4 ms·
Back when I was a younger man, and my company was in its infancy, I made a Wikipedia article for it... it got shot down fairly quickly via the AfD process. It'
by julianlam 5y ago
Back when I was a younger man, and my company was in its infancy, I made a Wikipedia article for it... it got shot down fairly quickly via the AfD process.
It's the Wikipedia process working as it should... we were nobodies back then, and we wanted an article with no sources.
Except now my company's article has a black mark on it, and even though we're much larger, used by large corporations, and have some articles written about us, any attempts to revive the article are instantly shot down.
So we'll just never be on Wikipedia, that's okay too.
- tptacek 5y agoWhy should your company be in the encyclopedia? If mainstream news sources have written about you, you can probably get there. But why would you?
- CamperBob2 5y agoThe answer to your question lies in the Greek/Latin roots of the word encyclopedia itself, doesn't it?
- tptacek 5y agoThat feels like a flimsy argument.
- CamperBob2 5y agoIt is, certainly. So are the arguments for deletionism, IMO.
- tptacek 5y agoThe arguments for deletionism are far stronger than a mere appeal to etymology.
- Tao331 5y agoHave you seen the amount of stuff in Wikipedia that doesn't really merit an entry? Or noticed that Google usually returns a summary from Wikipedia to tell you what the thing you just searched is? The bar to entry is arbitrarily enforced, and the benefit of being in there is potentially huge.
- tptacek 5y agoYes. They have to draw the line somewhere, and transaction costs (denominated mostly in volunteer time) are a non-negligible component of that calculation. So you end up with WP:N and WP:RS, which are imperfect, but straightforward to adjudicate. I'm not saying that the previous commenter shouldn't exploit those rules to get their company in WP; fair's fair. I'm just suggesting that maybe the previous commenter shouldn't exploit those rules to get their company in WP, because WP is maybe one of the most important and successful projects in modern human history, and it's a shame to crud it up. (But I don't know what their company is. Is it Moderna? Moderna belongs in the encyclopedia!)
- tentacleuno 5y agoSorry, what's WP:N and WP:RS?
- mkl 5y agoSomewhat to my surprise, searching for those on Duck Duck Go popped them right up: Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability and Reliable Sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- matheusmoreira 5y agoWhy should it not be? I want everything to be on wikipedia. I don't care about mainstream news. If a thing exists, there needs to be a wikipedia article about it.
- tptacek 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_no... There's nothing I can say --- nothing, really, anyone can say about anything about Wikipeda --- that the project hasn't discussed and decided in painstaking detail already. It's difficult to argue with success at this scale; it's, like, world-historically successful. It's important to remember that the true resource Wikipedia provides isn't hosting, or storage, or anything technical like that. Those things are cheap and easy to source anywhere. The core engine of Wikipedia is volunteer time. Anything you ask Wikipedia to do outside of the remit the project has chosen for itself comes at some cost of additional volunteer time to maintain and support it. It's usually more sensible just to start some other site. The whole corpus of Wikipedia content is available for free to you.