No, my definition is not meaningless. If I'm looking for, let's say, image processing software, so I search Wikipedia and I find an article on Photoshop. The fact that it's notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia gives me some confidence that it's a legitimate, well-known, industry tool. If that's the only piece of information you use to make a decision, then you are obviously a fool, it's just one more input. If, on the other hand, there are also 1,000 articles on various image processing softwares that some guy developed as part of the undergraduate project and isn't even available anywhere, then Wikipedia is no longer a useful input. Especially if those vanity pages don't need any citations and can make any claim they want (so Bob's Image Shop proudly proclaims itself to be the worlds best image software with 1,000,000,000 users world-wide).
And it's not actually circular logic, because it's not a closed loop. The outside influence is the deletion on non-notable articles. The decision on what's non-notable isn't part of my loop.
I'm not for a minute trying to argue that Wikipedia (and especially it's moderators) is perfect. They are too quick to jump on the speedy delete if they happen to have not heard of something and that's wrong. Your particular example sounds like exactly the type of notable article that should be included and moderators should be patient enough to wait for experts to fill in some relevant citations. If in doubt, the response should be to wait, not speedy delete.
The argument I was responding to was the one claiming that there should be no notability requirements at all and any article, no matter how trivial and no matter how few people it might be of interest to, should be included anyway. I think that is wrong and will reduce Wikipedia's usefulness. No matter how good the search is, if Wikipedia is 99.9% personal vanity pages, it's not a tool people will use anymore.
So you don't have a point. You think you can just shout "circular logic" and that automatically makes you smart?
Things in Wikipedia are notable because they are in Wikipedia. Because non-notable articles are deleted. It's circular logic, but, although this may blow you mind, circular logic isn't always a bad thing. That was the point.
Yes it is, because being in Wikipedia is no longer an indication of noteworthiness. Please try reading my post before you reply so I don't have to repeat myself. The notable topics are still there, but being there no longer indicates that they are notable, so how do you tell the difference?
And why act like Wikipedia is the sole repository for all human knowledge? If your pet topic isn't included in Wikipedia, then go start your own Wiki for it (as lots of people already have for any number of specialized topics).
I think the point is that not all old/obscure games are notable. Neither are all old/obscure games notable. Being old and/or obscure has no bearing on whether or not something is notable or not.
Neither is Wikipedia responsible for being the sole depository of all knowledge of mankind (nor has it ever claimed to be). People are acting like if it's not in Wikipedia, it will disappear for ever. The whole point of TFA wasn't to claim that Wikipedia should preserve all gaming history, but that it can't be relied on to do that. It's not what Wikipedia is for. If you want to preserve gaming history then there needs to be places that do just that.
Deletions should be reserved for pages where there is indication that the given information is wrong
No, if information is wrong, it should be corrected, not deleted. If it's cruft it should be deleted. If it's notable but missing a few reference, then it should be improved.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not for a moment trying to argue that Wikipedia is perfect, it's far from it, but non-notable articles should be removed. The only problem is over-zealous editors who think that because they haven't heard of it, it must be non-notable. It's happen to me, and I was able to get my article back.
people go to Wikipedia because they want a consistent interface, NPOV, references and all those other qualities that the rest of the internet does generally not provide.
And none of those features (except the interface, obviously) happen with non-notable topics.
Exactly, people get upset when they have to face the reality that the things that are important to them aren't necessarily important to humanity as a whole.
The reason for the notability requirement is because otherwise the good information gets lost in the chaff of articles for everybody's local chess club or WOW guild or band they formed with their high school friends that lasted for about a week before everybody lost interest after their dad said they couldn't practice in his garage anymore because he needs to put the car back in.
Not sure what point you are trying to make since the two games you mention both have Wikipedia articles (that you link to) because they are notable. Just because you, personally, hadn't heard of them before doesn't impact their notability.
So what's your point? Should every piece of Wii shovelware have an article?
Only because so few of them remain. If every bowl made in the last 2000 years still existed in tact, nobody would put them in museums. Similarly, preserving every game, regardless of merit or noteworthiness devalues all games.
But your solar plant "freeing up" fossil fuels is not removing CO2, those freed up fossil fuels are still adding CO2 to the atmosphere. This system removes CO2 during production which is released again during burning, so overall, it's carbon neutral. But as Philomage has already replied, there is no reason this can't be in addition to solar plants.
The point is that cars still largely run on gas, and a carbon neutral way of producing gasoline is a better short term solution that solar power and electric cars. Also, those fossil fuels aren't just used for burning. They are also important chemical feedstock for producing a huge range of products that make modern life livable (plastics, pharmaceuticals, etc). A solar plant won't solve that problem.
This comes conveniently after the suspect in the Tucson shooting has widely been reported as an online gamer.
Widely reported? This is the first time I've even heard this in relation to the Tucson shooter. Second, convenient timing? Maybe the submitter doesn't understand how scientific publishing works, but there is no way to time the release of your paper. You submit it months before it actually gets published, it gets sent out for peer-review, rejected, revised, resubmitted, ad nauseum.
Couple of days ago I heard somebody on the radio make, what I thought, was a good point. The very fact that Wikipedia is well known to be [somewhat] unreliable had the positive effect of making people question all their sources, not just Wikipedia. If you get burned a couple of times while citing from Wikipedia, maybe you'll be a bit more careful overall with what you cite. It's an optimistic view to be sure, but I liked it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, my definition is not meaningless. If I'm looking for, let's say, image processing software, so I search Wikipedia and I find an article on Photoshop. The fact that it's notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia gives me some confidence that it's a legitimate, well-known, industry tool. If that's the only piece of information you use to make a decision, then you are obviously a fool, it's just one more input. If, on the other hand, there are also 1,000 articles on various image processing softwares that some guy developed as part of the undergraduate project and isn't even available anywhere, then Wikipedia is no longer a useful input. Especially if those vanity pages don't need any citations and can make any claim they want (so Bob's Image Shop proudly proclaims itself to be the worlds best image software with 1,000,000,000 users world-wide).
