You know, every time there's a Wikipedia-related thread on Slashdot, there's a massive run of people with anecdotes about how they spent hours and hours improving some article only to have it reverted.
I've never once seen someone post a link to the changes they made.
Please tell us what article it was, and what corrections you made. If you go to the article's history you can post a link to the exact changes that you made, and the subsequent reversion. It'll take two minutes, I swear.
You don't even have to go through all that. Just post your user name and the article title and we can find it ourselves.
It would prove once and for all that Wikipedia is as bad as everyone says it is. I'd love to see it. We'd all love to see it. Then we can fix it and make sure that your corrections actually get implemented properly.
Because otherwise you, like everyone else here, are just posting the equivalent of "my friend's friend died from eating Pop Rocks and Sprite." Baseless accusations that don't help anyone.
How does the Internet Meme "Happycat" which was deleted despite being very notable qualify as not notable.
There is a huge subjective component to notability. Sure, "x is the coolest person" is probably a good candidate for deletion, but time and time again I've seen these barnstar toting clowns delete perfectly good articles because they have pull and they think something isn't notable due to their unfamiliarity with a subject.
The same deletionists often have strange pet subjects , eg, an obscure record label of music they like.
Its basic: when a deletion causes an uproar its probably a notable subject.
A topic is considered notable if and only if it has non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources.
Notability, by Wikipedia's definition, has nothing to do with "importance" or "uproar" or an editor's "familiarity" with a subject.
Look, here's how journalism is done. If I do all the research I can for an upcoming artist interview, and find that the wikipedia entry for the band says that the band will have a new album out in 2008, but there is no citation, I can either email the band's publicist or ask the band directly in the interview to confirm that information.
That's a pretty ridiculous example. If you're interviewing an artist anyway, wouldn't the first question you ask be "so when's the new album coming out?" Anything that's on Wikipedia without a citation needs to be confirmed anyway, so what's the point in having it there? You can always use the article's discussion page and say "hey, I think this is true but I can't find a citation for it". That's the way it's supposed to be done, not this "add as much information as possible and don't delete anything until it's confirmed to be true" business.
"Notability" is a broken concept, because you can not falsify it. You can not prove that something is not notable. You can only prove that it is notable by citing evidence. But absence of evidence isn't proof of non-notability.
Well, in that case:
"Truth" is a broken concept, because you can not falsify it. You can not prove that something is not true. You can only prove that it is true by citing evidence. But absence of evidence isn't proof of non-truth.
What would Wikipedia be like if it allowed anything to be published as true without evidence? It would look like... the rest of the Internet.
Look, Wikipedia's policy is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." That's been the policy since day one. It's a completely reasonable requirement.
If you really want to write about something, you realize you can start your own web site, right? Wikipedia's not the web, it's one site with one purpose with its own set of editorial guidelines. Start your own site and write about your Peruvian TV show to your heart's content. Since there's no Wikipedia article on it, it'll be #1 Google result and the content will be entirely yours. It's win-win. Then you have a site that can be used as a reliable secondary source. Find a few others, and the subject can be considered notable without a doubt. Publish your work under the GFDL, and everyone wins!
Wikipedia is not designed to be anything-goes. It was never claimed to be that. That's what the Internet is. Wikipedia is a microcosm of the Internet with editorial controls. That's what makes it useful. If it was just anarchy, how would it be any different from Usenet?
There's nothing preventing obscure or new topics from getting sources. Sites like Slashdot, for instance, are perfectly acceptable sources. The defining criteria are editorial control and independence. Since Slashdot is not affiliated with Deletionpedia, and it's a news site with a reasonable amount of editorial control (e.g., more exclusive than Myspace or Twitter), it's a valid source for the article, and helps to establish the site's notability.
How many people have to find something relevant or useful in order to stop it from being deleted from Wikipedia?
If these few high priests of Wikipedia deem an article, whether it's about Pokemon or CNN, to be something they have a personal bias against, it will be deleted.
It sounds like you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. They're clearly spelled out here. If you read a deletion debate, you'll find that it's this guideline being used to judge articles.
Do you have an example of an article with multiple, reliable independent sources that got deleted? That has been the threshold for inclusion since day one. If you can find an article that got deleted despite meeting the criteria, it would prove your conspiracy theory. Otherwise, you'll have to accept that it's a simple, clear-cut standard that has been applied since the site's inception.
Deleting ANYTHING from wikipedia is stupid. If something is PROVEN to be inaccurate, then that's another story.
Prove it's true. Otherwise it gets deleted. That's not deletionism, that's not fanaticism, it's intellectual honesty. If it's good enough for the last two centuries of scientific and historical academia, it's good enough for me. I don't want an article on how the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe just because no one can prove it's not true.
I wasn't trying to provoke rage, I was showing that the community's general opinion (that the Warhammer article was acceptable, and the admins were deleting it because they did not find "geek" topics interesting) contradicted facts (that articles are not acceptable unless the topic is addressed by third-party sources, and the admins were deleting it because it did not). I used Wikipedia's own words. I used numbers. I clearly showed why the OP's claim was unjustified. I think that deserves more than a "1", and the only possible explanation for me scoring less than your response (which contained nothing that was not already said throughout the thread, and was exactly as sarcastic and bitter as mine was) is that opposing opinions are not welcome here.
