4 ms·

You missed the part where the author provided several citations of publications mentioning the unnotable person and books published by the said person. He also

by mustpax 15y ago

You missed the part where the author provided several citations of publications mentioning the unnotable person and books published by the said person. He also goes on to state, if the goal of Wikipedia is to encourage subject matter experts to contribute expertise it's not making it particularly easy to do so. Wikipedia policies exist to facilitate user contributions, not the other way around. Wikipedia itself says as much: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules This is not about entitlement. This is about Wikipedia raising ridiculous bureaucratic barriers to people making good faith contributions of knowledge. In so doing, it undermines its basic mission.

zbowling 15y ago
It's not bureaucratic as much you think. There is a system that is very easy to follow. 1. First they missed the delete review that normally waits about 7 days before taking action. 2. Upon discovering that their page was deleted found the archive delete review discussion. 3. Didn't understand what they were looking at and with disregard to the notes posted at the top saying that it's archive and not to edit it, edited it anyways. 4. A bot was triggered to an admin that someone edited a locked discussion and so he happily went to go help and left a message for the user on how to handle things and where to find delete review. 5. The user wanted to send a message to the editor and got confused at another point (the editor's talk page vs their user page). 6. etc etc etc... It's sad the user is frustrated but lets stop the blame game here. I've been doing vandal patrol on wikipedia for 5 years. It's not some evil hive mind of control or something.
- viraptor 15y ago
  re. 3, he was given instructions: don't change this, follow that process instead. Is the process is incorrect, how do you proceed? re. 3,5 - there's a lot of confusion here, coming from an experienced web user. If he can't figure out what's going on, is it a user problem, or instructions issue?
  - zbowling 15y ago
    It's an archived discussion under Articles for Deletion (AfD). At the top of the page is a bread crumb back to the deletion process. (Someone should probably update the template for the archive notice to have a link maybe for those that stumble on to it).
- bane 15y ago
  So WP let him do a bunch of things he wouldn't have been able to do if it had a decent interface and/or couldn't find things buried under a pile of acronyms and bureaucratic opaqueness and that's supposed to be your evidence that it's not a broken process?
  - zbowling 15y ago
    No. He clearly over and over ignored the information infront of him and proceded to do what he wanted. Then he complained about it.
tptacek 15y ago
You missed the AfD discussion, trivially easy to find for that article but helpfully provided upthread for you, where a Wikipedia admin considered each of those sources and took them to pieces --- those citations were superficial quotes attributed to Stricchiola in articles about click fraud, not coverage of Stricchiola herself, and the book appears to be a step away from vanity publishing.
- mustpax 15y ago
  Yes, I did miss it. But you'll notice I did not use the word deletionism once in my comment so that's kinda besides the point. The more important issue is that bureaucracy is making Wikipedia unusable for casual users (philwelch also says as much upthread). I understand you're trying to defend deletionism from the HN horde but I'm not even fighting that fight.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    You're really sticking up for the wrong side in this one case. Read downthread at what really happened with Danny Sullivan's experience with Wikipedia. "Unusable for casual users" is certainly not a fair summary of what happened here --- even if you were going to start with the premise that overriding community votes was something that should be in the bailiwick of "casual users".

by mustpax 15y ago

zbowling 15y ago

It's not bureaucratic as much you think. There is a system that is very easy to follow. 1. First they missed the delete review that normally waits about 7 days before taking action. 2. Upon discovering that their page was deleted found the archive delete review discussion. 3. Didn't understand what they were looking at and with disregard to the notes posted at the top saying that it's archive and not to edit it, edited it anyways. 4. A bot was triggered to an admin that someone edited a locked discussion and so he happily went to go help and left a message for the user on how to handle things and where to find delete review. 5. The user wanted to send a message to the editor and got confused at another point (the editor's talk page vs their user page). 6. etc etc etc... It's sad the user is frustrated but lets stop the blame game here. I've been doing vandal patrol on wikipedia for 5 years. It's not some evil hive mind of control or something.

viraptor 15y ago
re. 3, he was given instructions: don't change this, follow that process instead. Is the process is incorrect, how do you proceed? re. 3,5 - there's a lot of confusion here, coming from an experienced web user. If he can't figure out what's going on, is it a user problem, or instructions issue?
- zbowling 15y ago
  It's an archived discussion under Articles for Deletion (AfD). At the top of the page is a bread crumb back to the deletion process. (Someone should probably update the template for the archive notice to have a link maybe for those that stumble on to it).
bane 15y ago
So WP let him do a bunch of things he wouldn't have been able to do if it had a decent interface and/or couldn't find things buried under a pile of acronyms and bureaucratic opaqueness and that's supposed to be your evidence that it's not a broken process?
- zbowling 15y ago
  No. He clearly over and over ignored the information infront of him and proceded to do what he wanted. Then he complained about it.

tptacek 15y ago

You missed the AfD discussion, trivially easy to find for that article but helpfully provided upthread for you, where a Wikipedia admin considered each of those sources and took them to pieces --- those citations were superficial quotes attributed to Stricchiola in articles about click fraud, not coverage of Stricchiola herself, and the book appears to be a step away from vanity publishing.

mustpax 15y ago
Yes, I did miss it. But you'll notice I did not use the word deletionism once in my comment so that's kinda besides the point. The more important issue is that bureaucracy is making Wikipedia unusable for casual users (philwelch also says as much upthread). I understand you're trying to defend deletionism from the HN horde but I'm not even fighting that fight.
- tptacek 15y ago
  You're really sticking up for the wrong side in this one case. Read downthread at what really happened with Danny Sullivan's experience with Wikipedia. "Unusable for casual users" is certainly not a fair summary of what happened here --- even if you were going to start with the premise that overriding community votes was something that should be in the bailiwick of "casual users".