Slashdot Mirror
Old Man Murray Entry Deleted From Wikipedia
shoptroll writes "In what can be best described as an unfortunate interpretation of the 'notability standards' at Wikipedia, Rock, Paper, Shotgun reports that the entry for Old Man Murray, once a mainstay of PC Gaming reviews and commentary, has been deleted. A sad day for gaming journalism everywhere." This is notable both because Old Man Murray was completely and totally awesome, but also because it was notable and influential on countless writers.
His removal is a wikid (wicked) act
Because despite the sources, it was deemed to consume too much hard drive space on the Wikipedia servers?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Just because it's old and no longer updated doesn't mean it wasn't notable. Anyone who thinks that deleting that page was a good idea can hand in their geek card right now.
Never heard of OldmanMurray.com?
I don't see any wiki articles about PSXnation.com or scifi.com either.
FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
I've never heard of Old Man Murray but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. This all got argued about last time over obscure programming languages but, why are we deleting history? Are we running out of disk space? I think not.
Articles only stay on Wikipedia if they are deemed notable.
What makes an article or its contents notable? Well, that's the opinion of the Administrators.
Summation 2
Eric Wolpaw and Chet Faliszek have worked in the gaming industry, and the site itself is referenced in numerous interviews, articles, quotations, and even in games. All valid reasons for a Wikipedia entry, I'd think.
Weren't you the guy yesterday who tried to tell us that Slashdot is the Fox News of tech?
If anything, John Dvorak is the Bill O'Reilly of the tech news world.
I can't even find a wikipedia article on Blue's News.
-molo
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
Wikipedia needs a better moderation system.
Articles that are not verified or not notable can go into a second tier where they have to be searched for by specifically requesting second tier access.
As it stands now, I've seen articles deleted because their sources have started falling off the net. This makes Wikipedia one of the absolute worst encyclopedias for anything outside of standard historic events.
The deletion of OMM was instigated by Ben Schumin, a sad man who still holds a grudge against Erik Wolpaw, a writer at OMM, now working for Valve as a writer for games such as Portal. The fact that some sad sack like him can point at an article and say "this should be deleted" and the circle jerk of deletionist admins ignore the salient points made by users and experts of games journalism such as Kieron Gillen, delete the article and then pat themselves on the back for a job well done.
Barnstars all-round you deletionist creeps, keep ruining Wikipedia one kangaroo-court AfD at a time.
I used to contribute a fair amount to Wikipedia to get my brain going in the morning. I quit doing so a couple years ago, because the whole infighting and "notability" crap was ridiculous. Every single character from a book, movie, cartoon, video game, anime (pokemon, etc) gets a many-paged detailed entry while real people quickly get the brush because someone gets a thorn in their ass over something. And those "somethings" are hard to pin down. Some entries surprisingly don't exist, while others (someone with a podcast you've never heard of or who is supposedly some self-described social media expert, etc) gets an entry. That idiot from "Hot For Words" even has a wikipedia entry.
I won't be surprised if a lot of things get deleted in the next few years, because a bunch of people who are twelve years old today will, in the future, say "I've never heard of this Commodore thing, it must be totally made up. Or at least not notable enough, or I'd have heard of it! DELETED!"
Of course, I don't know how you'd solve the problem, either. It's not a solution to just say absolutely everything can be a wikipedia article. Every self-promoting jackhole is going to create their own entry, then and the quality of each article itself will drop. On the other hand, how much attention can really be given to the countless deletions that are proposed? Especially since, while some deletions occur with no discussion and immediately, others drag on indefinitely and are knock-down drag-out events. It's not a solution, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to raise the bar for deletions, at least. It should be a lot harder to delete something that isn't obvious spam or vandalism than it is to create it.
There's also DeletionPedia, though I can't really tell what the current status of the site is.
I wrote some time ago that Wikipedia should allow any content that could be interesting / informative to someone, after all she did not have the space limitation of a physical encyclopedia. I honestly can not understand why something has to be "remarkable" to be included in Wikipedia, especially when the criteria of "outstanding" is usualy being cited in news sites and the like that are not always have ethical criteria to decide what he saw or not "remarkable." or public interest.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Then all stuff republicanism orientated should get deleted too.
