5 ms·

Wikipedia seems stuck in an antiquated worldview where things like traditionally-published books with second- or third-hand reports of what happened, and which

Wikipedia seems stuck in an antiquated worldview where things like traditionally-published books with second- or third-hand reports of what happened, and which are frequently incomplete or wholly inaccurate, are nonetheless considered more authoritative than primary sources you can find with a ten-second Google search. So much this. Wikipedia's processes and policies are - in ways - an outdated and archaic relic of a bygone time. OTOH, I don't have a definitive answer ready "off the cuff" on what the standard should be. But I think everybody involved needs to acknowledge that the current setup is wrong, and needs serious thought and revision. And the really insidious thing about this, is the fundamental asymmetry of effort between creation and deletion. Creating a Wikipedia article can take hours, days, or longer, of effort. Tagging an article as AfD takes a few seconds. The actual deletion (once whatever discussion happens) probably takes even less time. It's amazing that anybody creates Wikpedia articles at all, TBH. I mean, you can spend hours on top of hours working on something and have it all mooted in a few seconds.

mberning 3mo ago
This happened to me back in college. I authored a couple pages for some bands that I was in to, probably spent weeks pulling together history, lineup, albums, eps, etc. only to have them deleted unceremoniously with no recourse. That was my first and last attempt to contribute to wikipedia.
- Dfol 3mo ago
  Same, I understand the editors/admins can't be experts on every topic but just because THEY don't think something is notable doesn't mean most people don't either.
  - bawolff 3mo ago
    In general, it should be clear from the article if the subject is notable. Admins don't have to be an expert, they just have to read the article. Notable is not the same as popular.
    - mberning 3mo ago
      Notability is arguably even more subjective than popularity.
- Gander5739 3mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_one_cares_about_your_garage_band https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_one_cares_about_y...
zarzavat 3mo ago
I was researching a public company the other day and I open their Wikipedia page: deleted. I get it, probably it had been massaged by their PR department. But deleting the article punishes the readers by removing the very space for critical discussion of a topic with good SEO. Now if you want information on this company you will likely end up on their website, it seems like a reward to me.
- shevy-java 3mo ago
  Agreed. I also noticed this myself. I understand that Wikipedia does not want corporate propaganda or other forms of propaganda, but whether a company exists or not at the time is an objective yes/no answer. It is probably more work to correct propaganda though, so articles are deleted. Would be better to simplify an article down to the bare bone instead, though, so I agree with you here.
  - amiga386 3mo ago
    That a company exists at all can be verified in business registries (e.g. Companies House in the UK). But clearly having a wikipedia page at all is a big positive signal for a company, it means that they are "known", the GP admitted they were searching to get that kind of understanding. So you can see why a company would want a wikipedia article, even if all it said was "Blahblahco is a enterprise software company headquartered in Bumfuck Nowhere, Alabama" and nothing else. Hence why, to even be in wikipedia, the company has to be notable, otherwise every LLC and partnership would want to boost their reputation (while ruining wikipedia's): the barrier to entry is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organiza...
- LunicLynx 3mo ago
  Not if the perception of Wikipedia is „truthful“ and „reliable“. I’m saying neither, but in that case the article on Wikipedia puts weight behind the statements on the webpage. I do see your argument: „But it would be adjusted to reflect the truth about it“. Honestly I don’t know enough about Wikipedia to agree or deny it. But given the amount of articles on it, i would lean in the direction that the motivation of a single few would win over the curators. Which means applying a vector that cannot be influenced by those few.
7bees 3mo ago
> once whatever discussion happens Yes, it seems like a very fast process when you neglect the part that takes time.
stock_toaster 3mo ago
> And the really insidious thing about this, is the fundamental asymmetry of effort between creation and deletion. Creating a Wikipedia article can take hours, days, or longer, of effort. Tagging an article as AfD takes a few seconds. The actual deletion (once whatever discussion happens) probably takes even less time. Not really relevant in this case (that the article talks about), but I don't think that it is so cut and dry as "someone spent time on this so we have to keep it". Consider AI spam, or a company (or government!) paying, or forcing!, people to write articles with whatever focus/leaning/slant they desire. It seems like a hard problem! Maybe people forget how things were before wikipedia existed? Like many things run primarily by volunteers, it is messy and imperfect. It's arguably still pretty great, and I'm glad it is around.
- pphysch 3mo ago
  The fact is GingerBill or someone else could have kept the article up with enough money spent on the right PR firm that knows how to turn the Wikipedia knobs.
  - hatefulheart 3mo ago
