All in all, I wouldn't post here if I was him. It's just generally bad policy to comment in public on cases against you if there's a question over whether your conduct carried liability.
Where did I ever say that people should "randomly" insert material into existing articles? I said that people should be able to put whatever articles they like up. That doesn't involve necessarily "dirtying up" existing articles per se. Though this whole campaign the admins now have against trivia is another matter entirely; I think it's just an extension of deletionism, since by definition the trivia is associated with the article. Merging it into the article is great, simply deleting it is not.
Verifiability, I think, should be opened up a bit. For example, that Warhammer article in the grandparent: It was well-cited, except that the citations came from the subject's author. It wasn't, however, original research, because it almost certainly wasn't Games Workshop themselves creating the article. And how, exactly, would you have cited such information? I realize your response would likely be "I wouldn't, and I'd just delete it," but you must realize that in deleting the information, value in Wikipedia is lost. You may not see the value, but many, many people do... otherwise the article would never have been created in the first place.
This is an example of the administrator bias created; few editors would ever dare to argue with your edits removing trivia, because they would undoubtedly be blocked for "trolling", "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point", or one of the hundreds of other guidelines that can be morphed into weapons by those with an agenda. Having seen some of your records as an admin, I know I won't be able to convince you though, much like I won't be able to convince many of the admins already in place. Perhaps this means Wikipedia does need a fork. Alas, at the moment I am but a poor college student.
Hey, all ideas for solving this problem (as I see it) are welcome. I think, though, that there should be a place for "geekish" articles in Wikipedia so long as they are verifiable (though opening verifiability up to first party sources may be good, as long as those first party sources are not the ones writing the article, as that would be original research).
Interesting. If what you say is indeed the case, I'd consider it more of a technical problem with the search facility then; I remember for a while Wikipedia was simply using Google's site: feature which seemed to work pretty well while the actual search was down.
I don't think it is a good reason to delete articles though.
I think the problem is that the bias by admins toward deletion is much larger than most people are willing to admit. Admins have the ability to do various things to articles and people in order to browbeat them down before an article ever gets to AfD.
Wikipedia is not YouTube. If you enter the name of a subject in Wikipedia, its search facilities are actually really good; if the page of the same name exists it will find it right away, and if it doesn't, it'll be in the first page (probably the top article).
I think this is ultimately just another way of saying "anywhere but here, thanks". That's not what we're discussing (and ultimately is pretty insulting to those who have put effort into such articles).
Actually, I think the rule against original research would prevent people using it in the way you suggest. Articles still have to be about a single something, and if that something is ultimately unpopular, it'll just get orphaned.
Also, your perceived publicity requirements are not a Wikipedia guideline. Who gives a shit about the "ratio"? It's not really affecting you when you're looking for a serious topic, is it?
If you believe a consensus is more valid, why don't you explain why you think this way? Do you think knowledge is defined on an individual basis and intelligence only exists subjectively? What assumptions are you making and why?
I have my own personal ideas about what I like to read and what I don't. However, for something like Wikipedia, the goal is the have a user-generated encylopedia. If the users wish to add encyclopedic content about their favourite TV show, who am I to stop them?
I would argue that it's not necessarily Wikipedia's goal (or shouldn't be) to provide knowledge in whoever's definition of the word, but to provide verifiable information. Clearly someone is finding these deleted articles useful since there is a site about them.
Who are you to determine what is "actual knowledge" and what is not? Shouldn't that be determined by that greatest of all Wikipedia buzzwords, consensus?
How does it detract? Again, the fact that articles are in the database doesn't make it any slower for you to find the article you're actually interested in. And if something is irrelevant to an article, the link inside that article can be deleted.
Basically, I'm saying that you should orphan where appropriate, but not delete. That keeps those who are looking for the "fancruft" you're not happy while still leaving the mainstream articles you want unmolested.
Except you are not Wikipedia's users. I am not Wikipedia's users. I am one of them, but I don't deign to control what those users write. I don't think admins should be in that position either. If you want to create more mainstream articles, try to get people interested in creating them, not deleting other articles so that the mainstream ones have a larger overall ratio.
I have thought about doing this very thing. I think I would keep some of the Wikipedia guidelines, as many are very useful. I would, however, get rid of the notability guideline, and quite possibly the verifiability guideline... I would still ban original research however, since if that guideline were lifted, the site could potentially become purely a blog by different authors.
