4 ms·

I'm so glad to see that this exists. The world needs this. I can't tell you how many times I wished that I had the time and energy to set this up myself. It's

I'm so glad to see that this exists. The world needs this. I can't tell you how many times I wished that I had the time and energy to set this up myself. It's such a tragedy for hard work and human knowledge to disappear into the void just because radical deletionists managed to take over Wikipedia. The only thing that would make me happier would be if us Inclusionists could get organized, get our shit together, and kick the Deletionist camp on Wikipedia right in the teeth (metaphorically speaking) and shift the tide.

KarlKemp 5y ago
This has existed since 2013[0]. If you haven't noticed it in nine years, how much did the world really need this? [0]: https://deletionpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&offset=20131225185241&action=history https://deletionpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&offset...
- yucky 5y ago
  I'm always amazed at how quickly we became a pro-censorship society. I always assumed it would take several generations.
  - hnlmorg 5y ago
    Most people are pro-censorship. What people generally disagree on is what should be censored. Some find nudity offensive, for others it’s ideas. This is always been the case. Eg TV networks have guidelines on what they can and cannot air. If anything, the internet brought about an unprecedented lack of censorship. But that was only when it was a smaller community of individuals. The moment it snowballed, moderation was needed (whether that was on IRC, BBS or wherever).
    - BirAdam 5y ago
      Umm… Yeah. I initially wanted to disagree, but then I think about obscenity laws in the USA, and it makes sense. This is similar to people not truly believing in Democracy. They only believe in it when they’re winning.
      - smaudet 5y ago
        "truly believing in Democracy" Right, the reason Democracy degenerates is due inherent disagreement, and the fact a democracy can still vote to stop being a democracy. It only has one goal, namely not to let a small group of individuals take control. If a small group of individuals then influences the many, the point is rather moot. But anyways, yeah. Don't censor anything. Instead let people do their own censorship, by which I don't mean censor themselves but censor other for themselves. Everyone has things they dont want to or can't hear but nothing is unworthy of being said, not even blatantly false or disruptive things.
        User23 5y ago
        > Right, the reason Democracy degenerates is due inherent disagreement, and the fact a democracy can still vote to stop being a democracy. Another possible explanation is that Democracy degenerates because the average person isn’t very bright and has a high time preference. Since the closer a society is to a true democracy the more the inclinations of the average citizen determine policymaking, you see poorly thought out short term plans that snowball over time into an avalanche of dysfunction.
    - yucky 5y ago
      - User23 5y ago
        Every society has blasphemy laws, be they codified or implicit. It’s just a matter of the targets. As the old saw goes, you can tell who is in charge because you’re not allowed to criticize them. Some societies have a jester’s privilege, but currently ours is at a nadir.
- mlyle 5y ago
  There's all kinds of things that I've wanted that I've not known where to find them. So telling people that something's been available really has no import on how much they want/need something.
- freedomben 5y ago
  I don't think that this being around 9 years and not being noticed has any bearing on whether the world needs this. There are plenty of things that you and I have no idea exist but nonetheless serve important functions.
- selfhifive 5y ago
  LSTMs were around for about 17 years before they revolutionised NLP.
- IshKebab 5y ago
  There are a ton of things that were created years or decades before they became popular or useful. That's ridiculous logic.
macintux 5y ago
> It's such a tragedy for hard work and human knowledge to disappear into the void just because radical deletionists managed to take over Wikipedia. After browsing the site and seeing mostly crap, I'm genuinely curious: do you have examples of content erroneously evicted by radical deletionists?
- yasp 5y ago
  https://kirkegaard.substack.com/p/political-deletionism-at-wikipedia https://kirkegaard.substack.com/p/political-deletionism-at-w...
  - macintux 5y ago
    Every topic referenced there is related to racial superiority, at least from a quick skim. I can see why Wikipedia might be gunshy on that front.
    - ptsneves 5y ago
      Also felt that everything in the article is racially connected. If there was a fundamentally wrong thing with Wikipedia i would expect more topics to be touched. Furthermore some of the justifications seemed fine, with the only thing I could get behind being that except for unlawful content the history of edits should never be removed. That would be the proverbial rewriting of history, which I find wrong. A pity the author got too caught up calling woke and revealing personal details of supposed conflicts of interest. Finally calling woke is as much a cannary denominator for ideological activism as reactionary or capitalist. It reeks miles away. If you are anti censorship focus on that.
  - striking 5y ago
    I've read through the section of this article which discusses the "Jewish Intelligence" page, and find the reasoning behind why we should be mad about the deletion to be extraordinarily weak compared to the explanation given by the editor (the editor that is then ad hominem attacked by the author of the article). Do you really expect anyone to believe this?