Probably the best solution to this deletist/keepist nonsense is to rate articles according to their noteworthiness. This rating can either be derived according to how many other articles link in, or according to human judgement. Using this system, lower ranked articles will be naturally found far less, but at least they're there if you dig. It'd work like pagerank to a degree.
Keeping or deleting is otherwise a false dichotomy. There isn't a magical line that makes an article suddenly not important any more. There are however shades of grey.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
"notable both because" ... "also because" ... "notable." i know yr taco and you effectively got millions for nothing, but give me a break. you've got a sentence or two to write. this shit is terrible.
One of the neat things about Wikipedia early on was that you could find entries on obscure people or places or things. That was one of the charming things about it. No matter how peripheral an item or event, there was someone, somewhere who could write an article about it.
This is why I quit writing for wikipedia. I would spend hours writing and posting reference links only to be told my references weren't good enough.
I've had "editors" tell me Foxnews was biased and not a good citation, and then two months later tell me CNN was biased and not a good citation. Wikipedia is the most unreliable source of information on the internet IMHO.
I've also had articles and updates deleted because the citation website had removed the content or completely shut down.
Sounds like you went beyond super saiyan.
Wikipedia's notability standard, while not perfect, has the benefit of helping to eliminate a lot of trite rubbish. It requires: (1) significant coverage of the topic; (2) reliable sources to support the assertions; (3) secondary sources to demonstrate significance; (4) content supplied by individuals independent of the subject matter, and (5) the potential for a test of inclusion requiring a consensus among Wikipedia contributors. Unfortunately this means that some subjects are going to be excluded, even though they are factual and well edited. Ensuring that a topic will remain on WIkipedia usually requires digging up mentions from books, peer-reviewed journals or professional news stories. Hence, if you want Old Man Murray to appear on Wikipedia, try submitting an article about him in a newspaper or magazine. Of course, you should be prepared to demonstrate your sources there as well.
Does this make Wikipedia the worse encyclopedia ever? Yes, except for all the other encyclopedias that have reliable publishing standards.
The other issue with "notability" is copyright of paper documents. I have a number of textbooks dating from the 1920s which are probably by now quite rare. As a result I have noticed errors in some Wikipedia articles - but the textbooks are (a) not on line and (b) still in copyright. It is not possible to cite them.
Wikipedia is an example of why we continue to need printed books, and why the Internet will never be a complete substitute - distributed archiving in an unarguable format. If I have a physical copy of, say, Ricardo's The High Speed Internal Combustion Engine, it is easy to demonstrate that it is real - the binding, paper, ink and so on can all be analysed to show that its claimed publication date is correct, the pages can be viewed to show that they have not suffered alteration. No file can offer that security. But there is no practical way to use it to demonstrate to a Wikipedia editor that an article on engine balancing contains nonsense.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
. this place sucks now...
4chan is more relevant for nerds these days...
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
There is a war going on for your mind.
I can understand that they should probably purge spam articles, or articles about nothing that people try to put up ("Gramma Jones' Shortbread Recipe"), but why are they going to all this trouble to purge articles about real people, that did stuff? As a writer, do you have to win a Pulitzer or something to get in Wikipedia?
I had entire PAGES of material written in wikipedia deleted because the webcomic I detailed "had won no awards." I gave up on those snobs ever since.
The relevant deletion review is here.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
For those who may be wondering what Old Man Murray is:
Wikipedia Google Cache
Oh the irony
Grade the articles.
On a scale of 1 to 10, 0 to 100% notability, 1 to 9000... whatever.
Simply slap a big red "CAUTION: Information written here may not actually be fact checked."-sticker on top of the article and leave it be.
Give the article a chance to be improved - not removed.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I've got one of those.
You wouldn't believe how much it cost to compile!!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
If a topic would not be notable from the perspective of 100 years in the future, it should not have an article. The purpose of a general-purpose encyclopedia is to convey codified academic knowledge to common people.