I, the sarcastic bastard with the only contrary opinion on the whole site, backing it up with quotations, analysis, and incredibly detailed and well-supported explanations of my opinion, get a 1 and "10% Troll".
TheSpoom, the sarcastic bastard with a worthless reactionary response, gets a 3 and "100% Insightful".
Because as soon as you have "en.wikipedia.org/Star_Trek/Quark" you will, within days, have "en.wikipedia.org/Biracial_Hawaiian_lawyers_with_iambic_surnames/Barack_Obama".
I'm amazed that so many people have responded to the OP without even glancing at any of Wikipedia's policies. They are very, very clear and explicit about just what policies are in place and why.
Wikipedia's notability guideline:
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic.
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
So, here are my questions for all of the poor, oppressed sci-fi trivia cataloguers out there, so mercilessly attacked by the cruel deletion fanatics:
Since none of you read Wikipedia's guidelines before writing an article, what right do you have to complain when an administrator overrides you?
When Slashdot says that spamming is not allowed, and I start posting links to my sci-fi blog everywhere, should I take it as a personal vendetta when I get modded down? Even though Slashdot supposedly allows anyone to post? Do they just have a problem with my sci-fi blog? Or are they just enforcing the simple rules they've put in place?
Wikipedia was built with very few rules (many convoluted best practices have emerged, but the simple guidelines remain the same), because it has a specific purpose. If I submit a chicken marsala recipe to Slashdot, should I take it personally when it doesn't get posted?
Let's look at the OP's article, "Weapons of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000)".
There are 35 inline citations (there are also 6 general citations, all of which appear as inline citations as well). This, without a doubt, meets the significant coverage requirement.
This comprises:
27 books, of which 27 are published by Games Workshop, the creators of Warhammer 40,000
4 video games, of which 4 are officially licensed Warhammer 40,000 video games
2 web sites, of which 1 is an official Warhammer 40,000 web site.
This leaves 1 source, in the entire article, which meets the "independent of the subject" guideline. It, however, is a commercial web site, dedicated to the sale of Warhammer 40,000 models, with dubious editorial control.
This article, despite its massive breadth and deep emotional investment, did not contain one single citation to a reliable source that was independent of the subject. That is why it was deleted.
The onus of explanation is not on Wikipedia's administrators, who are following very simple guidelines. It is up to the creators of this article, who failed to find one - one - reliable source about the topic, who clearly did not even attempt to read the requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia, to explain why the creators of Wikipedia should simply stand back and let people decide their rules for them.
Wikipedia is revolutionary. No site of its calibur of innovation has ever existed. It is supremely boneheaded to decide that just becaus
Slashdot Mirror
You know, every time there's a Wikipedia-related thread on Slashdot, there's a massive run of people with anecdotes about how they spent hours and hours improving some article only to have it reverted.
I've never once seen someone post a link to the changes they made.
Please tell us what article it was, and what corrections you made. If you go to the article's history you can post a link to the exact changes that you made, and the subsequent reversion. It'll take two minutes, I swear.
You don't even have to go through all that. Just post your user name and the article title and we can find it ourselves.
It would prove once and for all that Wikipedia is as bad as everyone says it is. I'd love to see it. We'd all love to see it. Then we can fix it and make sure that your corrections actually get implemented properly.
Because otherwise you, like everyone else here, are just posting the equivalent of "my friend's friend died from eating Pop Rocks and Sprite." Baseless accusations that don't help anyone.
You are work for the EU commission?
There are two reasons for someone deleting something:
1. He disagrees.
2. He thinks it's not relevant.
No, actually, there are two reasons for someone deleting something:
Pretty straightforward. The "solution" is to avoid letting your article fall under the two above categories.
How does the Internet Meme "Happycat" which was deleted despite being very notable qualify as not notable.
There is a huge subjective component to notability. Sure, "x is the coolest person" is probably a good candidate for deletion, but time and time again I've seen these barnstar toting clowns delete perfectly good articles because they have pull and they think something isn't notable due to their unfamiliarity with a subject.
The same deletionists often have strange pet subjects , eg, an obscure record label of music they like.
Its basic: when a deletion causes an uproar its probably a notable subject.
A topic is considered notable if and only if it has non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources.
Notability, by Wikipedia's definition, has nothing to do with "importance" or "uproar" or an editor's "familiarity" with a subject.
Look, here's how journalism is done. If I do all the research I can for an upcoming artist interview, and find that the wikipedia entry for the band says that the band will have a new album out in 2008, but there is no citation, I can either email the band's publicist or ask the band directly in the interview to confirm that information.
That's a pretty ridiculous example. If you're interviewing an artist anyway, wouldn't the first question you ask be "so when's the new album coming out?" Anything that's on Wikipedia without a citation needs to be confirmed anyway, so what's the point in having it there? You can always use the article's discussion page and say "hey, I think this is true but I can't find a citation for it". That's the way it's supposed to be done, not this "add as much information as possible and don't delete anything until it's confirmed to be true" business.
