4 ms·

RIP Fravia

13 points by phn1x 17y ago

mcav 17y ago
Redirects to "Reverse Engineering". I assume you wanted this (google cached version): http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:mAp2zxYhBnoJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fravia+fravia&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:mAp2zxYhBnoJ:en.wikipedi...
brl 17y ago
Seriously, Wikipedia? You deleted Fravia's page for a lack of notability?
- tptacek 17y ago
  They didn't delete the page; they replaced it with (an inauspicious) redirect to "Reverse Engineering". The discussion that led to this is here: http://bit.ly/10rqEV http://bit.ly/10rqEV. I can understand they logic behind this article being put up for AfD. It was written poorly, in POV style. It did do a poor job of establishing what was notable about Fravia (you'd have to know something about his particular reversing subculture to know why any of the claims in the article were interesting). And finally --- and most importantly --- the article did lack independent sources establishing notability. Independent sourcing is not optional on Wikipedia. I don't think this is a place where the system failed.
  - huhtenberg 17y ago
    Poorly sourced article tagged for POV bias is better than no article. Especially considering how much effort it takes to resurrect the article once it's deleted.
    - tptacek 17y ago
      That argument is a slippery slope towards asserting there should be no quality control on Wikipedia; any debatable WP article could be defended by saying "tag it and hope for sourcing". What people keep forgetting in these arguments is that WP isn't pronouncing a final judgement on the topic; they're judging the article itself. If you believe sourcing could be found for a topic, and a better article could be written, go write it. There's a zillion "proven" articles in WP that need maintaining; why argue about the ones people can't bother to bring up to some minimal standard of quality?
- huhtenberg 17y ago
  > Seriously, Wikipedia? Yeah, that's a modern Wikipedia for you. Hardly a surprise, really. The only thing that's strictly notable according to their policies is a Pokemon. With a list of Starwars planets coming next. I used to contribute a lot for more than two years, but then left after a wave of morons overtook reasonable editors and started purging articles left and right just for the sake of complying with the Policies. I have stopped donating too. /rant
dnewcome 17y ago
Are you reporting that he has passed? Or merely the death of his wikipedia presence. He has been battling cancer...
- chaosmachine 17y ago
  http://www.searchlores.org/swansong.htm http://www.searchlores.org/swansong.htm http://www.2113.ch/phplab/mbs.php3/mb001?num=1241367858&thread=1241367858 http://www.2113.ch/phplab/mbs.php3/mb001?num=1241367858&...
  - huhtenberg 17y ago
    Damn.
    - devicenull 17y ago
      I wish I had a better comment then that, but that's all I can come up with too
I_got_fifty 17y ago
Why does this article sound eerily similar to xkcd.com/341 - xkcd.com/345 ?

13 points by phn1x 17y ago

mcav 17y ago

Redirects to "Reverse Engineering". I assume you wanted this (google cached version): http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:mAp2zxYhBnoJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fravia+fravia&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:mAp2zxYhBnoJ:en.wikipedi...

brl 17y ago

Seriously, Wikipedia? You deleted Fravia's page for a lack of notability?

tptacek 17y ago
They didn't delete the page; they replaced it with (an inauspicious) redirect to "Reverse Engineering". The discussion that led to this is here: http://bit.ly/10rqEV http://bit.ly/10rqEV. I can understand they logic behind this article being put up for AfD. It was written poorly, in POV style. It did do a poor job of establishing what was notable about Fravia (you'd have to know something about his particular reversing subculture to know why any of the claims in the article were interesting). And finally --- and most importantly --- the article did lack independent sources establishing notability. Independent sourcing is not optional on Wikipedia. I don't think this is a place where the system failed.
- huhtenberg 17y ago
  Poorly sourced article tagged for POV bias is better than no article. Especially considering how much effort it takes to resurrect the article once it's deleted.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    That argument is a slippery slope towards asserting there should be no quality control on Wikipedia; any debatable WP article could be defended by saying "tag it and hope for sourcing". What people keep forgetting in these arguments is that WP isn't pronouncing a final judgement on the topic; they're judging the article itself. If you believe sourcing could be found for a topic, and a better article could be written, go write it. There's a zillion "proven" articles in WP that need maintaining; why argue about the ones people can't bother to bring up to some minimal standard of quality?
huhtenberg 17y ago
> Seriously, Wikipedia? Yeah, that's a modern Wikipedia for you. Hardly a surprise, really. The only thing that's strictly notable according to their policies is a Pokemon. With a list of Starwars planets coming next. I used to contribute a lot for more than two years, but then left after a wave of morons overtook reasonable editors and started purging articles left and right just for the sake of complying with the Policies. I have stopped donating too. /rant

dnewcome 17y ago

Are you reporting that he has passed? Or merely the death of his wikipedia presence. He has been battling cancer...

chaosmachine 17y ago
http://www.searchlores.org/swansong.htm http://www.searchlores.org/swansong.htm http://www.2113.ch/phplab/mbs.php3/mb001?num=1241367858&thread=1241367858 http://www.2113.ch/phplab/mbs.php3/mb001?num=1241367858&...
- huhtenberg 17y ago
  Damn.
  - devicenull 17y ago
    I wish I had a better comment then that, but that's all I can come up with too

I_got_fifty 17y ago

Why does this article sound eerily similar to xkcd.com/341 - xkcd.com/345 ?