    This is also why the conclusion of the article is extremely bizarre. I’m not keeping my eyes peeled for more articles from this individual.
- mindcrime 3mo ago
  Not really relevant in this case (that the article talks about), but I don't think that it is so cut and dry as "someone spent time on this so we have to keep it". No, and I'm not arguing for that. Just pointing out that that insidious nature makes contributing to Wikipedia a questionable activity for (a few|some|many|???) people. To be clear, I'm not arguing for having NO standards at all for what's included, but I think there's room to rethink the nature of some of those standards.
- pwdisswordfishq 3mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Do_not_lose_the_information_or_the_effort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_i...
Morromist 3mo ago
"It's amazing that anybody creates Wikpedia articles at all" Yeh. This is why I stopped editing wikipedia very often. They are maniacal about deleting things that I consider noteworthy but others don't. I still love wikipedia and think its the best website on the internet, but this is probably its biggest flaw.
- NordStreamYacht 3mo ago
  They even roll back corrections to grammar. Power tripping overrides common sense.
  - shevy-java 3mo ago
    This could be automatic. I noticed this myself because I corrected both typos in english and german wikipedia; sometimes they are reverted, sometimes not. There seems no logic in it, so I assumed that in some cases this must have been automatic wiki bots reverting something.
    - NordStreamYacht 3mo ago
      This was like 10 years ago. Long before the real invasion of the bots. I don't even remember the username or password of my account any more.
      - Nnnes 3mo ago
        The main anti-vandalism bot ClueBot was created in 2007, and its successor ClueBot NG in 2010. They certainly have false positives from time to time, but that doesn't mean they aren't the most useful bots on the website.
        Gander5739 3mo ago
        It aims to have a false positive rate of 0.1%
      - 3mo ago
Barrin92 3mo ago
>an outdated and archaic relic of a bygone time this isn't a meaningful criticism. An encyclopedia is a reference for established and public knowledge. It's by definition archaic, not an archive for whatever trends on social media, which seems to be the article's criterion for the relevance of Odin. An encyclopedia shouldn't prioritize article creation, it should be restrictive about what it adds and make sure the content is long term relevant, accurate and sourced. If anything Wikipedia has already been way too lax with what it lets stand on the site. They should honestly do a big cleaning and remove more articles that barely cite any meaningful source or seem like they're self-promotion, because there's already too much of it.
- mindcrime 3mo ago
  See, to me, you're just leaning into the outdated and archaic aspect of this. Sure, that's the way encyclopedia's have been for a long time. But none of that means that they need to continue to work the same way. Technologies change, times change, standards change. And that said... this whole issue may become moot anyway. Perhaps LLM powered AI systems (or whatever comes after them) will take the place of Wikipedia for certain classes of queries, that one might want to conduct. Eg, if a person wants to know about Odin and ChatGPT or Gemini can tell them all about Odin, maybe it's less important that Odin have a dedicated Wikipedia page (note: just an example, I'm not trying to make any particular commentary on Odin per-se).
yorwba 3mo ago
If you don't care about the notability filter and independent confirmation provided by secondary sources, you don't need Wikipedia. Just be your own primary source publishing whatever you want! You can even make it a wiki and let anyone else add to it too! I guess the reason people aren't content with that approach and still want a Wikipedia article is because Wikipedia has much higher visibility. Great for SEO! Except if you can't get reputable third parties to publish about you, maybe you're not important enough to deserve that visibility.
- baranul 3mo ago
  That sounds like EverybodyWiki[1]. By the way, a number of programming languages have pages. Odin, Vlang, Zig, C3, etc... Surprised that fans have not put more lesser known or their favorites on it. Jai, for example. [1]: https://en.everybodywiki.com/Everybodywiki:Welcome https://en.everybodywiki.com/Everybodywiki:Welcome
  - lambdaone 3mo ago
    The existence of EverybodyWiki demostrates the usefulness of Wikipedia's restrictions. Nothing is stopping you from either putting up your own website or writing on any of the free-access wikis; the reason people treat Wikipedia as a valuable resource is exactly because it won't publish anything indiscriminately. Having a Wikipedia article is not a right.
meheleventyone 3mo ago
Have you ever considered that the high cost of contribution and low cost of moderation is why Wikipedia is successful? Inverting it would destroy any open contribution system. See open source projects blanket rejecting AI generated PRs as an example. Basically trying to restore sanity when contribution suddenly has very small cost.
lesostep 3mo ago
>> And the really insidious thing about this, is the fundamental asymmetry of effort between creation and deletion There is more assymetry between writing yourself and checking other people work. And it's by design, the work of one person could only be reliable if checked over and over by other people. People that agree on common rules If you want to write a good article that wouldn't go through this rigorous checks and made abhor rigid rules, may I suggest writing a blogpost