There are other wikis for non-encyclopedic stuff. Wikia has plenty of them (see Memory-Alpha as an example).
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
NERD RAGE
I disagree.
I feel we do need some secondary spinoff with clearly marked borders that contains all the range of stuff from pure astroturf to just-barely-deleted. Wikipedia is becoming a worm that eats its own tail. Once you remove the notability bit, you both get trolls, but you also get current culture items which are "popular" but not "notable". Call it "Descartes System". The topics exist therefore they are there on the ShadowWiki.
Then later when some "reputable" source decides to make it officially notable, it gets to be "promoted" to the main Wikipedia. If something on the main Wiki gets voted off the island, it just flips back over to the ShadowWiki.
People who believe they are doing the right thing can still work on protecting the ShadowWiki from abuse. The main difference is that it should be a little harder to delete pages - not from "notability", but more on abusive grounds if it's slander, etc.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Anyone can cite an imaginary textbook, or indeed make up the content of a real one with a limited distribution, just like a Republican senator just misrepresented the content of a report on climate change knowing none of his target demographic would ever read it and find out. That is the problem.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
And you know what will be notable 100 years in the future? I can just imagine some Wikipedian of 600BC deciding to remove an article on the religious beliefs of a small tribe living at the Eastern end of the Mediterranean because nobody would ever be interested, and they would never have any consequences.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
With the way storage has been increasing in costs over the last few decades, you can see why deleting less notable objects is necessary. Wikipedia has reached the maximum amount of desired knowledge for an encyclopedia, any new information needs to be balanced out by deleting the same amount of old articles. It would be so confusing to have this article there in the database-even if it wasn't displayed until someone searched for it or a related subject, you'd know it was there, trying to befuddle you. Thank Jebus they got to it before anyone got hurt.
This sentence no verb.
Maybe Wikipedia can't afford any more hard disks :-P
Old Man Murray will be returned to "notability" and reinstated, aided by a coincidental influx of reference articles referring to Old Man Murray being deleted. See, the system works!
The site is NOT notable, and AFAICT: IS DEAD AS A DOORNAIL since 2002!
Just because a few fanboys have their panties in a twist over this does not mean this is actually an issue that matters.
It seems this site belongs over on the waybackmachine and as a mere footnote on wikipedia that links to the site or the waybackmachine cache
Bring back deletionpedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionpedia
(Deletionpedia is complaining about a high load on their database.)
and every day the internet is working ,no excommunication, we don't know how it works, it's a satirical of God.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
But on the other hand, apparently dedicating a whole page to some Manga character or obscure comic book sidekick is, of course, relevant and worth the space, right?
Random example include
- Guts from Berserk, who obviously deserves a page of his own. (Along with a couple of other characters that get their own pages.)
- Brainy Smurf
- Penelope Pitstop, Muttley, and generally the whole cast of Wacky Races. Because, you know, it's not enough to know that there was a plot-less and story-less slapstick cartoon series that took the piss out of car racing, you need a whole page about each unidimensional character embodying a stereotype .
- Dino from the Flintstones, along with every single other character, because the fucking dog of a cartoon show not centered around said dog is notable enough to have its own page on Wikipedia
- Pants Ant. Really? Who the fuck is Pants Ant? Oh, right, it appeared in exactly 4 comic books nobody ever heard about, between 1998 and 2001, and didn't influence anything. Right, silly me, that must pass the notability standards.
- Minsc from Baldur's Gate. A character only appearing in a secondary role in a computer game, and memorable only by being batshit crazy and talking to his "miniature giant space hamster" and asking him for advice. And he's not even the only one. There are pages upon pages about every single fucking character ever used in a D&D Forgotten Realms setting. (And Greyhawk, and Ravenloft, and so on...)
- Bayonetta, the character of one action game, obviously deserving her own page separate from that of the game itself. And for that matter Tifa from FF7, and Aeris of "why the fuck can't I use a Phoenix Down NOW?" fame, i.e., a character which didn't even make it past the first CD in FF7, etc. And such fighting game characters as Sophitia from Soul Calibur, or Kitana and Mileena from Mortal Kombat, who, you know, didn't actually have more of a role than generic combatant and drool fodder for geeks even in the movie. And generally every single female character that some editor whacked off to. Because, you know, a character that even the game makers couldn't be arsed to give more than the mandatory half-arsed description or a personality, is something that I need a whole page in an encyclopaedia for.
