4 ms·

This is hardly surprising, given the rise of the deletionists over the past few years.

ajkirwin 18y ago
I concur. I've known people who have wanted to add information to wikipedia and then go, "Why bother? It'll just get reverted by wikipedia moderators or something. Waste of my time."
- marijn 18y ago
  Not to mention that, even when you state something as obvious as 2 + 2 equals 4, some anxious amateur editor will add a [citation needed], along with a few other deprecating warnings.
  - JesseAldridge 18y ago
    Well, citations are pretty important.
- asobi 18y ago
  Case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_Mine:_Adam_Freeland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_Mine:_Adam_Freeland Within a day, two requests to delete filed for different reasons, equally bullshit - probably because both requests were filed by bots. The burden of proof should NOT be 100% on the writer. When an article can be "speedy deleted" with no evidence of a good reason, there's something seriously wrong. And it does make you wonder: "why do I waste my time?"
litewulf 18y ago
I'm actually curious if Wikipedia is more deletionist or if its an artifact of everyone having made/contributed to a page they care about, so when they delete, you actually notice. (That being said, I too think its lame.)
mynameishere 18y ago
This needs an actual fix. I've often thought it should be acceptable to fork articles. Thus, there's the official "Battle of the Bulge" or "History of the Atari 2600" link (or whatever), and then there are 0..n others written by different historians or amateurs who have a divergent, possibly incorrect or extreme view.
- william42 18y ago
  That would be a horrible idea. It would no longer be Wikipedia. It would become more like 4chan for encyclopedia articles. Stopping spammers and vandals would become exponentially harder with that, and to be honest I think that's a bigger problem than Wikipedia editors deleting some guy's webcomic article.
  - mynameishere 18y ago
    Well, it's sort of a variation on google's Knol. The "forked" articles would in a sense be no more significant than the text currently hidden behind the "discussion" button, but it would allow dissenting people a more formal platform.
- netcan 18y ago
  Tough Call. But on the whole I think a bad idea.
- flipbrad 18y ago
  use your own site/publishing space for your own unique takes on a story
  - thwarted 18y ago
    I remember when the majority of information on the Internet was on individual pages/sites; a fanpage on geocities was the appropriate place for a list of the things McGyver built. At the rate of growth it has seen, eventually Wikipedia will contain more information than the Internet (and Facebook will have more users than the Internet does).

I concur. I've known people who have wanted to add information to wikipedia and then go, "Why bother? It'll just get reverted by wikipedia moderators or something. Waste of my time."

marijn 18y ago
Not to mention that, even when you state something as obvious as 2 + 2 equals 4, some anxious amateur editor will add a [citation needed], along with a few other deprecating warnings.
- JesseAldridge 18y ago
  Well, citations are pretty important.
asobi 18y ago
Case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_Mine:_Adam_Freeland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_Mine:_Adam_Freeland Within a day, two requests to delete filed for different reasons, equally bullshit - probably because both requests were filed by bots. The burden of proof should NOT be 100% on the writer. When an article can be "speedy deleted" with no evidence of a good reason, there's something seriously wrong. And it does make you wonder: "why do I waste my time?"

litewulf 18y ago

I'm actually curious if Wikipedia is more deletionist or if its an artifact of everyone having made/contributed to a page they care about, so when they delete, you actually notice. (That being said, I too think its lame.)

mynameishere 18y ago

This needs an actual fix. I've often thought it should be acceptable to fork articles. Thus, there's the official "Battle of the Bulge" or "History of the Atari 2600" link (or whatever), and then there are 0..n others written by different historians or amateurs who have a divergent, possibly incorrect or extreme view.

william42 18y ago
That would be a horrible idea. It would no longer be Wikipedia. It would become more like 4chan for encyclopedia articles. Stopping spammers and vandals would become exponentially harder with that, and to be honest I think that's a bigger problem than Wikipedia editors deleting some guy's webcomic article.
- mynameishere 18y ago
  Well, it's sort of a variation on google's Knol. The "forked" articles would in a sense be no more significant than the text currently hidden behind the "discussion" button, but it would allow dissenting people a more formal platform.
netcan 18y ago
Tough Call. But on the whole I think a bad idea.
flipbrad 18y ago
use your own site/publishing space for your own unique takes on a story
- thwarted 18y ago
  I remember when the majority of information on the Internet was on individual pages/sites; a fanpage on geocities was the appropriate place for a list of the things McGyver built. At the rate of growth it has seen, eventually Wikipedia will contain more information than the Internet (and Facebook will have more users than the Internet does).