KarlKemp 5y ago

This has existed since 2013[0]. If you haven't noticed it in nine years, how much did the world really need this? [0]: https://deletionpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&offset=20131225185241&action=history https://deletionpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&offset...

yucky 5y ago
I'm always amazed at how quickly we became a pro-censorship society. I always assumed it would take several generations.
- hnlmorg 5y ago
  Most people are pro-censorship. What people generally disagree on is what should be censored. Some find nudity offensive, for others it’s ideas. This is always been the case. Eg TV networks have guidelines on what they can and cannot air. If anything, the internet brought about an unprecedented lack of censorship. But that was only when it was a smaller community of individuals. The moment it snowballed, moderation was needed (whether that was on IRC, BBS or wherever).
  - BirAdam 5y ago
    Umm… Yeah. I initially wanted to disagree, but then I think about obscenity laws in the USA, and it makes sense. This is similar to people not truly believing in Democracy. They only believe in it when they’re winning.
    - smaudet 5y ago
      "truly believing in Democracy" Right, the reason Democracy degenerates is due inherent disagreement, and the fact a democracy can still vote to stop being a democracy. It only has one goal, namely not to let a small group of individuals take control. If a small group of individuals then influences the many, the point is rather moot. But anyways, yeah. Don't censor anything. Instead let people do their own censorship, by which I don't mean censor themselves but censor other for themselves. Everyone has things they dont want to or can't hear but nothing is unworthy of being said, not even blatantly false or disruptive things.
      - User23 5y ago
        > Right, the reason Democracy degenerates is due inherent disagreement, and the fact a democracy can still vote to stop being a democracy. Another possible explanation is that Democracy degenerates because the average person isn’t very bright and has a high time preference. Since the closer a society is to a true democracy the more the inclinations of the average citizen determine policymaking, you see poorly thought out short term plans that snowball over time into an avalanche of dysfunction.
  - yucky 5y ago
    - User23 5y ago
      Every society has blasphemy laws, be they codified or implicit. It’s just a matter of the targets. As the old saw goes, you can tell who is in charge because you’re not allowed to criticize them. Some societies have a jester’s privilege, but currently ours is at a nadir.
mlyle 5y ago
There's all kinds of things that I've wanted that I've not known where to find them. So telling people that something's been available really has no import on how much they want/need something.
freedomben 5y ago
I don't think that this being around 9 years and not being noticed has any bearing on whether the world needs this. There are plenty of things that you and I have no idea exist but nonetheless serve important functions.
selfhifive 5y ago
LSTMs were around for about 17 years before they revolutionised NLP.
IshKebab 5y ago
There are a ton of things that were created years or decades before they became popular or useful. That's ridiculous logic.

macintux 5y ago

> It's such a tragedy for hard work and human knowledge to disappear into the void just because radical deletionists managed to take over Wikipedia. After browsing the site and seeing mostly crap, I'm genuinely curious: do you have examples of content erroneously evicted by radical deletionists?

yasp 5y ago
https://kirkegaard.substack.com/p/political-deletionism-at-wikipedia https://kirkegaard.substack.com/p/political-deletionism-at-w...
- macintux 5y ago
  Every topic referenced there is related to racial superiority, at least from a quick skim. I can see why Wikipedia might be gunshy on that front.
  - ptsneves 5y ago
    Also felt that everything in the article is racially connected. If there was a fundamentally wrong thing with Wikipedia i would expect more topics to be touched. Furthermore some of the justifications seemed fine, with the only thing I could get behind being that except for unlawful content the history of edits should never be removed. That would be the proverbial rewriting of history, which I find wrong. A pity the author got too caught up calling woke and revealing personal details of supposed conflicts of interest. Finally calling woke is as much a cannary denominator for ideological activism as reactionary or capitalist. It reeks miles away. If you are anti censorship focus on that.
- striking 5y ago
  I've read through the section of this article which discusses the "Jewish Intelligence" page, and find the reasoning behind why we should be mad about the deletion to be extraordinarily weak compared to the explanation given by the editor (the editor that is then ad hominem attacked by the author of the article). Do you really expect anyone to believe this?