3 ms·
Wikipedia wars erupt
- fauigerzigerk 19y agoI would like to see someone create a new Wikipedia entry about Mzoli's that says "Mzoli's is a small restaurant in South Africa that sparked a fierce controversy among Wikipedia contributors..." Ironically, if deletionists were right before, they are certainly wrong now. Mzoli's does now have significance :-)
- Tichy 19y agoCouldn't you do that with my website instead, please? ;-)
- snifty 19y agoTake a look at the Mzoli's article now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mzoli%27s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mzoli%27s This is really why Wikipedia rocks: the more people complain about it, the better it gets.
- herdrick 19y agoWikipedia uses the wrong criterion. Instead of asking of an article, "Is this notable?" they should ask "Is this useful?" If so, let it remain. This is much more elegant than their already large body of law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_notability_guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_notability_g...) and precedent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/delete). It works for edits too; you just ask, "Does this edit add or subtract utility?" The usefulness criterion would allow promotional articles and edits. Automated spam should still be deleted, but promotional handwritten stuff that contains some facts is better than nothing. Subsequent edits can remove the spamminess. Of course, this means an article on any topic is OK. In a web encyclopedia, that's the right thing.
- Tichy 19y agoEverytime I visit Wikipedia I contemplate writing a Greasemonkey script that would get rid of the "this article lacks citations" warning. I think they are definitely on the wrong track, hopefully they'll be able to change the direction again soon.