5 ms·

I respectfully disagree. Having all YC funded startups at one place is incredibly useful. I especially dig for stories of funded startups which eventually shutd

I respectfully disagree. Having all YC funded startups at one place is incredibly useful. I especially dig for stories of funded startups which eventually shutdown so as to learn what went wrong for them inspite of having funding. Maybe one can categorize on basis of _notability_ but the list should have all YC startups.

cperciva 17y ago
Having all YC funded startups at one place is incredibly useful There are lots of things which are useful but not notable and do not belong in an encyclopaedia.
- davidw 17y ago
  Especially one as tight on space as Wikipedia. Kidding aside, I think having a 'scorecard' somewhere is pretty interesting, and quite relevant to YC. Maybe Wikipedia isn't the right place though?
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    your welcome to use http://www.startupwiki.co.uk http://www.startupwiki.co.uk :) Ycombinator has some listed: http://www.startupwiki.co.uk/investor/ycombinator http://www.startupwiki.co.uk/investor/ycombinator But not all of them yet (I haven't had time to add the rest recently)
- snprbob86 17y ago
  sigh As a die-hard inclusionist, I'll never understand deletionism... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in...
  - Confusion 17y ago
    There is too much information in the world to include it all in Wikipedia. That leads to information dilution, which has the consequence that you cannot find what you are looking for anymore. Die hard inclusionism is as stupid as die hard deletionism. If you cannot understand the opposing viewpoint, you do not understand your own position.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      So, you're making the case here that on the page about Y combinator there should be lots of relevant information about Y combinator left out ? Giving every start-up including the failed ones their own page would be a waste of space, but to give them a single line in a list is pretty good use of the space available I would say.
      - snprbob86 17y ago
        Why is giving each their own page a waste of space? Even if it is only a one sentence stub, it might be interesting to someone and their mother. No one else will ever know it is there, but a tiny piece of history, no matter how insignificant it may seem now, will be preserved. It's not hurting anybody. Imagine if some YC startup did some interesting things, but ultimately failed and was promptly forgotten. Two years later, the same team builds something fantastic rooted firmly in the work they had done previously. This new startup becomes an astonishing success. Suddenly, that prior effort (especially why it failed) is noteable. Oh noez! We deleted it! It is arrogant for any individual or even any group to believe they have any knowledge of what was, is, or will be noteable.
        ErrantX 17y ago
        That makes the assumption that failure of the company is something that the notability of "something interesting" would be judged on... Which in my experience is not the case: if it was interesting or unique people will write about it - and then it is notable. (wikipedia is not really for recording primary information; that makes it a little useless)
    - snprbob86 17y ago
      Is there too much information in the world to include it all on Google? My position is that we should work to improve the tools by which we organize information without ever having to destroy any. I firmly believe that "non-notable" pages should remain marked as such. By default, penalize them in search results and hide them behind a confirmation gate. But don't delete them. Decorate the hell out of them with boxes indicating they don't meet quality standards, but if just one person thought it was notable enough to write about, it deserves to be included. Inclusion need not lead to information dilution. The binary nature of "notability" is overly simplistic, so redirect the destructive energy spent on the deletion debate towards constructive classification of data.
- gojomo 17y ago
  !#@!@^% deletionists are ruining Wikipedia. They'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
- gjm11 17y ago
  The spouse and children of a notable person are not generally notable in their own right (although of course sometimes they are). None the less, an encyclopaedia article about a person might quite reasonably say "She married Joe Blow in 1973. The couple had one child, Oliver; they were divorced in 1984" or whatever. A list of companies funded by Y Combinator, unless it's outrageously long (which it wouldn't be at present, right?), might be an entirely sensible thing to have on the WP page about YC even if most of the companies don't deserve their own WP pages. (Of course there are limits. The WP page about the Oxford English dictionary should not have a section "Words defined in the dictionary".)
  - cperciva 17y ago
    If someone had 100 children, I don't think it would be worth listing them all in an encyclopaedia article. YC has funded somewhere around 100 startups, hasn't it?
    - tree5 17y ago
      I think it would be worth listing them if others find that useful. I fully believe a large percentage researching YC wants a comprehensive list. If you look at the famous alumni lists on Wikipedia of universities, you'll see quite a few lists of over 100 people (some famous; some obscure). Having a large list isn't out of the ordinary. I think YC's page should restore the company list.
Confusion 17y ago
Having all YC funded startups at one place is incredibly useful. Yes, and Wikipedia is not that place. You know what would be a good place? Somewhere on the YC website.
- paraschopra 17y ago
  Yes, maybe. But I don't have a problem with Wikipedia having that information either. What is wrong with having lists? This might have made sense in 1900s when Encyclopedias came as huge books where space was extremely limited. But putting in less information (than available) in an Encyclopedia today makes no sense to me. Challenge should be to come up with better information filters so that people get what they are looking for, not limiting information all together.
- tree5 17y ago
  I disagree. The more comprehensive Wikipedia can be, the more information we can share with each other on any particular topic.
- Hexstream 17y ago
  The solution seems obvious to me: Have only the most notable companies listed on the main Y Combinator page itself, then have a link to a List of Y Combinator-funded startups that lists every last one of them.

