15 ms·

> deletionism Deletionism is the reason it's worth using to begin with. It prevents it from being flooded by crap and allows it to stay on mission. Not everyth

by derleth 13y ago

> deletionism Deletionism is the reason it's worth using to begin with. It prevents it from being flooded by crap and allows it to stay on mission. Not everything has to be all things to all people.

skorgu 13y ago
Err on which mission exactly? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon
- magnet_ball 13y ago
  To map all human knowledge.
  - samegreatsleeve 13y ago
    Isn't non-notable knowledge still knowledge? They are only interested in a small slice of human knowledge by their own sated goals.
    - derleth 13y ago
      Just so everyone knows, this person is a troll.
- derleth 13y ago
  To include verifiable human knowledge.
rsync 13y ago
The presence of an article on obsolete BBS software (for instance), somewhere in the wikipedia encyclopedia, does not intersect with anyones use-case that isn't already searching for it. Wikipedia isn't one big giant article, where the existence of marginally noteworthy elements distracts you or diverts your attention. The articles that get deleted by the little notability hitlers are contributions with no cost incurred by anyone, save the trivial storage space. It's like saying some guys tripod page that you never visit is somehow cluttering your experience of web browsing.
- GFischer 13y ago
  I've had my run-ins with Wikipedia admins (on the Spanish wikipedia they were convinced I was self-promoting myself by creating my country's Finance Minister's Wikipedia page), but most of the deletions are no-brainers (looking at Deletionpedia makes it very clear). I wish they'd err on the side of leaving stuff alone in the 1% of cases where it's not black and white (like the obsolete BBS software example)
- derleth 13y ago
  > The articles that get deleted by the little notability hitlers are contributions with no cost incurred by anyone, save the trivial storage space. Godwin, and wrong on the merits, as well. The stuff that gets deleted is the stuff that can't be verified, which means there's no way to fact-check it. It isn't about storage space or clutter: It's about not having stuff in there that can't be verified.
  - samegreatsleeve 13y ago
    It's inaccurate to say that wikipedia is fact checked or verified. The existence of a citation does not imply the existence of a fact check or a verification, or verifiability. Even when citations are high quality, the info they're supporting is still usually unverifiable due to wikipedia's disconnection from the community of experts. Wikipedia is nothing more than the biggest plagiarist / content farm on the Internet. It isn't scrutinized because it has been grandfathered in. Wikipedia is the ebaumsworld of information. Completely unreliable. Steals credit, traffic, royalties from the content creators. Policies focused on self preservation rather than serving a public good or respecting creators.
    - derleth 13y ago
      Absolutely none of this is true and reflects your bias more than anything else. Anyone with a passing familiarity with Wikipedia would know it to be false. Your lack of knowledge is apparent and your opinions are of no value.
      - 13y ago

by derleth 13y ago

> deletionism Deletionism is the reason it's worth using to begin with. It prevents it from being flooded by crap and allows it to stay on mission. Not everything has to be all things to all people.

skorgu 13y ago

Err on which mission exactly? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon

magnet_ball 13y ago
To map all human knowledge.
- samegreatsleeve 13y ago
  Isn't non-notable knowledge still knowledge? They are only interested in a small slice of human knowledge by their own sated goals.
  - derleth 13y ago
    Just so everyone knows, this person is a troll.
derleth 13y ago
To include verifiable human knowledge.

rsync 13y ago

The presence of an article on obsolete BBS software (for instance), somewhere in the wikipedia encyclopedia, does not intersect with anyones use-case that isn't already searching for it. Wikipedia isn't one big giant article, where the existence of marginally noteworthy elements distracts you or diverts your attention. The articles that get deleted by the little notability hitlers are contributions with no cost incurred by anyone, save the trivial storage space. It's like saying some guys tripod page that you never visit is somehow cluttering your experience of web browsing.

GFischer 13y ago
I've had my run-ins with Wikipedia admins (on the Spanish wikipedia they were convinced I was self-promoting myself by creating my country's Finance Minister's Wikipedia page), but most of the deletions are no-brainers (looking at Deletionpedia makes it very clear). I wish they'd err on the side of leaving stuff alone in the 1% of cases where it's not black and white (like the obsolete BBS software example)
derleth 13y ago
> The articles that get deleted by the little notability hitlers are contributions with no cost incurred by anyone, save the trivial storage space. Godwin, and wrong on the merits, as well. The stuff that gets deleted is the stuff that can't be verified, which means there's no way to fact-check it. It isn't about storage space or clutter: It's about not having stuff in there that can't be verified.
- samegreatsleeve 13y ago
  It's inaccurate to say that wikipedia is fact checked or verified. The existence of a citation does not imply the existence of a fact check or a verification, or verifiability. Even when citations are high quality, the info they're supporting is still usually unverifiable due to wikipedia's disconnection from the community of experts. Wikipedia is nothing more than the biggest plagiarist / content farm on the Internet. It isn't scrutinized because it has been grandfathered in. Wikipedia is the ebaumsworld of information. Completely unreliable. Steals credit, traffic, royalties from the content creators. Policies focused on self preservation rather than serving a public good or respecting creators.
  - derleth 13y ago
    Absolutely none of this is true and reflects your bias more than anything else. Anyone with a passing familiarity with Wikipedia would know it to be false. Your lack of knowledge is apparent and your opinions are of no value.
    - 13y ago