mberning 3mo ago

This happened to me back in college. I authored a couple pages for some bands that I was in to, probably spent weeks pulling together history, lineup, albums, eps, etc. only to have them deleted unceremoniously with no recourse. That was my first and last attempt to contribute to wikipedia.

Dfol 3mo ago
Same, I understand the editors/admins can't be experts on every topic but just because THEY don't think something is notable doesn't mean most people don't either.
- bawolff 3mo ago
  In general, it should be clear from the article if the subject is notable. Admins don't have to be an expert, they just have to read the article. Notable is not the same as popular.
  - mberning 3mo ago
    Notability is arguably even more subjective than popularity.
Gander5739 3mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_one_cares_about_your_garage_band https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_one_cares_about_y...

zarzavat 3mo ago

I was researching a public company the other day and I open their Wikipedia page: deleted. I get it, probably it had been massaged by their PR department. But deleting the article punishes the readers by removing the very space for critical discussion of a topic with good SEO. Now if you want information on this company you will likely end up on their website, it seems like a reward to me.

shevy-java 3mo ago
Agreed. I also noticed this myself. I understand that Wikipedia does not want corporate propaganda or other forms of propaganda, but whether a company exists or not at the time is an objective yes/no answer. It is probably more work to correct propaganda though, so articles are deleted. Would be better to simplify an article down to the bare bone instead, though, so I agree with you here.
- amiga386 3mo ago
  That a company exists at all can be verified in business registries (e.g. Companies House in the UK). But clearly having a wikipedia page at all is a big positive signal for a company, it means that they are "known", the GP admitted they were searching to get that kind of understanding. So you can see why a company would want a wikipedia article, even if all it said was "Blahblahco is a enterprise software company headquartered in Bumfuck Nowhere, Alabama" and nothing else. Hence why, to even be in wikipedia, the company has to be notable, otherwise every LLC and partnership would want to boost their reputation (while ruining wikipedia's): the barrier to entry is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organiza...
LunicLynx 3mo ago
Not if the perception of Wikipedia is „truthful“ and „reliable“. I’m saying neither, but in that case the article on Wikipedia puts weight behind the statements on the webpage. I do see your argument: „But it would be adjusted to reflect the truth about it“. Honestly I don’t know enough about Wikipedia to agree or deny it. But given the amount of articles on it, i would lean in the direction that the motivation of a single few would win over the curators. Which means applying a vector that cannot be influenced by those few.

7bees 3mo ago

> once whatever discussion happens Yes, it seems like a very fast process when you neglect the part that takes time.

stock_toaster 3mo ago

> And the really insidious thing about this, is the fundamental asymmetry of effort between creation and deletion. Creating a Wikipedia article can take hours, days, or longer, of effort. Tagging an article as AfD takes a few seconds. The actual deletion (once whatever discussion happens) probably takes even less time. Not really relevant in this case (that the article talks about), but I don't think that it is so cut and dry as "someone spent time on this so we have to keep it". Consider AI spam, or a company (or government!) paying, or forcing!, people to write articles with whatever focus/leaning/slant they desire. It seems like a hard problem! Maybe people forget how things were before wikipedia existed? Like many things run primarily by volunteers, it is messy and imperfect. It's arguably still pretty great, and I'm glad it is around.

pphysch 3mo ago
The fact is GingerBill or someone else could have kept the article up with enough money spent on the right PR firm that knows how to turn the Wikipedia knobs.
- hatefulheart 3mo ago
  This is also why the conclusion of the article is extremely bizarre. I’m not keeping my eyes peeled for more articles from this individual.
mindcrime 3mo ago
Not really relevant in this case (that the article talks about), but I don't think that it is so cut and dry as "someone spent time on this so we have to keep it". No, and I'm not arguing for that. Just pointing out that that insidious nature makes contributing to Wikipedia a questionable activity for (a few|some|many|???) people. To be clear, I'm not arguing for having NO standards at all for what's included, but I think there's room to rethink the nature of some of those standards.
pwdisswordfishq 3mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Do_not_lose_the_information_or_the_effort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_i...

