If you think of it as an encyclopedia, what's notable and what's not should be largely common sense. And I believe common sense is what normally rules the day in whether articles are deleted or not. Of course, there are exceptions, but I think you're blowing up this issue out of proportion.
What's wrong with copyediting ("rewording") to improve an article? There's no guarantees that content anyone adds will actually stay intact. Never was, never will be.
And there's nothing wrong with a community committed to building an encyclopedia and working to ensure its quality, against many who want to mess it up because they think their non-notable pet subject is notable.
1 through 3 may happen, but I think they largely happen due to honest mistakes, carelessness or a few bad apples trying to protect certain subjects from "negative" information. Nobody's perfect, but I think you are concentrating too hard on what goes wrong rather than the vast majority of things that go right.
Re: 4, I have only seen the reverse of this. So, it would helpful if you produced an example. I honestly think that what you're describing is very rare, if it exists at all.
I'm afraid what you and others are experiencing is "outsider syndrome". You have a couple bad experiences, and then decide that everyone on the inside is corrupt, without really trying to get to know how the system works, or really trying to make a difference through the informed recommendations for effective changes. Basically, you're whining.
So, become a regular then. Contribute and show that you care about the Wikipedia. Then, gradually, you'll get some weight, and people might pay attention to things you say.
Or, you might actually come to agree with most of the policies you now reject.
Well, first, Wikipedia isn't just another website. It's the largest encyclopedia in history, website or not.
Second, starting a website is indeed rather trivial. But building another Wikipedia, and getting to its current level of depth and critical mass, is nearly impossible.
What's wrong is speaking out of ignorance, for which we have an epidemic, and that epidemic doesn't just apply to these ignorant critiques of Wikipedia.
HTML e-mail works on OS 4.5 as well. After upgrading to it from 4.2, I just needed to resend the service books from the BlackBerry Internet Service. HTML e-mail was then enabled automatically on all my e-mail accounts.
This is what I call one of the "Sure Signs of Stupid IT Management". (That would make a great blog post title, eh?)
First of all, management typically has no clue about the development technologies they are standardizing on, let alone the technologies they are excluding from their standardized set.
Secondly, these management types don't seem to have a clue that the proper role of a software developer is to adjust to whatever language/technology is utilized for a specific project. Learning on the spot is part and parcel of the "daily normal" of a programmer's work existence. Any programmer who can't adjust properly shouldn't be a programmer in the first place -- they need to be in a different profession.
Last, as others have clearly stated, using the best tool for the job is part of the professional decision making responsibility of the (usually senior) software developer. Only programmers can properly make these kinds of technical judgments. When management gets overly involved with such things, projects invariably turn into crap.
Slashdot Mirror
No longer credible, according to who? I believe you're making all this up.
They only have to "beg" because they are so large and still getting larger. Nothing unusual here.
If you think of it as an encyclopedia, what's notable and what's not should be largely common sense. And I believe common sense is what normally rules the day in whether articles are deleted or not. Of course, there are exceptions, but I think you're blowing up this issue out of proportion.
I meant this wouldn't happen regularly. So you have one bad instance and declare a pox on all of us?
No encyclopedia should be a source that's cited, Wikipedia or deadwood.
Are you sure you didn't violate a copyright? Because that's generally the reason a case like the one you describe comes up.
Rubbish. Not everyone can win an argument. Just because you lose some, doesn't make the winners corrupt. It makes you a sore loser.
Thank you for popping the whiner's hot air balloon.
What's wrong with copyediting ("rewording") to improve an article? There's no guarantees that content anyone adds will actually stay intact. Never was, never will be.
And there's nothing wrong with a community committed to building an encyclopedia and working to ensure its quality, against many who want to mess it up because they think their non-notable pet subject is notable.
Rubbish. The goal is the inclusion of all notable subjects. Nothing more, nothing less. And the Wikipedia largely is meeting this goal.
1 through 3 may happen, but I think they largely happen due to honest mistakes, carelessness or a few bad apples trying to protect certain subjects from "negative" information. Nobody's perfect, but I think you are concentrating too hard on what goes wrong rather than the vast majority of things that go right.
Re: 4, I have only seen the reverse of this. So, it would helpful if you produced an example. I honestly think that what you're describing is very rare, if it exists at all.
Nonsense. Anyone can start making good faith edits now, and no "clique" will bother you, at all!
"Important to me" isn't necessarily encyclopedic.
Wikipedia has been a real encyclopedia for years now. I don't know what you are talking about.
I'm afraid what you and others are experiencing is "outsider syndrome". You have a couple bad experiences, and then decide that everyone on the inside is corrupt, without really trying to get to know how the system works, or really trying to make a difference through the informed recommendations for effective changes. Basically, you're whining.
Maybe stop adding non-notable trifles? That would help, wouldn't it?
So, become a regular then. Contribute and show that you care about the Wikipedia. Then, gradually, you'll get some weight, and people might pay attention to things you say.
Or, you might actually come to agree with most of the policies you now reject.
Well, first, Wikipedia isn't just another website. It's the largest encyclopedia in history, website or not.
Second, starting a website is indeed rather trivial. But building another Wikipedia, and getting to its current level of depth and critical mass, is nearly impossible.
Because it's an _encyclopedia_, not a "free data compendium". Duh.
Correct. When things that are critiqued by those who refuse to learn and understand what they are critiquing, there is something wrong with _them_.
What's wrong is speaking out of ignorance, for which we have an epidemic, and that epidemic doesn't just apply to these ignorant critiques of Wikipedia.
HTML e-mail works on OS 4.5 as well. After upgrading to it from 4.2, I just needed to resend the service books from the BlackBerry Internet Service. HTML e-mail was then enabled automatically on all my e-mail accounts.
This is what I call one of the "Sure Signs of Stupid IT Management". (That would make a great blog post title, eh?)
First of all, management typically has no clue about the development technologies they are standardizing on, let alone the technologies they are excluding from their standardized set.
Secondly, these management types don't seem to have a clue that the proper role of a software developer is to adjust to whatever language/technology is utilized for a specific project. Learning on the spot is part and parcel of the "daily normal" of a programmer's work existence. Any programmer who can't adjust properly shouldn't be a programmer in the first place -- they need to be in a different profession.
Last, as others have clearly stated, using the best tool for the job is part of the professional decision making responsibility of the (usually senior) software developer. Only programmers can properly make these kinds of technical judgments. When management gets overly involved with such things, projects invariably turn into crap.
The "Accept-Encoding" check will allow the visitors who are real-live-browser-users with that user-agent in just fine.
Whoops, didn't think about the "Accept-Encoding" check. My bad. That should work fine.
The problem is that the first user-agent in that list is also associated with legitimate site visitors, and I'm certainly not rejecting them.