Slashdot Mirror
The Project To Revive Abandoned Wikipedia Pages Has Been Abandoned (theoutline.com)
For years, an "entrepreneurial spirit" kept alive several of abandoned articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject called Abandoned Articles, which sought to bring abandoned articles back to life, or "if appropriate, merging information or recommending deletion"
is no more...for a long time. From an article on the Outline: A few editors are still listed as active, but most don't actively edit articles anymore. The few I tried to contact didn't get back to me. One email address I found bounced back. Many seem to have moved on with their lives. The concept of "abandoned" Wikipedia articles, one finds, when one peruses the Abandoned project for a few minutes, is sort of outmoded. Back in 2007, when the project was really last active, Wikipedia was a much different place. One user who occasionally edited "stub" articles -- those with little to no content, often the first on the chopping block for deletion because of their lack of "relevance" -- told me that "back then Wikipedia was a lot emptier. It was occasionally possible to find, like, sort of significant people or whatever -- a photographer -- whose entire Wikipedia entry amounted to the work of two people." Now that Wikipedia averages, according to its own statistics, 10 edits per second and 800 new articles a day, a group dedicated to articles that are dormant -- not deleted, simply left to grow over with weeds -- seems almost quaint. In fact, of the many articles still listed as needing to be adopted, almost none are currently abandoned: Straight Face was deleted in December 2007; Pavane got further disambiguated; "From a View to a Kill" was inhaled into the greater entry for For Your Eyes Only, a short story collection by Ian Fleming; likewise, Forward Link was added to the larger entry for "Telecommunications link."
Socialism always looks good until the lack of incentive starts to kick in. But by then socialists have become too stupid to know it.
kept several of abandoned articles on Wikipedia afloat.
If only someone at Slashdot was paid to do some editing...
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Wikipedia is held hostage by abusive admins like Closedmouth and Bsadowski1. Also there are the twinkle using minions like Sro23 and Chrissymad who revert editors. Wikipedia should be shutdown and its donation money be given to legitmate charities.
The article's interviewees seemingly try to imply that the group is going away because it is no longer necessary - but, to even an occasional user of Wikipedia, it is obvious there's plenty of that sort of work to do, were anyone willing to do so. That's the problem... it's hard to keep unpaid volunteers interested in doing the drudge work for any length of time.
#DeleteChrome
So now we have an article about how one wiki, whose job it was to track abandoned articles in another wiki, has itself been abandoned?
No one could have seen that coming.
You can't get nothing for free for long.
In the end, capitalism always wins, suckers.
This has some real potential! Find "abandoned" articles and just, you know, "move in" and own 'em like a god! Beat back any mamby pamby so-called potentially pesky fellow editors, establish a line and stand on it!
So, real question, just because no one is actively editing or owning an article, does that really mean they are "abandoned" ?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
it's hard to keep unpaid volunteers interested in doing the drudge work for any length of time.
Baloney. It's hard to keep unpaid volunteers interested in putting up with the incredibly stupid politics that permeate Wikipedia...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
It looks like it was successful, everythings been adopted?
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
Last time I went to edit some Wikipedia articles, putting in actual content, the pages got reverted with little to no explanation why. A few months later, mysteriously, the identical content, word for word, I added (which was yanked) was present, put there by another editor.
Everything looks pea-soup green after visiting that site.
Why on earth to people do that.
Back in 2007, when the project was really last active, Wikipedia was a much different place. One user who occasionally edited "stub" articles -- those with little to no content, often the first on the chopping block for deletion because of their lack of "relevance"
There are still users (like Cahk) that suggest articles for deletion (within one hour) if they don't have enough content, even if there are many other articles already pointing to the article.
This kind of bullshit will never end.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
"I abandoned that project I was working on, right after I completed every aspect of it."
nobodys even bothered to consider my project to revive The Project To Revive Abandoned Wikipedia Pages...its a surefire winner and bound to succeed where others have failed.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Just wait until I start the project to revive the project to revive abandoned Wikipedia pages.
sh1t-fiiled,
Reality once more slaps faux-autistic nerds and shits on their tear-streaked faces.
Maybe if Wikipedia folks worked together, there wouldn't be so many abandon articles. Many are quickly discouraged when factual corrections are removed or reverted, with the wrong information. Even heavily cited sources are removed because someone else thinks that they aren't relevant.
Abandon articles may not have been abandon if interested parties weren't discouraged from making changes.
I've known other publication authors who were unable to edit their own information. Some were as simple as a wrong age. Even familiar third parties couldn't get the correct information to stay, because it would be reverted, removed, or changed to different incorrect information. "No really, my birthday is ..." is considered a lie, but trust a blogger who says
I found one particular instance that was very ... well, stupid. Paraphrased, it said
That came after multiple edits saying it is just water. The "closely held secret" version quotes an unrelated organization who isn't in the area. The factual citation was from a local news organization. It's like quoting Pravda about a Wisconsin cheese festival, and saying that WISN is irrelevant because they actually had reporters there.
