4 ms·

In my opinion, there is absolutely no reason to have a tiny stub article with information of no interest to anyone. Keeping the band example going, people come

In my opinion, there is absolutely no reason to have a tiny stub article with information of no interest to anyone. Keeping the band example going, people come to Wikipedia to read about a band without diving into everything that has ever been written about them; if there's nothing to say, we can't help. But I guess your question is more "why not?" Editors will spend more time per year reverting vandalism and removing original research than readers will ever spend using it. And that's really, really optimistic: what actually happens with stubs on little-known topics is that they fill to the brim with original research and info from bad sources, and anti-vandalism editors don't stop it because either they don't know if the sources are good, or they're rightly afraid of being yelled at for removing content, since anything looks like a potentially constructive addition to a shell of an article. If you require a decent amount of sourced information, someone adding a wall of text without adding references looks suspect and is (somewhat) more likely to be removed in a timely manner.

jessriedel 10y ago
If this is really a problem, why not just lock the article at a stub with a few verifiable facts? How is this more editorial work than deleting, and fighting a subjective battle over notability? I can't understand why you think one can't defend against this stuff using mechanism that don't lead to effects like the one described by rsync https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13159057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13159057
- tptacek 10y ago
  This is answered here, in the second place you asked this question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13161015 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13161015 (better if replies go there too)
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    OK. I explained there why I think resfirestar's answer is unsatisfactory, i.e., why there are easier, cleaner, and less destructive ways of dealing with that problem than using notability. Would still be interested in your take there.
- resfirestar 10y ago
  Addressed the locking below. I'm sympathetic to rsync.net, and maybe I spent too long in the Wikipedia bubble, but what exactly is the argument for it having a Wikipedia article? >rsync.net has been mentioned in the press widely over the course of over 10 years - everything from articles about our warrant canary to articles about our ZFS support. In fact, other wikipedia pages mention and discuss rsync.net. So it's had some coverage related to first commercial use of a warrant canary and is discussed in that context. It commercially implemented a feature of rsync (the application) that should be talked about on the page about rsync the application. But what can be said about rsync.net? Maybe someone read about their warrant canary and wants to know more about this company...but no independent source has written about who they are and what makes them so savvy with opsec and rsync. Anything outside those narrow topics is original research or primary sources. I think things are working as intended.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    You're arguing that because the info on rsync.net is contained in other Wikipedia pages, there's no point in having an rsync page. But the page discussing ZFS support doesn't link to the discussion of the warrant canary, i.e., there's nowhere to go to find all the rsync.net info on Wikipedia. And the reason to not have this page is...because it's too much of an exposed surface for bad actors?

jessriedel 10y ago

If this is really a problem, why not just lock the article at a stub with a few verifiable facts? How is this more editorial work than deleting, and fighting a subjective battle over notability? I can't understand why you think one can't defend against this stuff using mechanism that don't lead to effects like the one described by rsync https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13159057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13159057

tptacek 10y ago
This is answered here, in the second place you asked this question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13161015 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13161015 (better if replies go there too)
- jessriedel 10y ago
  OK. I explained there why I think resfirestar's answer is unsatisfactory, i.e., why there are easier, cleaner, and less destructive ways of dealing with that problem than using notability. Would still be interested in your take there.
resfirestar 10y ago
Addressed the locking below. I'm sympathetic to rsync.net, and maybe I spent too long in the Wikipedia bubble, but what exactly is the argument for it having a Wikipedia article? >rsync.net has been mentioned in the press widely over the course of over 10 years - everything from articles about our warrant canary to articles about our ZFS support. In fact, other wikipedia pages mention and discuss rsync.net. So it's had some coverage related to first commercial use of a warrant canary and is discussed in that context. It commercially implemented a feature of rsync (the application) that should be talked about on the page about rsync the application. But what can be said about rsync.net? Maybe someone read about their warrant canary and wants to know more about this company...but no independent source has written about who they are and what makes them so savvy with opsec and rsync. Anything outside those narrow topics is original research or primary sources. I think things are working as intended.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  You're arguing that because the info on rsync.net is contained in other Wikipedia pages, there's no point in having an rsync page. But the page discussing ZFS support doesn't link to the discussion of the warrant canary, i.e., there's nowhere to go to find all the rsync.net info on Wikipedia. And the reason to not have this page is...because it's too much of an exposed surface for bad actors?