4 ms·

Maybe you're right on 20% but I'll tell you that 100% of the article was a temper tantrum. Had the author looked into why these rules are necessary and suggeste

Maybe you're right on 20% but I'll tell you that 100% of the article was a temper tantrum. Had the author looked into why these rules are necessary and suggested a more efficient process maybe he could have been taken seriously. Instead he rattled on about how it was hard for him to nag people into seeing things his way and upset that all his effort went to waste. People who argue about the campaigns to tarnish Wikipedia's name and repeat the fact that Wikipedia still manages to be respectable and successful are right! The same things the author rails against are the very things that keep the riff raft out. The author didn't get his way after a lengthy, well reasoned, and obviously thoroughly thought through debate. Not every website needs a reworking of their user experience. Sometimes we make you jump through hoops for a reason. This process weeds out the people who would use Wikipedia to advertise. At the end, despite the author believing his submission was fitting of its own Wikipedia page, the community still disagreed. I call sour grapes.

philwelch 15y ago
> Had the author looked into why these rules are necessary and suggested a more efficient process maybe he could have been taken seriously. Suggesting more efficient processes for Wikipedia is a never ending tarpit that doesn't get anywhere, no matter how committed you are and how established you are in the community. Any hidebound culture filled with red tape has horror stories and experiences that seem to justify every broken thing they do. If your answer to a usability critique is "they should learn the last several years of Wikipedia history, which isn't documented anywhere, and understand where all these rules came from", isn't that just a concession that you might as well not even bother unless contributing to Wikipedia is going to be one of your primary hobbies for the foreseeable future?
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  I see your point but I still believe Wikipedia should be hard to submit to. We obviously know Wikipedia's history and I've only contributed once. The rest I've read from other sources. I would ask why it's so very important for his contribution to be accepted? This really isn't about the process as much as it is the OP not getting his way. He just shields himself with an argument over user experience as an excuse to whine. It's all there in the subtext.
sullivandanny 15y ago
I understand why Wikipedia has barriers. But what I was saying is that they're out of control. Wikipedia does not manage to be respectable when ill-informed people debate whether to delete an article that Wikipedia itself started and reach a "consensus" to do so without there being a consensus. What looks to you as a well-reasoned and thoroughly thought debate looks that way because you're probably not an expert in search marketing. It's like an amateur watching two programmers debate whether some other programmer is "notable" or not. If you're not a programmer, you probably have no idea. And the references that might seem reasonable perhaps aren't, if you're more educated. The Wikipedia "community" hasn't agreed with my assessment. The Wikipedia "community" that made this decision was one person, who when someone else raised the fact that I posted new, fresh arguments, decided unilaterally that if I thought those should be considered, I should submit a review request. The way it should work, he should have put that request in himself. At the very least, it sure should be a lot easier for anyone to put in such a request. As I detailed, I found it actually impossible to do so, because you can't request that a page that's been deleted to be reviewed on the review deletion page -- that page is only for pages in the current process of being reviewed. I call a confusing system that needs overhaul.
- prodigal_erik 15y ago
  A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review is very much intended to challenge a delete which already happened, and that page has guidelines and instructions for starting one. Actually somebody already did it two days ago, because they regard your new cites as more substantive than the junk that was offered last month: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Jessie_Stricchiola http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Jessi...

philwelch 15y ago

> Had the author looked into why these rules are necessary and suggested a more efficient process maybe he could have been taken seriously. Suggesting more efficient processes for Wikipedia is a never ending tarpit that doesn't get anywhere, no matter how committed you are and how established you are in the community. Any hidebound culture filled with red tape has horror stories and experiences that seem to justify every broken thing they do. If your answer to a usability critique is "they should learn the last several years of Wikipedia history, which isn't documented anywhere, and understand where all these rules came from", isn't that just a concession that you might as well not even bother unless contributing to Wikipedia is going to be one of your primary hobbies for the foreseeable future?

billpatrianakos 15y ago
I see your point but I still believe Wikipedia should be hard to submit to. We obviously know Wikipedia's history and I've only contributed once. The rest I've read from other sources. I would ask why it's so very important for his contribution to be accepted? This really isn't about the process as much as it is the OP not getting his way. He just shields himself with an argument over user experience as an excuse to whine. It's all there in the subtext.

sullivandanny 15y ago

I understand why Wikipedia has barriers. But what I was saying is that they're out of control. Wikipedia does not manage to be respectable when ill-informed people debate whether to delete an article that Wikipedia itself started and reach a "consensus" to do so without there being a consensus. What looks to you as a well-reasoned and thoroughly thought debate looks that way because you're probably not an expert in search marketing. It's like an amateur watching two programmers debate whether some other programmer is "notable" or not. If you're not a programmer, you probably have no idea. And the references that might seem reasonable perhaps aren't, if you're more educated. The Wikipedia "community" hasn't agreed with my assessment. The Wikipedia "community" that made this decision was one person, who when someone else raised the fact that I posted new, fresh arguments, decided unilaterally that if I thought those should be considered, I should submit a review request. The way it should work, he should have put that request in himself. At the very least, it sure should be a lot easier for anyone to put in such a request. As I detailed, I found it actually impossible to do so, because you can't request that a page that's been deleted to be reviewed on the review deletion page -- that page is only for pages in the current process of being reviewed. I call a confusing system that needs overhaul.

prodigal_erik 15y ago
A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review is very much intended to challenge a delete which already happened, and that page has guidelines and instructions for starting one. Actually somebody already did it two days ago, because they regard your new cites as more substantive than the junk that was offered last month: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Jessie_Stricchiola http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Jessi...