Slashdot Mirror
Debating "Deletionism" At Wikipedia
Ian Lamont writes "In a strange turn of events, the Wikipedia entry for Deletionpedia — an online archive of deleted Wikipedia articles — is now being considered for deletion. The entry for Deletionpedia was created shortly after the publication of an Industry Standard article and a discussion on Slashdot this week. Almost immediately, it was nominated for deletion, which has sparked a running debate about the importance of the Wikipedia entry, Deletionpedia, and the sources that reference it. For the time being, you can read the current version of the Deletionpedia entry, while the Wikipedia editors carry on the debate."
Delete. But that is because he is that way. And no other. None at all.
So that's like... meta-deletion?
My mind is officially blown.
The politically correct term is "Intelligent Unpublishing".
It needs to be deleted, just to ensure that it ends up in Deletionpedia.
Just redirect it to here.
Make an Includopedia and a Deletepedia. That way everyone is happy.
The question is: can Wikipedia become a sufficiently elitist snob-club to give Brittanica a chance for a comeback?
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Don't even have to buy it. From doing a Google News search, it looks to me like the controversy over deleting the Deletionpedia entry is going to make it notable even if it didn't start out that way.
In fact, the fact that the controversy over deleting the deletionpedia page is itself notable makes me very tempted to write a Wikipedia article "Deletionpedia Deletion Controversy"...
On the other hand, I guess that might be pushing it a little too far, though.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
We apologise again for the fault in the deletion. Those articles mentioning the deletion of the articles that have just been deleted, have been deleted.
A couple years ago a wiki page was created about a friend of mine who ran a website, in addition to a wiki page about the website itself. It appeared to have been made by some fan who never made themselves known.
It wasn't long of course before these deletion-happy admins nominated it for speedy deletion. The decision was proving to be unanimous. And, I for one didn't blame them. A wiki page for an administrator of a website seemed rather silly.
My friend agreed. He didn't feel that he really should be on the site and decided to go to the deletion page and weigh in on the issue. He told the wiki admins who he was and that he wanted the page deleted thinking this would solidify the consensus that had for the most part already been reached. I think the quote was something along the lines of "I don't want to be on your gay-ass site, so I'd appreciate it if you just hurried up and deleted it before I leave you all with a fist-sized, mushroom-shaped bruise on all of your faces."
Not surprisingly, all of the admins had a change of heart and all decided they wanted to keep the page.
Those who can, so. Those who can't delete. It's their way of feeling that they're "contributing", even if it is in fact in a negative way. I for one have long given up contributing anything to Wikipedia, because it's just too much of an uphill struggle to keep any article that I know anything about even remotely free from gradual erosion.
In the words of Monty Python: "Yes, well, that's the sort of blinkered philistine pig ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage. You sit there on your loathsome, spotty behinds, squeezing blackheads and not giving a tinker's cuss for us struggling artists. You excrement! You whining, hypocritical toadies with your color TV sets and your Tony Jacklin golf clubs. Well I wouldn't become a Freemason now if you got down on your lousy, stinking, purulent knees and begged me!"
The point is that Wikipedia used to be more fun before the red tape took over. (Yes yes, I need a citation for that, I know.)
IMO - The personal biases, elitism and clique mentality used to fuel the article content itself: e.g., I am biased towards Ducati motorcycles; In the good old days, that means I'd write an article about Ducati motorcycles. These days I'd campaign to have the Triumph motorcycle page deleted.
Jag pratar lite svenska.
Haha, if it's something you can put on Wikipedia, it's not your "content" in the first place!
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.