cperciva 17y ago

Having all YC funded startups at one place is incredibly useful There are lots of things which are useful but not notable and do not belong in an encyclopaedia.

davidw 17y ago
Especially one as tight on space as Wikipedia. Kidding aside, I think having a 'scorecard' somewhere is pretty interesting, and quite relevant to YC. Maybe Wikipedia isn't the right place though?
- ErrantX 17y ago
  your welcome to use http://www.startupwiki.co.uk http://www.startupwiki.co.uk :) Ycombinator has some listed: http://www.startupwiki.co.uk/investor/ycombinator http://www.startupwiki.co.uk/investor/ycombinator But not all of them yet (I haven't had time to add the rest recently)
snprbob86 17y ago
sigh As a die-hard inclusionist, I'll never understand deletionism... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in...
- Confusion 17y ago
  There is too much information in the world to include it all in Wikipedia. That leads to information dilution, which has the consequence that you cannot find what you are looking for anymore. Die hard inclusionism is as stupid as die hard deletionism. If you cannot understand the opposing viewpoint, you do not understand your own position.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    So, you're making the case here that on the page about Y combinator there should be lots of relevant information about Y combinator left out ? Giving every start-up including the failed ones their own page would be a waste of space, but to give them a single line in a list is pretty good use of the space available I would say.
    - snprbob86 17y ago
      Why is giving each their own page a waste of space? Even if it is only a one sentence stub, it might be interesting to someone and their mother. No one else will ever know it is there, but a tiny piece of history, no matter how insignificant it may seem now, will be preserved. It's not hurting anybody. Imagine if some YC startup did some interesting things, but ultimately failed and was promptly forgotten. Two years later, the same team builds something fantastic rooted firmly in the work they had done previously. This new startup becomes an astonishing success. Suddenly, that prior effort (especially why it failed) is noteable. Oh noez! We deleted it! It is arrogant for any individual or even any group to believe they have any knowledge of what was, is, or will be noteable.
      - ErrantX 17y ago
        That makes the assumption that failure of the company is something that the notability of "something interesting" would be judged on... Which in my experience is not the case: if it was interesting or unique people will write about it - and then it is notable. (wikipedia is not really for recording primary information; that makes it a little useless)
  - snprbob86 17y ago
    Is there too much information in the world to include it all on Google? My position is that we should work to improve the tools by which we organize information without ever having to destroy any. I firmly believe that "non-notable" pages should remain marked as such. By default, penalize them in search results and hide them behind a confirmation gate. But don't delete them. Decorate the hell out of them with boxes indicating they don't meet quality standards, but if just one person thought it was notable enough to write about, it deserves to be included. Inclusion need not lead to information dilution. The binary nature of "notability" is overly simplistic, so redirect the destructive energy spent on the deletion debate towards constructive classification of data.
gojomo 17y ago
!#@!@^% deletionists are ruining Wikipedia. They'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
gjm11 17y ago
The spouse and children of a notable person are not generally notable in their own right (although of course sometimes they are). None the less, an encyclopaedia article about a person might quite reasonably say "She married Joe Blow in 1973. The couple had one child, Oliver; they were divorced in 1984" or whatever. A list of companies funded by Y Combinator, unless it's outrageously long (which it wouldn't be at present, right?), might be an entirely sensible thing to have on the WP page about YC even if most of the companies don't deserve their own WP pages. (Of course there are limits. The WP page about the Oxford English dictionary should not have a section "Words defined in the dictionary".)
- cperciva 17y ago
  If someone had 100 children, I don't think it would be worth listing them all in an encyclopaedia article. YC has funded somewhere around 100 startups, hasn't it?
  - tree5 17y ago
    I think it would be worth listing them if others find that useful. I fully believe a large percentage researching YC wants a comprehensive list. If you look at the famous alumni lists on Wikipedia of universities, you'll see quite a few lists of over 100 people (some famous; some obscure). Having a large list isn't out of the ordinary. I think YC's page should restore the company list.

Confusion 17y ago

Having all YC funded startups at one place is incredibly useful. Yes, and Wikipedia is not that place. You know what would be a good place? Somewhere on the YC website.

paraschopra 17y ago
Yes, maybe. But I don't have a problem with Wikipedia having that information either. What is wrong with having lists? This might have made sense in 1900s when Encyclopedias came as huge books where space was extremely limited. But putting in less information (than available) in an Encyclopedia today makes no sense to me. Challenge should be to come up with better information filters so that people get what they are looking for, not limiting information all together.
tree5 17y ago
I disagree. The more comprehensive Wikipedia can be, the more information we can share with each other on any particular topic.
Hexstream 17y ago
The solution seems obvious to me: Have only the most notable companies listed on the main Y Combinator page itself, then have a link to a List of Y Combinator-funded startups that lists every last one of them.