9 ms·
Father of the moderm tiling WMs proposed for deletion in Wikipedia.
- noj 17y agoI'd say Ion is the father of modern tiling WMs.
- codemac 17y agoI was about to say... dwm was more like the grandson of modern tiling WMs. Hell, it was fork from dwm author's _own_ project wmii.
- thisrod 17y agoAcme was written in the '80s, and the author of wmii and dwm states it inspired his ideas. Acme was based on Oberon, which Wirth wrote so long ago that he had to build his own hardware to run it on.
- uriel 17y agolarswm predates ion by a few years, and that was inspired by Rob Pike's acme programming environment for Plan 9 ( http://acme.cat-v.org http://acme.cat-v.org ), which was preceded by Help, which in turn was influenced by Oberon.
- shabda 17y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dwm_(2nd_nomination) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion... This page is a lovely example of why I don't contribute to wikipedia anymore. All the arguments are along the lines of, we should delete/keep this, because (WP:A, WP:B, WP:NO, WP:YES, meatpuppets, sockpuppets, random wikipedia lingo, inuslt to people who do not know wikiepda lingo) I agree shared vocabulary helps communication, but on wikipedia it has become an active tool to discourage new editors. Sad as at one point I believed wikipedia to be the best thing to happen to Internet.
- maurycy 17y agoOut of curiosity, are there any Wikipedia forks? *BSD guys had a lot of similar arguments and they ended up with many flavors of BSD (OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, DragonFlyBSD etc.)
- eru 17y agoSome spammers mirror it.. But that's about it. If you can work out a good way to share most edits between the forks --- because most edits won't be a source of argument --- then you have a fighting chance.
- joeyo 17y agoIt could be as simple as mirroring wikipedia but never propagating the deletions. Trying to edit an article would redirect one to wikipedia; trying to edit a deleted article would instead edit the local copy (in the event of the article being recreated on wikipedia at a later date there could be an automatic upstream merge).
- eru 17y agoThis might be a good start. Though you will also want to keep links to the deleted articles alive.
- Perceval 17y agoIf you took half a second to look through the "New pages" feed, and saw not only the hideous quality and dubious nature of nearly all newly created pages, but also the vast quantity of new articles created every few minutes, you might rethink your position on keeping all deleted articles. Many new articles deserve speedy deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPages
- joeyo 17y ago
- chaosmachine 17y agoWikipedia should disable "non-notable" article deletion for a year and see what happens. The rampant deletionist problem really hurts editor morale. People spend hours working on articles only to have them deleted, often for arbitrary reasons. For a site that lives and dies by its ability to attract new volunteers, they sure do their best to scare people off.
- smackfu 17y agoIt really is sad how much effort is put into identifying and arguing about what articles to delete. It looks like there are about 100 of these each day. Especially since there are still so many holes in the encyclopedia. For instance, parallel giant slalom is a snowboarding event in the Olympics. Yet it doesn't have a page on Wikipedia, just a one line mention on a general snowboarding page: "an event that involves head-to-head racing". I would not be surprised if someone had created a page at some point but it was deleted for not being notable or sourced or some other junk.
- acdha 17y agoDefinitely: I stopped contributing (content and money) to Wikipedia after non-notable deletions ~2006 took out most of my contributions. At the time it was noted that it was easier to list a porn star (anything with a major distributor was automatically considered notable) than an academic who hadn't managed to get a real dead-tree newspaper article written about them (journals, awards, etc. didn't count as much as 2 paragraphs in USA Today). I hope that's changed since then but it definitely killed any interest I had in contributing more time for a uninterested editor to discard without comment.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- steveklabnik 17y agoThe biggest problem is that blogs aren't considered a notable source: > Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self... This makes it really hard to defend open source software against WP:N allegations, since most of your coverage is from these kinds of sources...
- ZeroGravitas 17y agoThe pro-deletion side come across as dicks, but I think they're right. Does every piece of software ever written need a Wikipedia page? If you don't like where they're drawing the line, where would you draw it?
- scscsc 17y agoWhat's wrong with every software ever written having a Wikipedia page if someone cares enough to make one?
