5 ms·

Wikipedia also lives and dies by it's reputation. People have tried forking Wikipedia with more inclusive policies numerous times (the code base and articles ar

by ig1 17y ago

Wikipedia also lives and dies by it's reputation. People have tried forking Wikipedia with more inclusive policies numerous times (the code base and articles are open source), and they've all ended up filled with junk. I was involved with Wikipedia very heavily for it's first three years (not been involved for the last 5 years), and there have been periods when it went through more liberal stages of allowing a broader range of content. The policies they have now aren't something that've just been made up. They're policies that have evolved over a decade of seeing what works and what doesn't. Non-notable articles often end up abandoned and vandalized for long period. Sure the precise criteria for notability and verifiability might be debatable, but there's absolutely no question that those criteria help make Wikipedia a reliable source of data. Think about the reason you want something in Wikipedia (rather than just say on a Google Sites page or Mahalo, etc). You want it on Wikipedia precisely because of the reputation it has, and that reputation is in a large part down to the criteria of notability and verifiability.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
applicative 17y ago
> Non-notable articles often end up abandoned and vandalized for long period. Yes, but can't we use some other criteria for this than the utterly absurd ones being deployed to destroy all of the articles on open source software? I used to use the Wikipedia to orient myself in that domain, but now it really is practically useless due to the latest round of deletion madness, which is based on the "If it's not mentioned in the New York Times, it doesn't exist" criterion. (For example, I was looking into wikis recently, and found that if I went back 6 months, the articles were much better...) It seems plain that different criteria need to be developed for different domains. Either the destruction of the `dwm` article follows from the principles being deployed or it doesn't; and either it is worth an article (which it would be simply insane to deny) or it isn't. You don't take a stand on which combination of views you hold, and what the solution is, but only affirm the abstract principle that 'there are limits'.
scott_s 17y ago
I think people miss this subtle point, which is it's about volunteer's time and effort, not disk space. I want Wikipedia to contain as much information as humanly possible (and by "humanly" I mean across our species), but I recognize that it's a finite number of volunteers managing all of it. For that reason, it's inevitable that some articles will get cut.
- whughes 17y ago
  If people are complaining about their articles getting cut, doesn't that mean that they care about those articles and would maintain them? Wikipedia is actively spurning volunteers and reducing that "finite number" with deletionism.
  - scott_s 17y ago
    Not necessarily. I think people are more likely to complain than do the grunt-work of active maintenance. It's certainly easier to do so. And creating an article doesn't indicate commitment. I think there are problems - from what I've seen, people outside of an area can be too quick to judge notability. But I find the attitude that nothing should be deleted naive.
    - billdeancarter 17y ago
      After a WP article about writer Alan Cabal was deleted, following many AfDs, I re-wrote it from scratch as a Squidoo lens, probably for the better: http://www.squidoo.com/Alan_Cabal http://www.squidoo.com/Alan_Cabal The WP article does still lie in userspace waiting to be resurrected, but it's a complete waste of time to try and get it back into mainspace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_Th... There are other options out there. Citizendium? If the article about dwm is deleted, re-write it at Citizendium. Why not? Wikipedia is so 2001-2009. Its time is over, I think.

by ig1 17y ago

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

applicative 17y ago

> Non-notable articles often end up abandoned and vandalized for long period. Yes, but can't we use some other criteria for this than the utterly absurd ones being deployed to destroy all of the articles on open source software? I used to use the Wikipedia to orient myself in that domain, but now it really is practically useless due to the latest round of deletion madness, which is based on the "If it's not mentioned in the New York Times, it doesn't exist" criterion. (For example, I was looking into wikis recently, and found that if I went back 6 months, the articles were much better...) It seems plain that different criteria need to be developed for different domains. Either the destruction of the `dwm` article follows from the principles being deployed or it doesn't; and either it is worth an article (which it would be simply insane to deny) or it isn't. You don't take a stand on which combination of views you hold, and what the solution is, but only affirm the abstract principle that 'there are limits'.

scott_s 17y ago

I think people miss this subtle point, which is it's about volunteer's time and effort, not disk space. I want Wikipedia to contain as much information as humanly possible (and by "humanly" I mean across our species), but I recognize that it's a finite number of volunteers managing all of it. For that reason, it's inevitable that some articles will get cut.

whughes 17y ago
If people are complaining about their articles getting cut, doesn't that mean that they care about those articles and would maintain them? Wikipedia is actively spurning volunteers and reducing that "finite number" with deletionism.
- scott_s 17y ago
  Not necessarily. I think people are more likely to complain than do the grunt-work of active maintenance. It's certainly easier to do so. And creating an article doesn't indicate commitment. I think there are problems - from what I've seen, people outside of an area can be too quick to judge notability. But I find the attitude that nothing should be deleted naive.
  - billdeancarter 17y ago
    After a WP article about writer Alan Cabal was deleted, following many AfDs, I re-wrote it from scratch as a Squidoo lens, probably for the better: http://www.squidoo.com/Alan_Cabal http://www.squidoo.com/Alan_Cabal The WP article does still lie in userspace waiting to be resurrected, but it's a complete waste of time to try and get it back into mainspace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_Th... There are other options out there. Citizendium? If the article about dwm is deleted, re-write it at Citizendium. Why not? Wikipedia is so 2001-2009. Its time is over, I think.