And it's not actually circular logic, because it's not a closed loop. The outside influence is the deletion on non-notable articles. The decision on what's non-notable isn't part of my loop.
So are you posting as Anonymous Coward or do you read minds also? Saying something doesn't make it so.
I'm not for a minute trying to argue that Wikipedia (and especially it's moderators) is perfect. They are too quick to jump on the speedy delete if they happen to have not heard of something and that's wrong. Your particular example sounds like exactly the type of notable article that should be included and moderators should be patient enough to wait for experts to fill in some relevant citations. If in doubt, the response should be to wait, not speedy delete.
The argument I was responding to was the one claiming that there should be no notability requirements at all and any article, no matter how trivial and no matter how few people it might be of interest to, should be included anyway. I think that is wrong and will reduce Wikipedia's usefulness. No matter how good the search is, if Wikipedia is 99.9% personal vanity pages, it's not a tool people will use anymore.
So you don't have a point. You think you can just shout "circular logic" and that automatically makes you smart?
Things in Wikipedia are notable because they are in Wikipedia. Because non-notable articles are deleted. It's circular logic, but, although this may blow you mind, circular logic isn't always a bad thing. That was the point.
Yes. Do you have a point? Or did you just learn a new term and thought it would make you look smart?
Yes it is, because being in Wikipedia is no longer an indication of noteworthiness. Please try reading my post before you reply so I don't have to repeat myself. The notable topics are still there, but being there no longer indicates that they are notable, so how do you tell the difference?
And why act like Wikipedia is the sole repository for all human knowledge? If your pet topic isn't included in Wikipedia, then go start your own Wiki for it (as lots of people already have for any number of specialized topics).
I think the point is that not all old/obscure games are notable. Neither are all old/obscure games notable. Being old and/or obscure has no bearing on whether or not something is notable or not.
Neither is Wikipedia responsible for being the sole depository of all knowledge of mankind (nor has it ever claimed to be). People are acting like if it's not in Wikipedia, it will disappear for ever. The whole point of TFA wasn't to claim that Wikipedia should preserve all gaming history, but that it can't be relied on to do that. It's not what Wikipedia is for. If you want to preserve gaming history then there needs to be places that do just that.
Deletions should be reserved for pages where there is indication that the given information is wrong
No, if information is wrong, it should be corrected, not deleted. If it's cruft it should be deleted. If it's notable but missing a few reference, then it should be improved.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not for a moment trying to argue that Wikipedia is perfect, it's far from it, but non-notable articles should be removed. The only problem is over-zealous editors who think that because they haven't heard of it, it must be non-notable. It's happen to me, and I was able to get my article back.
It gets lost because having an article on Wikipedia is no longer a sign that the topic is notable.
people go to Wikipedia because they want a consistent interface, NPOV, references and all those other qualities that the rest of the internet does generally not provide.
And none of those features (except the interface, obviously) happen with non-notable topics.
Which is why there is an article on MUDs.
Exactly, people get upset when they have to face the reality that the things that are important to them aren't necessarily important to humanity as a whole.
But it already in Wikipedia, so your argument makes no sense.
The reason for the notability requirement is because otherwise the good information gets lost in the chaff of articles for everybody's local chess club or WOW guild or band they formed with their high school friends that lasted for about a week before everybody lost interest after their dad said they couldn't practice in his garage anymore because he needs to put the car back in.
There's the rest of the internet for that crap.
Not sure what point you are trying to make since the two games you mention both have Wikipedia articles (that you link to) because they are notable. Just because you, personally, hadn't heard of them before doesn't impact their notability.
So what's your point? Should every piece of Wii shovelware have an article?
Only because so few of them remain. If every bowl made in the last 2000 years still existed in tact, nobody would put them in museums. Similarly, preserving every game, regardless of merit or noteworthiness devalues all games.
What's that got to do with anything? Go troll somewhere else AC.
No, but you have demonstrated why we need to invest more in education.
But your solar plant "freeing up" fossil fuels is not removing CO2, those freed up fossil fuels are still adding CO2 to the atmosphere. This system removes CO2 during production which is released again during burning, so overall, it's carbon neutral. But as Philomage has already replied, there is no reason this can't be in addition to solar plants.
The point is that cars still largely run on gas, and a carbon neutral way of producing gasoline is a better short term solution that solar power and electric cars. Also, those fossil fuels aren't just used for burning. They are also important chemical feedstock for producing a huge range of products that make modern life livable (plastics, pharmaceuticals, etc). A solar plant won't solve that problem.
Because most of the world infrastructure is already set up for burning fossil fuels.
Bye then.
Why expel pedophiles and turn them over to the authorities when you can move them to another parish?
Widely reported? This is the first time I've even heard this in relation to the Tucson shooter. Second, convenient timing? Maybe the submitter doesn't understand how scientific publishing works, but there is no way to time the release of your paper. You submit it months before it actually gets published, it gets sent out for peer-review, rejected, revised, resubmitted, ad nauseum.
Couple of days ago I heard somebody on the radio make, what I thought, was a good point. The very fact that Wikipedia is well known to be [somewhat] unreliable had the positive effect of making people question all their sources, not just Wikipedia. If you get burned a couple of times while citing from Wikipedia, maybe you'll be a bit more careful overall with what you cite. It's an optimistic view to be sure, but I liked it.
I hope they are also going to be looking for ne'er do wells?