Etc. etc. etc.
I'm sorry, but if _those_ make the cut as notable enough to have their own page, then so does OMM. Note that I'm not even saying to delete those too. But the circle-jerk gang at Wiki needs to choose one or the other, really.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The least the submission could have done is link to the Wikipedia page.
Oh, wait.
What are you talking about?
We need to make sure that door hit's him on the way out... What the hell do we pay that midget that sits next to the door for?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
the article about the Tron Guy is still there.
This approach makes a lot of sense to me.
Personally I never understood the whole "notability" thing. If someone takes the time to put together a decent article.. who cares if it's notable. If no one cares.. no one will search for it/read it. This is especially true with people and places.. which are unique enough that they arn't going to clutter search results. Having it there incase someone does want to read it does no harm in my view.
The only issue I see with the shadowwiki idea is what do you do about linking? If articles are popping on and off the "real" wiki .. links would be breaking.. or when the article is re-added.. useful links to it would be missing.
This is unrelated, but while on the subject, I think a big issue with wikipedia is they don't really know what their audience is any more. This leads to a severe problem of articles written for people at a different level of expertise. Medical articles are the best example of this. The other day I was looking at a scab on my leg and though.. "I wonder what the hell scabs are even about". Look it up on wikipedia, and it reads like it came from a med school textbook. The simplified english wiki is too simplified to. The problem of course is that this line is going to be different for everyone.
I think the solution is for wiki to get more restrictive and appeal more to the "general population" and let niche topics and advanced information go to specialized wikis (memory alpha is a good example of how this model works... the star trek geeks can have their downright terrifyingly detailed articles.. while wikipedia remains relatively sane).
Some asshole deletes an article in Wikipedia (which happens all the time), and instead of simply undeleting the article, TFA is written. WTF?
never heard of him
s/nerds/idiots and deviants/
You are pathetic on sooo many levels. Why are you still here? Oh, that's right- You are pathetic on soooo many levels.
But this is local color news! Somewhere, an academic historian is lamenting the decline of standards! That means 144 papers will carry the same 2 paragraph AP news blip, so it's Notable! Hooray! Let's make a wiki page! /Weeps
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
The article has since been listed on deletion review. Head on over, make your case.
Meanwhile, the article has be undeleted and moved to userspace here.
The following is why I spend less and less time in Wikipedia.
Editors must:
1) Delete any and all photos. Does it have a fair use rationale? Not good enough! Was the copyright owned by f-ing Nazi Germany, so presumably nobody is going to sue Wikipedia over it? (yes, I've seen this) Not good enough! But there are exceptions (see #5)
2) Delete any article that doesn't interest them.
3) Add non-sequitor references to a song written by their garage band that nobody's heard of to the end of articles under "In Other Media".
4) Add the following categories to every article that is "notable" enough to survive:
- In Animé
- In Manga
- In Graphic Novels
- In Western Animation
5) Note if said article could function as an excuse for posting cell phone pictures of their genitals. (ewww... just stop with this, please)
6) Realize that if it comes down to choosing between a professionally-shot photo in the public domain and a cell phone picture of someone's shoulder taken with a Nokia cell phone from 2002 - they must go with the latter. Always. If someone else posts a higher-quality photo they must sit at their computer and revert the edit incessantly until the person posting the better photo gives up.
The 1911 edition of Britannica had a long entry for
The current online edition of Britannica, which likely matches the DVD edition, lacks an entry for Saddlery.
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
Old Man Murray: Mostly Harmless
Arrgh.
The 1911 Britannica had a good-sized article on Saddlery, going into some detail and covering the history of the invention. http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/SAC_SAR/SADDLERY.html/
The current edition does not have a stand-alone article on Saddlery, addressing the topic more briefly as part of the Horsemanship article.