Morromist 3mo ago

"It's amazing that anybody creates Wikpedia articles at all" Yeh. This is why I stopped editing wikipedia very often. They are maniacal about deleting things that I consider noteworthy but others don't. I still love wikipedia and think its the best website on the internet, but this is probably its biggest flaw.

NordStreamYacht 3mo ago
They even roll back corrections to grammar. Power tripping overrides common sense.
- shevy-java 3mo ago
  This could be automatic. I noticed this myself because I corrected both typos in english and german wikipedia; sometimes they are reverted, sometimes not. There seems no logic in it, so I assumed that in some cases this must have been automatic wiki bots reverting something.
  - NordStreamYacht 3mo ago
    This was like 10 years ago. Long before the real invasion of the bots. I don't even remember the username or password of my account any more.
    - Nnnes 3mo ago
      The main anti-vandalism bot ClueBot was created in 2007, and its successor ClueBot NG in 2010. They certainly have false positives from time to time, but that doesn't mean they aren't the most useful bots on the website.
      - Gander5739 3mo ago
        It aims to have a false positive rate of 0.1%
    - 3mo ago

Barrin92 3mo ago

>an outdated and archaic relic of a bygone time this isn't a meaningful criticism. An encyclopedia is a reference for established and public knowledge. It's by definition archaic, not an archive for whatever trends on social media, which seems to be the article's criterion for the relevance of Odin. An encyclopedia shouldn't prioritize article creation, it should be restrictive about what it adds and make sure the content is long term relevant, accurate and sourced. If anything Wikipedia has already been way too lax with what it lets stand on the site. They should honestly do a big cleaning and remove more articles that barely cite any meaningful source or seem like they're self-promotion, because there's already too much of it.

mindcrime 3mo ago
See, to me, you're just leaning into the outdated and archaic aspect of this. Sure, that's the way encyclopedia's have been for a long time. But none of that means that they need to continue to work the same way. Technologies change, times change, standards change. And that said... this whole issue may become moot anyway. Perhaps LLM powered AI systems (or whatever comes after them) will take the place of Wikipedia for certain classes of queries, that one might want to conduct. Eg, if a person wants to know about Odin and ChatGPT or Gemini can tell them all about Odin, maybe it's less important that Odin have a dedicated Wikipedia page (note: just an example, I'm not trying to make any particular commentary on Odin per-se).

yorwba 3mo ago

If you don't care about the notability filter and independent confirmation provided by secondary sources, you don't need Wikipedia. Just be your own primary source publishing whatever you want! You can even make it a wiki and let anyone else add to it too! I guess the reason people aren't content with that approach and still want a Wikipedia article is because Wikipedia has much higher visibility. Great for SEO! Except if you can't get reputable third parties to publish about you, maybe you're not important enough to deserve that visibility.

baranul 3mo ago
That sounds like EverybodyWiki[1]. By the way, a number of programming languages have pages. Odin, Vlang, Zig, C3, etc... Surprised that fans have not put more lesser known or their favorites on it. Jai, for example. [1]: https://en.everybodywiki.com/Everybodywiki:Welcome https://en.everybodywiki.com/Everybodywiki:Welcome
- lambdaone 3mo ago
  The existence of EverybodyWiki demostrates the usefulness of Wikipedia's restrictions. Nothing is stopping you from either putting up your own website or writing on any of the free-access wikis; the reason people treat Wikipedia as a valuable resource is exactly because it won't publish anything indiscriminately. Having a Wikipedia article is not a right.

meheleventyone 3mo ago

Have you ever considered that the high cost of contribution and low cost of moderation is why Wikipedia is successful? Inverting it would destroy any open contribution system. See open source projects blanket rejecting AI generated PRs as an example. Basically trying to restore sanity when contribution suddenly has very small cost.

lesostep 3mo ago

>> And the really insidious thing about this, is the fundamental asymmetry of effort between creation and deletion There is more assymetry between writing yourself and checking other people work. And it's by design, the work of one person could only be reliable if checked over and over by other people. People that agree on common rules If you want to write a good article that wouldn't go through this rigorous checks and made abhor rigid rules, may I suggest writing a blogpost