I've heard of other things, like specialized scientists correcting errors are themselves told that they are wrong, making it impossible to fix until someone else says it.
Rather than correcting information, or adding new information, people learn to just say "Don't trust the Wikipedia information, it's wrong, and they won't let anyone fix it." Sadly, they're right.
Wikipedia's abandonment problem won't get fixed, as long as people are discouraged from doing the work correctly.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
"...and nothing of value was lost."
Stop focusing on Wikipedia.
I'm blocking on the name now, but there is another GalacticCore or something that intends to be wikipedia without all the stupid editing decisions. Their homepage explains their vision. I was impressed, but appear to have forgotten to bookmark it.
Best of luck!
These days, Wikipedia is mostly just a source for trivia - oh, sorry, "In Popular Culture", never ever say "trivia" at Wikipedia.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Not sure what the article is about, i.e. "abandoned" vs "deleted", what I do know is that several years ago I could find information about some very obscure topics I searched on wikipedia. Now, whenever I search for something subsequently obscure, it is not there, most often because of lack of "notability". To me, the fact that I had actually searched for an entry, automatically made it notable. But the powers at be at Wikipedia for the last several years disagree, and it has made wikipedia much less useful to me.
I always wished someone would start a "wikitrivia", with articles that don't pass wikipedia's arbitrary "notability" criteria.
If each of you have inculcated the fact that Wikipedia doesn't want you around then why are you still crying about it? I fail to understand how the clearly-written guidelines on Wikipedia that govern stuff like verifiability and notability escape your notice. Clearly the aggregate here at Slashdot is not as literate as the claim.
As for being abandoned, articles that did not merit being written cannot expect to be continually edited. The editors that drafted that hot mess should have perfected them at the outset or spent their time on Facebook rather than Wikipedia.
"We apologize again for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked."
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
At first I edited the entry for Kennewick Man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man) by placing this photo for use in the
aritcle http://i44.tinypic.com/j7ffoz.... it was a straight text entry.
Then all of these programs started showing up to add to your browser or stand alones. It
got to the point one had to specifically be set up to make any entries; it was too much for me when an entry would of been a rare occasion.
Note:
I got all the permissions for posting the photo (It's a bust outside the door of a library), all was good.
Then the photo had a history of reappearing in the article then being removed - appears one involved in it's construction claimed ownership having it removed from Wikipedia, and refused any email from me questioning ownership of a stature.
-and yes it does look like Patrick Stewart.
Perhaps /. should abandon this story about Wikipedia abandoning abandoned entries.
They probably got sick of having their edits reverted by bots and trollish man-babies...
That way, whatever you type into the search engine, there will be authoritative-looking results.
And yet, Wikipedia is a group graffiti wall, gamed by spammers, Leftist ideologues and basement NEETbeards with megalomania.
Alternative Right.
That is why it looks like Patrick Stewart (who is most famous for playing a French ethnic character) and why it was removed.
Alternative Right.
Back in the days when Wikipedia was young, and I was still an active Wikipedian, I got excited about this encyclopaedia that anyone could edit and showed my father.
To demonstrate the editing process to my father I added to the entry a sentence about a non-existent and rather unlikely side effect interaction for a very commonly used drug. (I was studying undergraduate pharmacology at the time)
To my shame I then forgot to undo my vandalism before logging off.
Fast forward a dozen years, I picked up a very reputable and nationally used drug codex, the Bible for drug interactions. Idly flicking to the entry for this particular drug, imagine my surprise when I saw the very same unlikely interaction. Repeated verbatim.
(Recall that this fictional interaction was utterly bogus, added for a moments entertainment while drunkenly extolling the virtues of a wiki type project...)
My act of vandalism remains on the Wikipedia entry more than a decade on. Since nearly every accurate edit I have made as a genuine subject matter expert over the last few years has been rapidly rejected by various bots and editors, I have decided to see how long it will take for this genuinely incorrect bullshit entry to be picked up. Right now I think it is likely to remain forever, seeing as how it has been "adopted" by a reputable source as a true fact.... which will no doubt in time be cited in its support!
My approach exactly.
I pretty much only edit Wikipedia articles that I'm actively reading (usually to take very quick notes). I make my changes and move on. I've touched hundreds of articles over the past year and only been reverted by an over-invested douche maybe five times. A couple of times I probably crossed the line a bit and wasn't too surprised.
One revert appeared to be politically motivated. My edit made Israel look slightly worse by intensifying, for clarity, what the article already said. I registered my complaint on the talk page of the editor in question (very active), and never heard back.
So I lost one battle (a quick edit, a quick revert, a quick comment, and done). Discretion is the better part of valour.
I think many of my edits survive because I'm usually scratching my own itch (usually for quickness of note taking). That helps to bring perspective, too.