5 ms·

I agree. Why throw away perfectly good work out of some bizarre idea about "notability?" What's notable now is now what will be notable in the future. Stop the

I agree. Why throw away perfectly good work out of some bizarre idea about "notability?" What's notable now is now what will be notable in the future. Stop the destruction! End this dumb rule and make Wikipedia truly open to all.

CYR1X 3y ago
Probably because you exploit this. Do this a bunch in some what that leans towards whatever your agenda is and eventually one of those articles will get a bunch of hits and attention before anyone considers revising it.
- username3 3y ago
  Wikipedia should allow more articles to have sections for viewpoints from different biases and agendas.
flenserboy 3y ago
"Notability" is a weapon used by many editors to get rid of entries that go against their views. I've seen it used to keep off pages for highly-selling authors who hold contrary views to certain viewpoints even though they are better-known and more highly cited than authors who advocate to those certain viewpoints who get to keep their pages. No one should be able to gatekeep in this way, and there should not be anyone who can claim a page and make it theirs, keeping off any and all edits or challenges by others.
- NooneAtAll3 3y ago
  I've seen it getting used against... games in particular language Same game in a one language can be extremely notable and well known to everyone, while in other it'd get deleted without a trace. Sometimes it feels like "racism" based on countries (countrism?)
  - teachrdan 3y ago
    > Sometimes it feels like "racism" based on countries (countrism?) I'd call it national chauvinism.
    - permo-w 3y ago
      jingoism
  - dfxm12 3y ago
    A lot of languages span several races or countries.
contravariant 3y ago
I wish there was an easier way to find deleted articles. You can see all versions of an article but if it's gone there seems to be no way to see anything.
- FuriouslyAdrift 3y ago
  There used to be deletionpedia.org but it has gone dormant (again)
- duskwuff 3y ago
  This is by design. A lot of articles, especially recently created ones, get deleted because they consist of material which is legally problematic (e.g. text which is a copyright violation, which is libelous, which violates someone's privacy, etc).
  - mardifoufs 3y ago
    Doesn't that use a different deletion mechanism? Afaik you can still see "normally" deleted edits and articles if you have the revision link, but those who have been deleted for legal reasons are wiped from history and their revision or edit link are blanked out
    - duskwuff 3y ago
      > Doesn't that use a different deletion mechanism? Generally not. There is a separate process called "oversight" [1] which behaves the way you're describing, but it can only be invoked by a very small number of privileged users, and is only used in extreme cases. [1]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight_policy https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight_policy
theonlybutlet 3y ago
As far as I understand, this idea of notability also adversely impacts science publishing, it's not published by reputable journals unless it's notable, which skews incentives and also means there's probably some useful information out there left to someone else to rediscover.
hk__2 3y ago
Nothing is destroyed; the person who wrote the article can ask an admin to get its text back so they can publish it elsewhere. I don’t get this "Wikipedia should host everything" mentality: if you disagree with the rules, just publish your work somewhere else. The number of articles need to be manageable, so rules are needed.
- permo-w 3y ago
  surely if an article exists and is shown to be being poorly maintained, then perhaps it's worthy of dormancy or maybe deletion. why do it pre-emptively?

CYR1X 3y ago

Probably because you exploit this. Do this a bunch in some what that leans towards whatever your agenda is and eventually one of those articles will get a bunch of hits and attention before anyone considers revising it.

username3 3y ago
Wikipedia should allow more articles to have sections for viewpoints from different biases and agendas.

flenserboy 3y ago

"Notability" is a weapon used by many editors to get rid of entries that go against their views. I've seen it used to keep off pages for highly-selling authors who hold contrary views to certain viewpoints even though they are better-known and more highly cited than authors who advocate to those certain viewpoints who get to keep their pages. No one should be able to gatekeep in this way, and there should not be anyone who can claim a page and make it theirs, keeping off any and all edits or challenges by others.

NooneAtAll3 3y ago
I've seen it getting used against... games in particular language Same game in a one language can be extremely notable and well known to everyone, while in other it'd get deleted without a trace. Sometimes it feels like "racism" based on countries (countrism?)
- teachrdan 3y ago
  > Sometimes it feels like "racism" based on countries (countrism?) I'd call it national chauvinism.
  - permo-w 3y ago
    jingoism
- dfxm12 3y ago
  A lot of languages span several races or countries.

contravariant 3y ago

I wish there was an easier way to find deleted articles. You can see all versions of an article but if it's gone there seems to be no way to see anything.

FuriouslyAdrift 3y ago
There used to be deletionpedia.org but it has gone dormant (again)
duskwuff 3y ago
This is by design. A lot of articles, especially recently created ones, get deleted because they consist of material which is legally problematic (e.g. text which is a copyright violation, which is libelous, which violates someone's privacy, etc).
- mardifoufs 3y ago
  Doesn't that use a different deletion mechanism? Afaik you can still see "normally" deleted edits and articles if you have the revision link, but those who have been deleted for legal reasons are wiped from history and their revision or edit link are blanked out
  - duskwuff 3y ago
    > Doesn't that use a different deletion mechanism? Generally not. There is a separate process called "oversight" [1] which behaves the way you're describing, but it can only be invoked by a very small number of privileged users, and is only used in extreme cases. [1]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight_policy https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight_policy

theonlybutlet 3y ago

As far as I understand, this idea of notability also adversely impacts science publishing, it's not published by reputable journals unless it's notable, which skews incentives and also means there's probably some useful information out there left to someone else to rediscover.

hk__2 3y ago

Nothing is destroyed; the person who wrote the article can ask an admin to get its text back so they can publish it elsewhere. I don’t get this "Wikipedia should host everything" mentality: if you disagree with the rules, just publish your work somewhere else. The number of articles need to be manageable, so rules are needed.

permo-w 3y ago
surely if an article exists and is shown to be being poorly maintained, then perhaps it's worthy of dormancy or maybe deletion. why do it pre-emptively?