki! If you're unfamiliar with the origin of the term, it was a site mechanism designed to lean in to quick capture and interweaving of documents. Volunteers wrote; the organization of the text aro…
Wikipedia isn't Britannica, because by this point it's probably a lot better than Britannica. They were comparable already in 2005,[1] and I have little reason to believe that Wikipedia is doing much worse on that front nowadays, even though they have vastly more content than Britannica.
[1] https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/study-wikipedia-as-a...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The CPAN page on Wikipedia has existed for 24 years, has dozens of references, yet an editor nominated it for deletion - I can't help but feel that as hostile. Fortunately this one has been voted "keep", but still...
The person who nominated it for deletion changed their opinion after suitable sources were found, and the article was thus kept within a day. That hardly seems hostile to me, but rather just someone trying to uphold Wikipedia's sourcing and notability requirements.
The original user withdrew their deletion suggestion and added the "This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources." banner, sure. Why didn't they just do that in the first place?
Instead they looked at an article that had existed for twenty years, with a comprehensive history of changes, had lots of information, links, and [albeit primary] sources; they did some cursory Googling, then suggested it for deletion - with a deadline of 7 days: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CPAN&diff=1327587...
Wikipedia literally has its own page to suggest that you don't do that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence...
Wikipedia's own policies around deletion mean it's easy to delete articles you don't particularly like - if they are old enough they probably lack secondary sources. You can't inform users who would be able to contribute off-Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing#Stealth_c... which means it's unlikely they will be updated before the deadline passes. Many of these articles were contributed by people who have long moved on, and few of us are paying attention to every possible thing on Wikipedia. Twenty years of history deleted in a week. That's wrong.
This feels like the actions of a newly promoted editor, inexperienced, and eager to start "cleaning up" Wikipedia, which it is damaging. It also feels like the actions of an editor who, when editing another article, saw that the thing they were adding didn't point to what they expected on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Camel_award... # instead of adding a page to disambiguate, they decided to go on a crusade to purge articles that had existed for twenty years. And because these were mostly articles that predate Wikipedia's sourcing policies, they knew it was likely they would succeed.
As I've stated in one of the talk threads: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Left_guide#c-Leejeba... # I'm not particularly concerned about the restoration of some of the articles, instead I'm more concerned about the blunt application of policies that means important reference, history, and culture are being deleted.
The new rule of notability: if it’s no longer in Google’s index, it basically doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion... "From a Google search, I wasn’t able to find" appears multiple times on that page alone.
How could such a biased thing be a valid WikiPedia criteria?