"Notability" is a broken concept, because you can not falsify it. You can not prove that something is not notable. You can only prove that it is notable by citing evidence. But absence of evidence isn't proof of non-notability.
Well, in that case:
"Truth" is a broken concept, because you can not falsify it. You can not prove that something is not true. You can only prove that it is true by citing evidence. But absence of evidence isn't proof of non-truth.
What would Wikipedia be like if it allowed anything to be published as true without evidence? It would look like... the rest of the Internet.
Look, Wikipedia's policy is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." That's been the policy since day one. It's a completely reasonable requirement.
If you really want to write about something, you realize you can start your own web site, right? Wikipedia's not the web, it's one site with one purpose with its own set of editorial guidelines. Start your own site and write about your Peruvian TV show to your heart's content. Since there's no Wikipedia article on it, it'll be #1 Google result and the content will be entirely yours. It's win-win. Then you have a site that can be used as a reliable secondary source. Find a few others, and the subject can be considered notable without a doubt. Publish your work under the GFDL, and everyone wins!
Wikipedia is not designed to be anything-goes. It was never claimed to be that. That's what the Internet is. Wikipedia is a microcosm of the Internet with editorial controls. That's what makes it useful. If it was just anarchy, how would it be any different from Usenet?
There's nothing preventing obscure or new topics from getting sources. Sites like Slashdot, for instance, are perfectly acceptable sources. The defining criteria are editorial control and independence. Since Slashdot is not affiliated with Deletionpedia, and it's a news site with a reasonable amount of editorial control (e.g., more exclusive than Myspace or Twitter), it's a valid source for the article, and helps to establish the site's notability.
How many people have to find something relevant or useful in order to stop it from being deleted from Wikipedia?
If these few high priests of Wikipedia deem an article, whether it's about Pokemon or CNN, to be something they have a personal bias against, it will be deleted.
It sounds like you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. They're clearly spelled out here. If you read a deletion debate, you'll find that it's this guideline being used to judge articles.
Do you have an example of an article with multiple, reliable independent sources that got deleted? That has been the threshold for inclusion since day one. If you can find an article that got deleted despite meeting the criteria, it would prove your conspiracy theory. Otherwise, you'll have to accept that it's a simple, clear-cut standard that has been applied since the site's inception.
Deleting ANYTHING from wikipedia is stupid. If something is PROVEN to be inaccurate, then that's another story.
Prove it's true. Otherwise it gets deleted. That's not deletionism, that's not fanaticism, it's intellectual honesty. If it's good enough for the last two centuries of scientific and historical academia, it's good enough for me. I don't want an article on how the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe just because no one can prove it's not true.
I wasn't trying to provoke rage, I was showing that the community's general opinion (that the Warhammer article was acceptable, and the admins were deleting it because they did not find "geek" topics interesting) contradicted facts (that articles are not acceptable unless the topic is addressed by third-party sources, and the admins were deleting it because it did not). I used Wikipedia's own words. I used numbers. I clearly showed why the OP's claim was unjustified. I think that deserves more than a "1", and the only possible explanation for me scoring less than your response (which contained nothing that was not already said throughout the thread, and was exactly as sarcastic and bitter as mine was) is that opposing opinions are not welcome here.
I, the sarcastic bastard with the only contrary opinion on the whole site, backing it up with quotations, analysis, and incredibly detailed and well-supported explanations of my opinion, get a 1 and "10% Troll".
TheSpoom, the sarcastic bastard with a worthless reactionary response, gets a 3 and "100% Insightful".
Makes sense to me.
You're saying she is a reliable third-party source?
Reliability and independence are listed as two different requirements. Nowhere was it ever said that primary sources are unreliable.
Yes, it would be. Good thing no one did that.
Because as soon as you have "en.wikipedia.org/Star_Trek/Quark" you will, within days, have "en.wikipedia.org/Biracial_Hawaiian_lawyers_with_iambic_surnames/Barack_Obama".
I'm amazed that so many people have responded to the OP without even glancing at any of Wikipedia's policies. They are very, very clear and explicit about just what policies are in place and why.
Wikipedia's notability guideline:
So, here are my questions for all of the poor, oppressed sci-fi trivia cataloguers out there, so mercilessly attacked by the cruel deletion fanatics:
Let's look at the OP's article, "Weapons of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000)".
This leaves 1 source, in the entire article, which meets the "independent of the subject" guideline. It, however, is a commercial web site, dedicated to the sale of Warhammer 40,000 models, with dubious editorial control.
This article, despite its massive breadth and deep emotional investment, did not contain one single citation to a reliable source that was independent of the subject. That is why it was deleted.
The onus of explanation is not on Wikipedia's administrators, who are following very simple guidelines. It is up to the creators of this article, who failed to find one - one - reliable source about the topic, who clearly did not even attempt to read the requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia, to explain why the creators of Wikipedia should simply stand back and let people decide their rules for them.
Wikipedia is revolutionary. No site of its calibur of innovation has ever existed. It is supremely boneheaded to decide that just becaus