18 ms·

I'm not seeing your point and I don't think you see mine. There are better methods than deletion for handling situations like this.

tptacek 13y ago
Like what? Finding better sources? People tried. Are there better sources, or is Nimrod simply not "that" notable yet?
- asdasf 13y ago
  Like nothing, there is no problem with it. Just leave it alone. This whole "oh god we're the sum of all human knowledge please give us money" tripe is a bit hard to swallow when there's more information getting deleted than being created.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    There are problems with it. The simplest problem is that the whole charter of WP is to cover notable topics with reliable sources; that's the idea behind the project and has been forever. One practical problem with it is that when none of your sources are independent or notable, disinterested parties can't fact-check anything, and the encyclopedia is only as accurate as cliques of interested editors choose to make it. Once again, your argument relitigates the whole concept of WP. You don't have to like the concept, but you can't pretend that their adherence to their own charter is somehow a sign of dysfunction.
    - asdasf 13y ago
      As I said: This whole "oh god we're the sum of all human knowledge please give us money" tripe is a bit hard to swallow when there's more information getting deleted than being created. If they don't want to be judged on that basis, then they need to stop making that claim. Say "we're a tiny subset of information that a particular clique of individuals approves of". Don't say one thing when begging for money and another when deleting useful content.
- mindcrime 13y ago
  Are there better sources, or is Nimrod simply not "that" notable yet? Or we could acknowledge that there are different reasonable standards for "notability" that apply in different contexts. The idea that something isn't "notable" unless it's been written about in the NY Times, WaPo, Financial Times, etc., is just not relevant to (most) software and related projects. And if the Deletionists have "won" and there's no way to get this stuff on Wikipedia, there should be a way to use web-based technology to do something, like, oh, I don't know, some kind of federation / syndication approach where the corresponding article "exists" on Wikipedia but transparently redirects to the corresponding content on programming-languages-wiki.com or whatever. C'mon, we can do better than just deleting stuff because we're adhering to some outdated, archaic notions about what is or isn't "notable".
  - tptacek 13y ago
    That's not the Wikipedia notability standard at all! Here's WP:N: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability There are specific (broadening) rules for some specific article categories, but the general rule is: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. The big thing that trips up hackers in articles about technology is "reliability" of sources, which you can imagine is a topic that has been discussed on WP probably in greater depth than in any venue in the world and perhaps all of human history, some of which coverage is here, in WP:RS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Suffice it to say, the standard is NOT "The Washington Post".
    - mindcrime 13y ago
      I've read that, but thanks for sharing.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        I don't understand how you can read that and then state that the standard for sourcing on WP is "the New York Times". The links I provided contradict your claim.

tptacek 13y ago

Like what? Finding better sources? People tried. Are there better sources, or is Nimrod simply not "that" notable yet?

asdasf 13y ago
Like nothing, there is no problem with it. Just leave it alone. This whole "oh god we're the sum of all human knowledge please give us money" tripe is a bit hard to swallow when there's more information getting deleted than being created.
- tptacek 13y ago
  There are problems with it. The simplest problem is that the whole charter of WP is to cover notable topics with reliable sources; that's the idea behind the project and has been forever. One practical problem with it is that when none of your sources are independent or notable, disinterested parties can't fact-check anything, and the encyclopedia is only as accurate as cliques of interested editors choose to make it. Once again, your argument relitigates the whole concept of WP. You don't have to like the concept, but you can't pretend that their adherence to their own charter is somehow a sign of dysfunction.
  - asdasf 13y ago
    As I said: This whole "oh god we're the sum of all human knowledge please give us money" tripe is a bit hard to swallow when there's more information getting deleted than being created. If they don't want to be judged on that basis, then they need to stop making that claim. Say "we're a tiny subset of information that a particular clique of individuals approves of". Don't say one thing when begging for money and another when deleting useful content.
mindcrime 13y ago
Are there better sources, or is Nimrod simply not "that" notable yet? Or we could acknowledge that there are different reasonable standards for "notability" that apply in different contexts. The idea that something isn't "notable" unless it's been written about in the NY Times, WaPo, Financial Times, etc., is just not relevant to (most) software and related projects. And if the Deletionists have "won" and there's no way to get this stuff on Wikipedia, there should be a way to use web-based technology to do something, like, oh, I don't know, some kind of federation / syndication approach where the corresponding article "exists" on Wikipedia but transparently redirects to the corresponding content on programming-languages-wiki.com or whatever. C'mon, we can do better than just deleting stuff because we're adhering to some outdated, archaic notions about what is or isn't "notable".
- tptacek 13y ago
  That's not the Wikipedia notability standard at all! Here's WP:N: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability There are specific (broadening) rules for some specific article categories, but the general rule is: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. The big thing that trips up hackers in articles about technology is "reliability" of sources, which you can imagine is a topic that has been discussed on WP probably in greater depth than in any venue in the world and perhaps all of human history, some of which coverage is here, in WP:RS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Suffice it to say, the standard is NOT "The Washington Post".
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    I've read that, but thanks for sharing.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      I don't understand how you can read that and then state that the standard for sourcing on WP is "the New York Times". The links I provided contradict your claim.