- scott_s 17y agoWe need more than one person to maintain a Wikipedia page. Multiple people should be able to vet an article's accuracy. I think the concept of notability sometimes isn't that the topic doesn't deserve an entry, but rather that there aren't enough sources to make the entry obviously accurate. (Granted, I understand sometimes the argument is that a topic doesn't deserve an entry.)
- crux_ 17y agoIn that case, why not just accept a bulk-import of Freshmeat or download.com into Wikipedia? (Rationale: someone cared enough to write the description text on those sites, so it seems a safe assumption that they'd care enough to write the same text into Wikipedia were it allowed.)
- Semiapies 17y agoOtherwise, someone would have to make their own fan site for stuff like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_episodes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Buffy_the_Vampire_Slaye...
- aw3c2 17y agoWhat would be the drawback?
- pohl 17y agoIt wastes 4K of storage that might otherwise be devoted to something more "notable", like a plot summary for last night's episode of Lost.
- billiob 17y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Miami33139 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Miami33139 is trying to remove every free software from wikipedia (ejabberd, many IM clients, dwm…).
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- shrikant 17y agoInteresting how in his/her user-page, Miami33139 puts forth a defensive claim of being 'inclusionist'.
- theli0nheart 17y agoAlso interesting how Miami33139 uses Ubuntu.
- eru 17y agoHow does he? (I feel a bit creepy stalking him like this on the internet.)
- jonursenbach 17y agoIt says on that on that page. {{User :OS:Ubuntu Netbook Remix}}
- kzhcytwsl 17y ago... yet xe is a member of Category:Wikipedians_who_like_Futurama
- JoeAltmaier 17y agoDefinition: Encyclopedia (from wikipedia) a comprehensive written compendium that holds information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge
- gojomo 17y ago!#@!@^% deletionists are ruining Wikipedia. They'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
- eru 17y agoReminds me of the Hitchhiker..
- acg 17y agoI'm sure these policies are designed to keep up quality. Deletion is a great incentive for improving articles. Perhaps the best thing to do in this case is to fix the article at the moment there is little content. If you care, fix it :-).
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- yellowbkpk 17y agoIt's not being deleted due to lack of content. The main argument for deletion seems to be the lack of external non-primary sources.
- noarchy 17y agoDeletion isn't about improving articles. It is about removing them. If an article covers an obscure topic or person, what of it, so long as the article is properly referenced? There are many topics out there that are definitely arcane and of little interest to most people. Does this mean that Wikipedia ought to be a knowledge base for nothing but pop culture? I sure hope not.
- acg 17y agoHave you read the article? It reads like a blog entry rather than an entry to an encyclopedia. Wikipedia has been criticized before for not being well researched and factual. The problem with the article is it may as well be someone's opinion on the WM. I'm all for more pages but this does not read well. My point is if you care, make it read like it belongs in there. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an internet archive it's supposed to be factual.
- noarchy 17y agoI am all for cleaning up bad content. But I think we have to make a distinction between a Wikipedia entry with poor structure or citations, and this notion of an "unworthy topic" As for this entry, specifically, I have read it. And I'd go back to what I mentioned about cleaning up bad content. The article can be fixed. It does not need to be eliminated.
- deutronium 17y agoI personally can't see why any article should be deleted unless it's obviously erroneous, its not like they're short of disk space. Obscure articles will likely remain as such, due to lack of references to them; deletion seems rather draconian. As an aside I wonder if Wikipedia will ever be forked due to this apparent increasing bureaucracy.
- nopassrecover 17y agoIndeed the disk space argument is frivolous given the amount of discussion generated around deleting articles, besides which I wouldn't even be sure that articles are permanently deleted. This ignores the cost in time and morale to contributors.
- brazzy 17y agoI don't think anyone is arguing that articles need to be deleted because of concerns over disk space (even though if all criteria for inclusion were dropped, the number of useless articles would skyrocket). The real problem is the danger of relevant articles becoming lost between (and becoming filled with links to) the more numerous irrelevant ones.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- pmarin 17y agoIn dwm with Mod1-m. Mod1-b if you want to hide The status bar.
