3 ms·

The deletion of this page really reflects poorly on Wikipedia’s editorial policies.

monocasa 6y ago
Yeah, just one more example that the deletionists won years ago.
Groxx 6y ago
afaict they've been pretty consistent on "no original content" since the beginning. Wikipedia "wants" to be an aggregator of knowledge, not a primary source, and that page seems very clearly on the opposite side of that divide. whether or not that's a useful place to draw the line: I dunno. wikipedia is what it is with that line, it's hard to say if it's a cause or in spite of it without competition.
- monocasa 6y ago
  It's not really original content though, but instead a pretty accurate summary of it's citations. And now it's been distilled down to the point of being both inaccurate and difficult to find.
  - Groxx 6y ago
    A substantial original summary is original content, in the same way as it would be if it were in a blog / magazine / etc. They've also been consistent on that. It becomes something you can't factually check / has no true references.
    - monocasa 6y ago
      A) You can absolutely fact check. There's veritable tomes of VS documentation. Treat it like any other wiki page of a complex topic. B) It was much smaller than the Paxos page. Should we go delete what exists there too?
      - Groxx 6y ago
        You can fact-check anything, yeah. But there's definitely a range of ease. Tens of paragraphs of zero citations is not on the "easy" side. As to the paxos page: yeah, that looks like the thing they fairly continuously delete, despite its usefulness. There are other ways and other places to have that kind of information. Wikipedia does not seem to desire to be that location, though it'll happily be a terser summary and link to it.
jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
It's not just Wikipedia. VS is very nearly a dead research agenda. If you look through citations from recent years, virtually all of them are just referencing it as a landmark in the prior art alongside Paxos et all. There's not much in the way of new work that's wholly within the VS paradigm. The main reason for this IMO is that the original paradigm predated people's full understanding of some important details of consensus in asynchronous networks, so some of the concepts are cross grain so to speak. People doing novel work today would rather just start on the firmer ground of everything derived from Paxos, etc.

Yeah, just one more example that the deletionists won years ago.

afaict they've been pretty consistent on "no original content" since the beginning. Wikipedia "wants" to be an aggregator of knowledge, not a primary source, and that page seems very clearly on the opposite side of that divide. whether or not that's a useful place to draw the line: I dunno. wikipedia is what it is with that line, it's hard to say if it's a cause or in spite of it without competition.

monocasa 6y ago
It's not really original content though, but instead a pretty accurate summary of it's citations. And now it's been distilled down to the point of being both inaccurate and difficult to find.
- Groxx 6y ago
  A substantial original summary is original content, in the same way as it would be if it were in a blog / magazine / etc. They've also been consistent on that. It becomes something you can't factually check / has no true references.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    A) You can absolutely fact check. There's veritable tomes of VS documentation. Treat it like any other wiki page of a complex topic. B) It was much smaller than the Paxos page. Should we go delete what exists there too?
    - Groxx 6y ago
      You can fact-check anything, yeah. But there's definitely a range of ease. Tens of paragraphs of zero citations is not on the "easy" side. As to the paxos page: yeah, that looks like the thing they fairly continuously delete, despite its usefulness. There are other ways and other places to have that kind of information. Wikipedia does not seem to desire to be that location, though it'll happily be a terser summary and link to it.

jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago

It's not just Wikipedia. VS is very nearly a dead research agenda. If you look through citations from recent years, virtually all of them are just referencing it as a landmark in the prior art alongside Paxos et all. There's not much in the way of new work that's wholly within the VS paradigm. The main reason for this IMO is that the original paradigm predated people's full understanding of some important details of consensus in asynchronous networks, so some of the concepts are cross grain so to speak. People doing novel work today would rather just start on the firmer ground of everything derived from Paxos, etc.