Similarly, the 1911 Britannica has an entry on "Arsenal", meaning the military facility. The current Britannica touches on the concept briefly in an article on logistics.
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
"This is notable [...] because it was notable."
AHHHHHHHHHHH! *pulls hair out*
First they complained about amateur contributors, but I didn't speak out because I was one.
Then they said Citation Needed, but I didn't speak out because a blog links don't prove anything.
Finally they started deleting pages, and there was no one left to speak out for the obscure.
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
I'm not sure of the importance of a website about gaming, that hasn't it been active in nearly a decade? I'm sure it's important to the people that worked on it, but isn't this more of a job for something like the waybackmachine?
The interest of the reader has never been a big factor in the deletion process.
I contributed to technical Wikipedia articles in the past, but when it's easy for deletionists to group together and claim there is "no notability, no independent references" without even trying to find them, then there is little chance for domain specialists to be heard in the process. In theory the deletion review should revert abuse, but when applying the same thinking to solve a problem which caused the problem in the first place... you see where I am going: The same people who vote-argue for deletion, will be be the people who vote-argue against overturning an Wikipedia admin's decision. And Wikipedia admins aren't always the servant leaders you would hope for, get some administrators together and there is some kind of power game going on. All my personal opinion, if you haven't beend dragged into the deletionist hell and still have fun working on Wikipedia, lucky you. :)
M
Why is the default to delete? Surely deletion should require overwhelmingly convincing evidence, not just that six people didn't like it whilst five people had good arguments to retain it.
Because some people have very little power in the real world, and are unhappy with that situation. In real life they may be pathetic antisocial dorks with no friends and bad hygiene, but on wikipedia they can piss in your cheerios and there is nothing you can do about it.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Can we start referring to Arrington as the Glenn Beck?
How about the site is a fucking huge multi-subject fansite? Do you really need to list every fucking wrestler in the world and every single pokemon character?
Wikipedia is a great idea. Too bad there are so many idiots on it.
FYI I don't care about old men.
I don't think that word means what you think it means...
Keep or delete is the one of the truest dichotomies in the world. Deleted => NOT kept Kept => NOT Deleted The only question with some uncertainty is "can you both NOT delete and NOT keep something?" In the context of hard drive storage, I say no.
True dichotomy.
If real historians and assorted worked as these amateurs then we would be missing an awful lot of history. For instance Atlantis... only mentioned ONCE in history and it didn't cite sources, so BYE BYE Atlantis. A REAL historian simply notes the mention of Atlantis and that there is only one source with no references for it AND THAT IS IT.
That is where Wikipedia fails utterly. Mentioning that something is NOT sourced IS ENOUGH. A full record INCLUDES personal remarks and unverified claim and that is perfectly valid AS LONG as you note this. Yes, some pruning can be needed in extreme cases but the anal retentive "citation needed" is making a joke out the site. A normal encyclopedia would have no trouble saying the Hindenburg was a disaster. Wikipedia requires a citation. So? Well, they NEVER then check that the citation is ACCURATE.
So by Wikipedia and article claiming Nazi propoganda is correct would pass since there are PLENTY of sources to cite from. Just because you can cite from something does NOT make it fact.
Wikipedia is an intresting experiment but ultimately shows why volunteer work and crowdsourcing just don't work for anything important. The type of person to volunteer all to often tends to filter down eventually to the completly incompetent power hungry assholes.
Why do you think Gentoo is failing and Ubuntu is rising? Complete freedom is a bad way to get something done. And the Wikipedia editors are far to free.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Firstly, I won't be donating to Wikipedia again. This is not because I'm an OMM fanboy taking my bat home in a huff, although I am also that. But actually, it's because this story has made me look into Wikipedia more, and apparently this shit is rife. I guess I should have known that, but I'd always been scared to check because I still had some faith in one human endeavour and was happy to let things stay that way, until I felt some pressing need to know otherwise. Well, game over on that front. Back to total misanthropy for me.
Secondly, it's actually quite an interesting read because the Schumin guy who nominated for deletion, is evidently really, really, pathetic. And not in a kind of sad and disappointing, move along cowboy way, but actually to a degree that's almost gripping. This article highlights an almost iconic exemplar of the form of pathetic, to the degree that it's actually compelling.
