3 ms·

What I find frustrating are that things like this are permitted to happen by editors who've clearly no clue about the subject matter of the article: https://en

What I find frustrating are that things like this are permitted to happen by editors who've clearly no clue about the subject matter of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chocolatey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio... "Yet another piece of niche software without any evidence of notability." Upon looking up profile of the editor who proposed this deletion we discover: "I am an environmentalist, scientist and naturalist retired from a career spent working for the UK Government. By training I am an aquatic biologist" Absolutely no mention of any knowledge or expertise about the Microsoft development ecosystem, so how would they know anything about the notability of Chocolatey or whether the references are reliable or notable. I created the original NuGet article and got the go ahead to publish it from an experienced wikipedian. A few months later, despite being reasonably well fleshed out, a different editor trots by and sticks a "I'll delete this page because I don't think its notable enough" at the top. My problem is that I don't have the time or energy to jump through their bizarre argumentative hoops to challenge these kinds of things. It happens all the time. I've had two or three wikipedia articles bookmarked only to return some months later to discover they're gone because in the limited opinion of one or two editors the subject matter is not notable. I have since given up contributing time and money to wikipedia. Fuck them.

Symbiote 10y ago
Was the editor wrong? The page on Chocolatey seems fine as a section on NuGet. Wikipedia is not a wiki specialised in software, so it seems reasonable enough that notability is considered in general terms.
- elcapitan 10y ago
  That discussion (exclusionism vs inclusionism, i.e. making more decisions to exclude stuff that is below a threshold (as in space-limited traditional encyclopedias) vs letting as much in as people care about) is probably also as old as Wikipedia. The German Wikipedia tends to be relatively exclusionist, while I always found the English one more inclusionist. I almost completely abandoned using the German one for this reason and usually go straight to the English version of articles. I also don't want to spend time arguing with the bureaucratic caste what belongs there and what not, I'm happy to find more content in the English version.
snori74 10y ago
So? The article you created lives on, it simply had a note about "dubious notability" for a year. That is a prompt to you - or anyone else that cares - to add references to reliable sources that demonstrate that it is notable.
cooper12 10y ago
Wikipedia is written by amateurs and enthusiasts, credentials don't hold any weight compared to published sources. [0] You can't verify what's in someone's head, but you can do that for published information. Every now and then you'll hear about how "experts are scum" [1] on Wikipedia, but that comes from a lack of understanding of how it functions. Experts are more than welcome to contribute, as long as they back up their statements with sources. (One would expect academics to embrace this the most) About notability, Wikipedia's concept of notability [2] is quite different from what the average person might think it to be. Notability has nothing to do with popularity or usefulness, but rather significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This way, you know you can write a verifiable [3] and comprehensive article on something without resorting to original research. [4] (To put it another way: pulling things out of your ass) While to you as a programmer, Chocately might seem to be one of the most essential things on the planet, to nearly every other person and publisher, it's nothing special. Have books been written on it? Has it received widespread coverage in the news? Would you expect to see it in a real encyclopedia? What is its actual impact and userbase? That is what notability is about, not because you personally find something important. Lastly, you often hear people complaining about other articles of the same type or more esoteric existing,[5] like Homebrew having an article [6] while Chocolatey doesn't. That doesn't mean those articles won't be deleted either, Wikipedia is entirely run by volunteers and the process focuses on an individual article's merits at a time. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_credentials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_credentia... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SCUM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SCUM [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_(package_management_software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_(package_management_s...

Symbiote 10y ago

Was the editor wrong? The page on Chocolatey seems fine as a section on NuGet. Wikipedia is not a wiki specialised in software, so it seems reasonable enough that notability is considered in general terms.

elcapitan 10y ago
That discussion (exclusionism vs inclusionism, i.e. making more decisions to exclude stuff that is below a threshold (as in space-limited traditional encyclopedias) vs letting as much in as people care about) is probably also as old as Wikipedia. The German Wikipedia tends to be relatively exclusionist, while I always found the English one more inclusionist. I almost completely abandoned using the German one for this reason and usually go straight to the English version of articles. I also don't want to spend time arguing with the bureaucratic caste what belongs there and what not, I'm happy to find more content in the English version.

snori74 10y ago

So? The article you created lives on, it simply had a note about "dubious notability" for a year. That is a prompt to you - or anyone else that cares - to add references to reliable sources that demonstrate that it is notable.

cooper12 10y ago

Wikipedia is written by amateurs and enthusiasts, credentials don't hold any weight compared to published sources. [0] You can't verify what's in someone's head, but you can do that for published information. Every now and then you'll hear about how "experts are scum" [1] on Wikipedia, but that comes from a lack of understanding of how it functions. Experts are more than welcome to contribute, as long as they back up their statements with sources. (One would expect academics to embrace this the most) About notability, Wikipedia's concept of notability [2] is quite different from what the average person might think it to be. Notability has nothing to do with popularity or usefulness, but rather significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This way, you know you can write a verifiable [3] and comprehensive article on something without resorting to original research. [4] (To put it another way: pulling things out of your ass) While to you as a programmer, Chocately might seem to be one of the most essential things on the planet, to nearly every other person and publisher, it's nothing special. Have books been written on it? Has it received widespread coverage in the news? Would you expect to see it in a real encyclopedia? What is its actual impact and userbase? That is what notability is about, not because you personally find something important. Lastly, you often hear people complaining about other articles of the same type or more esoteric existing,[5] like Homebrew having an article [6] while Chocolatey doesn't. That doesn't mean those articles won't be deleted either, Wikipedia is entirely run by volunteers and the process focuses on an individual article's merits at a time. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_credentials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_credentia... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SCUM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SCUM [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_(package_management_software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_(package_management_s...