Slashdot Mirror
Call For Halt To Wikipedia Webcomic Deletions
ObsessiveMathsFreak writes "Howard Tayler, the webcomic artist of Schlock Mercenary fame, is calling on people not to donate money during the latest Wikimedia Foundation fund-raiser. This is to protest the 'notability purges' taking place throughout Wikipedia, where articles are being removed en-masse by what many see as overzealous admins. The webcomic community in particular has long felt slighted by the application of Wikipedia's contentious Notability policy. Wikinews reporters have recently begun investigating this issue, but are the admins listening?"
Trivia is bad because in essence it's about unimportant information. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not a bunch of unimportant facts. If the information is important, then it's not trivia. If the information is not important to the subject, then it shouldn't be included. If the topic is about something trivial, then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia - go put it somewhere else.
We routinely remove information. Our policies mandate it. For instance, you may not include original research.
I think people should quit thinking that Wikipedia is just a place to dump stuff. That's not its intended purpose, nor has it ever been purported to be.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Exactly what "votes" are you referring to? And why do you believe that the "votes" have been deleted?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I agree. I remember back in the early days of Wikipedia, the community really thought that Wikipedia could expand infinitely to cover all human knowledge, and there was even talk of the "Allwiki" (reference to the Allthing of Simmon's Hyperion novels). I took a break from the project for a while, and when I came back I was disappointed to see that the community was no for keeping articles only when they met some vague and arbitrary usability standards.
Of course, I don't know why I am talking about the state of Wikipedia. I long ago gave up on the project. First I moved to Citizendium, but then I realized that as an academic, I've got access to all the peer-reviewed material I want in the university library, so I just don't need an online encyclopedia all that much. Nowadays, my only contribution to Wikipedia is when for kicks I go on and make vandalism so subtle, in an academic field so specialized, that it takes months or years to be undone.
If so, I agree wholeheartedly.
...is why anyone is still bothering to edit Wikipedia? The claim of being a site that anyone can edit is a flat lie; the site got taken over by pedantic assholes over a year ago. I occasionally still look things up on it, but I made my last edit in May.
Wikipedia is a haven for beaurecratic idiot savants, and atheist fundamentalists of a kind who would make Richard Dawkins look objective. These are people who are utterly devoid of any other reason to exist whatsoever, and therefore derive whatever tenuous sense of self-worth they have from editing the wiki themselves, and ensuring the number of other people capable of successfully editing is kept to the smallest number possible, in order to maintain their own "prestige," and the wiki's "credibility," the latter being a source of continual, gnawing insecurity to said individuals. In other words, one great big closed, elitist, back-slapping circle jerk; exactly the thing that they spuriously claim to have avoided.
Seriously...if you want to host wiki-based content, do yourself a huge favour and host a copy of MediaWiki privately somewhere. You might think that idea sucks in terms of not getting any exposure...but your material isn't going to get any exposure either when it gets deleted from Wikipedia, with the claim that said material doesn't conform to their inane policy, when the reality in most cases is simply that they disagree with what you're writing.
Sorry, Jimbo...You had a great idea...but unfortunately, as most ideas do, yours had a fatal, head on collision with human nature.
Wow. By your reasoning, the Encyclopedia Britannica is not an encyclopedia because it doesn't "do it all".
And thus, your argument is blown away by a puff of logic.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Maybe you should.
"In seeking an active form of civil disobedience, one may choose to deliberately break certain laws"
I guess you're too stupid to read what you told me to read yourself.
And stop posting AC when you get shut up, we know it's you.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
"The Wikimedia Foundation is not announcing a target for this year's fund-raiser but has stated that its 2007-2008 operating budget is $4.6 million."
That's certainly enough to pay a troll like you to astroturf in your time home from elementary school.
Again, I prove you wrong. Why do you put yourself through this?
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
I'll bare that in mind. Right after you put on that tin-foil hat...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Do you say that before or after you put on that tin-foil hat?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.