To whit, and as best as I can tell from summaries, a man who is mocked - for being pathetic no less - by a popular gaming culture website waits a DECADE for revenge, whilst the world moves on around him, and the revengee behind the site goes on to pen dialogue for a video game that many people rightly consider one of the genuinely enduring classics of the new age.
This 'revenge', and I use the term loosely, is a heartfelt, but misguided attempt to remove all evidence of revengee's classic projects from Wikipedia, which is petty to an alarming degree, but also absorbingly impotent. Seriously, I would be amazed if anyone involved in the original site gave one flying fuck, because they're probably too busy banging hookers on their jetskies right now. On a lake of money.
And after literally waiting until he thought this site had decayed into irrelevancy and finallly making his move, he discovers that half the internet still cares, the whole thing goes Barbara Streisand, and we just get to see what a massive, unerring loser at the peak of his skills really looks like.
And, damn, I've enjoyed the ride... but that's sadly all it is. Because tomorrow, said loser will have lost his momentary connection to relevancy. And OMM will still have rocked my world.
I weep indeed.
also, if a Wikipedia entry can last 5 years, why should it be deleted at all thereafter? Archived, sure, but if it was important at some time, it otta be kept. Internet sites need to start respecting the fact that they have a duty to preserve their history, or we'll be repeating the early years of film yet again (and the early years of television, and the early years of videogames....).
There's a deletion-review discussion ongoing, with a large number of long-established editors pushing to overturn the deletion. Somebody really jumped the gun on this one.
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
Do we really want his ass prints on the door though?
Be gone from my sight or prepare to feel my flaming wraith!
By the very nature of the Streisand Effect, OMM can now be emphatically considered notable to warrant an article on Wikipedia.
Oh, the meta.
So far I don't think anyone else has mentioned the possible demise of Portal of Evil. If I recall correctly, Old Man Murray was hosted by the same people who host(ed) Portal of Evil. POE has been down for at least ten days now, when you go to the URL http://portalofevil.com/ you get a Red Hat test page. Could there be a relationship between these events somehow?
Wow, some really disgusting comments on there:
Endorse- because if this result is overturned then it will send the very clear message to all the off-site canvassers that off-site canvassing works, and then every time we try to follow our own procedures on something like this we'll be inundated by a flood of SPAs and trolls. Every damn time. And they'll probably always get their way too. That would damage the encyclopedia much more than the existence or non-existence of a single article of doubtful notability. We should insist on our right to handle Wikipedia's content our way and not roll over just because some trolls have turned up to muddy the waters. Reyk YO! 08:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Overturn and relist with a semi-protected AFD. Much as I like the idea of "punishing" the off-site solicitors, it isn't appropriate, and I could not discern a consensus to delete from the established editors at the discussion. The closer omitted to give appropriate weight to keep comments and sources. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
^Great username/post combo.
It seems that "SPA" is another one of their synonyms for "outsider."
On the other hand, there are even more very good comments that restore some of my faith in Wikipedia, but the fact that they even tolerate behavior such as Ben Schumin's is worrying.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Agreed. And David Pogue is Glenn Beck ("No matter what the subject, it's about ME!")
What are you, gay?
AKA lardass who writes worthless fucking articles about worthless fucking anime characters, but who was personally embarrassed by OMM and who therefore wants all traces of it eliminated.
Wikipedia "editors" are some of the most spineless, subliterate mouthbreathers on the whole Internet.
Randy from Boise strikes again!
Also
7) Add CITATION NEEDED and FACT tags to every phrase in every sentence in every article. Do this even when a relevant citation has ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH.
8) Bitch hysterically when someone removes the unneeded FACT tags. Start stalking their TALK pages, even if they are unregistered users.
Someone create a Wikipedia article about this!
Portal of Evil going offline has nothing to do with Ben Schumin/Wikipedia grudgefests. The recent deletion of POEs' Wikipedia article, however, was Bens' doing. The official party line on the end of POE is that the site-owners were getting tired of the multitude of death threats and threats of legal action the site still generated. And seeing that the forums were pretty much dead anyway, they pulled the plug.