- Tichy 17y agoDon't have the patience to read the whole deletion policy page. Why would they want to delete such a thing? Is it inconceivable that some day somebody might stumble across the word "dwm" and look it up on Wikipedia?
- jessriedel 17y agoPeople don't want Wikipedia to be dump for all possible information.
- postfuturist 17y agoThey are opposed to its encyclopedic nature?
- ars 17y agoYes they do. Personally I want EVERYTHING in it, even if it's not notable, I don't care. The guideline should be: would 1 other (un-involved, un-related, etc) person on the planet be interested it? Then put it in. I want to see a page on tips and techniques on laying brick, and page on the history of the coffee house down the corner from where you live. Everything.
- gwern 17y agoAs it happens, I watch [[dwm]] and [[dmenu]], and when they went up earlier today, I did my usual searches. Turns out there are quite a few dwms, and all the ones in places like Google Books are not this dwm.
- spatulon 17y agoI cannot agree with deletionists, but it's still important that articles cite reputable sources. Unfortunately, those same reputable sources are by and large the same ones needed for notability. About a year ago, there was a mini-campaign on HN to save the article about Fravia. It narrowly avoided getting deleted, but look at it now - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fravia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fravia - it's still a terrible, rambling mess, with almost every citation leading to Fravia's own website. The information in the article may or may not be true, and we don't really have any way of knowing. It really seems like something has to reach a certain level of notability before it's possible to write an article of sufficient quality about it.
- applicative 17y agoAgain, you don't speak to the criteria. It seems that dwm may actually meet the criteria these people are now employing. If so, a principal lobe of the brain of the open source movement is being cut out ... by itself.
- cf 17y agoNo, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_(window_manager) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_(window_manager) is the Father of modern tiling WMs
- ggchappell 17y agoYes, deletionism is getting ridiculous on WP. And it's only going to get worse, due to evaporative cooling of group beliefs. http://lesswrong.com/lw/lr/evaporative_cooling_of_group_beliefs/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/lr/evaporative_cooling_of_group_beli... But what to do about it? Various people have mentioned the idea of a WP fork. This has been tried before, a number of times. These tend not to go anywhere. The problem seems to be getting a critical mass of people to work on it. Another idea I've been wondering about: start a movement to get inclusionists back into WP. It should have its own website, discussion area (inside or outside WP?), etc. Someone should write up ideas on how WP can be changed (e.g., vote NO on all deletion polls, not as a statement that any particular article should not be deleted, but rather simply to set a higher standard for deletion). Thoughts? (Or has this also been done already?)
- brazzy 17y agoFrom what I've read, this kind of thing (an organized movement of people planning to get into Wikipedia and influence votes) would make a lot of editors cream their pants in anticipation of all the bans for "canvassing", "sockpuppetry" and "meatpuppetry" they'd be handing out and how heroic they'd be defending wikipedia against such heinous infiltration.
- gwern 17y ago> Someone should write up ideas on how WP can be changed (e.g., vote NO on all deletion polls, not as a statement that any particular article should not be deleted, but rather simply to set a higher standard for deletion). Speaking as a former admin and an eventuo-inclusionist: if I went to close an AfD and saw that particular tactic being used, the keep side would've just lost at least 2 votes' worth of influence.
- scorciapino 17y agoHaha, oh the irony... I once had my very own WM articles deleted on the portuguese wikipedia by a proposition of guy that... cataloged guava varieties.
- ww520 17y agoI also have stopped contributing to Wiki. It's not worth it after hours of work being deleted. They only want popular articles.
- mcantor 17y agoStuff like this makes me really want to publish a magazine called "Citation Needed" or "Articles for Deletion" that would just contain short articles by experts on whatever was speciously put up for deletion that month, just to flip off feckless deletionists. It would be worth it for the Wikipedia citations alone.
- docgnome 17y agoGrrr. Wikipedia protocols for notability are just terrible for FOSS projects, which is rather ironic. I'm still kinna peeved about the deletion of the StumpWM article.