The POE affiliates are still up, though.
The article's been restored. Looks like the Deletion Review process did what it was supposed to do.
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
Wikipedia needs deleting. It is run by complete and utter etards.
At its rawest, notability was a stab against the basest of astroturf trolls. Theory case: You have this totally random article on some product & company absolutely no one has heard of. Or just plain troll swearing on a page.
Much more recently have we hit the problem "1 million youtube views = notable".
As for those links, You'd have the Shadow version that *stays put.* Then if the politics work and it shows up on Min Wiki, it gets a new copy with new links. Maybe smart users would never leave Shadow, having developed the defensive skills to survive random astroturfing and trolls.
Wiki needs to be smart, to survive. There's too many e-how type sites out there with dumbed down stuff.
As for the scabs, maybe the shadow could host an "easy" copy. That's what that's for, EVERYTHING except pure abuse.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_Murray
Looks like it's undeleted now.
Did /. even bother trying to link to it?
I just checked wikipedia, the Old Man Murray page was there... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_Murray
if you are wondering what omm is... why not actually read the site?
One of the great ones:
http://www.oldmanmurray.com/news/258.html
wikipedia is the grinch that stole justice!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_Murray
>Looks like the Deletion Review process did what it was supposed to do.
Result in 3000 people-hours being wasted on an argument between 10-year-old girls?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_Murray
I tried it just now. And, furthermore, the last post on the talk page makes it sound like the deletion was erroneous.
What's going on?
1. Put a clearly visible grade of the article. Visible to users, not just editors. It should be the first thing you see once you open a certain page.
2. NEVER delete an article. EVER!
3. Don't delete the content out of the article. Create an "unchecked or unverifiable content" section of the article somewhere on the bottom and let all the things that don't pass the grade just sit there. BUT DON'T DELETE THEM!
Be inclusive - not exclusive.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
1. Votes for Undeletion
OR (more effective alternative)
2. Post about the deletion on Slashdot, and get your post to the front page
Since Slashdot is more effective... I suggest Votes_For_Deletion and Deletion_Review be deprecated, and the new policy should simply be... any deletion announced in front page of a Slashdot article is a deletion to be reversed; since obviously Slashdot would not mention it if it were not notable.
Also, a direct Slashdot mention specifically about the topic (not an 'on the side' or 'by the way' mention) makes it notable automatically.
I just lost the game. (Seriously, look at the "Article milestones" listing near the top of that page. It is... remarkable.)
deviants/
by the way, wikipedia also deleted the majority of pornstar bios
1) OMM meets all the requirements you listed, except maybe for "consensus among Wikipedia contributors." ... O wait.
2) "Consensus among Wikipedia contributors" is the worst fucking criterion ever. You might as well ask for the "consent of a cabal of subliterate retards"
3) Old Man Murray was just the name of the website, there isn't an actual "Old Man Murray."
4) It is blindingly obvious you did not read this thread, nor the linked sites, nor the AfD discussion.
5) In summary, you are so terrible and wrong you can only be replied to in list form.
I can't edit Wikipedia because I give a shit about free speech. Running a TOR nodes disqualifies your IP from editing Wikipedia, period.
Apparently they are too stupid to discriminate between an account and an IP.
The saddest irony is they SUPPORT "anonymous" editing. (By anonymous they mean, they record, and post your IP publicly.)
Fuck you Wikipedia.
you could just for Wikipedia and make it inclusionist (that would gain a lot of users) or whatever you'd like.
Yet no one does it.
You seem to be forgetting the point where people who wouldn't know about an AfD get in on sourcing the article.
Of course, that seems not to be in the interest of the person who created the AfD more often than not. All of a sudden, all those pesky references start coming up.
Good thing there are cases as clear-cut as this one where it's obvious that any admin with an axe to grind has the God-given right to ignore all of this with the meatpuppet argument you put forth so eloquently.
And yes, I am bitter about the deletionists and this is part of why I stopped editing WP.