It should be noted that Wikipedia did make the great decision early on that all content was under the GFDL and thus it is very forkable; such an encyclopedia could be started with current Wikipedia articles and expanded under the new, wider rules.
And of course, the underlying problem: It's an open, user-editable Wiki, but only insofar as those users keep with the goals of the administrators. The second part is never explicitly stated but there's a definite undertone that most editors who have contributed a fair amount have noticed.
IANAL, and I doubt you are either. If this is in fact a problem, Wikimedia's legal team could advise. However, I doubt a short paraphrasing of a plotline or details of a character would count as copyright infringement.
Wikia is just a commercial Mediawiki hosting service. Think of it as Wikipedia's for-profit sector. (They're not formally linked, but they're headed by the same guy and much of the same staff.)
So here's a question. Other than attacks, racism, unverifiable information and such (which are already banned under other Wikipedia guidelines), what real effect would it have on the encyclopedia other than another record in the database that nobody other than the author would ever access?
Remember, anyone could take an irrelevant link to the article out of other, more accessed articles where it doesn't belong, so the chances of someone seeing it would be next to nil with the exception of the Random Page button (which itself could weight pages by the number of accesses they've had already, or possibly number of incoming links a page has, in order to make the chances of finding such useless pages next to nil as well).
Besides, something as personal as a "daily morning routine" would be a perfect candidate to be moved to userspace... they could leave a redirect if you like.
a collection of 63,559 deleted Wikipedia pages that range from "vanity entries" or obscure points of reference to heavily edited topics that Wikipedia administrators eventually deemed fan fiction
There, fixed that for you.
I honestly don't get the whole hate that Wikipedia seems to have against sci-fi and geeky topics... I think it's an attack by people who figure that if they have too much of it that Wikipedia won't resemble an old media encylopedia. This argument is pretty stupid, given the nigh-unlimited space in their database (Wikipedia themselves have said not to worry about performance).
Somoene's going to come in here and say that the problem isn't the topic, it's that the articles are either original research, aren't verifiable, or aren't "notable" (the latter is the worst argument I've heard), but IMNSHO there is a definite bias, especially among admins, against these types of articles.
Slashdot Mirror
+1, Balls of Steel
And that's the whole point of the RIAA's suit.
Bush will declare this a National Security matter, it will be sent to secret FISA courts, and it will be held up there forever.
Games Workshop, in this case.
I am indeed suggesting that a first-party source for a fictional universe is a valid source. In fact, they are the authoritative source.
Where did I ever say that people should "randomly" insert material into existing articles? I said that people should be able to put whatever articles they like up. That doesn't involve necessarily "dirtying up" existing articles per se. Though this whole campaign the admins now have against trivia is another matter entirely; I think it's just an extension of deletionism, since by definition the trivia is associated with the article. Merging it into the article is great, simply deleting it is not.
Verifiability, I think, should be opened up a bit. For example, that Warhammer article in the grandparent: It was well-cited, except that the citations came from the subject's author. It wasn't, however, original research, because it almost certainly wasn't Games Workshop themselves creating the article. And how, exactly, would you have cited such information? I realize your response would likely be "I wouldn't, and I'd just delete it," but you must realize that in deleting the information, value in Wikipedia is lost. You may not see the value, but many, many people do... otherwise the article would never have been created in the first place.
This is an example of the administrator bias created; few editors would ever dare to argue with your edits removing trivia, because they would undoubtedly be blocked for "trolling", "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point", or one of the hundreds of other guidelines that can be morphed into weapons by those with an agenda. Having seen some of your records as an admin, I know I won't be able to convince you though, much like I won't be able to convince many of the admins already in place. Perhaps this means Wikipedia does need a fork. Alas, at the moment I am but a poor college student.
Anyone want to help me out?
Hey, all ideas for solving this problem (as I see it) are welcome. I think, though, that there should be a place for "geekish" articles in Wikipedia so long as they are verifiable (though opening verifiability up to first party sources may be good, as long as those first party sources are not the ones writing the article, as that would be original research).
Interesting. If what you say is indeed the case, I'd consider it more of a technical problem with the search facility then; I remember for a while Wikipedia was simply using Google's site: feature which seemed to work pretty well while the actual search was down.
I don't think it is a good reason to delete articles though.
I think the problem is that the bias by admins toward deletion is much larger than most people are willing to admit. Admins have the ability to do various things to articles and people in order to browbeat them down before an article ever gets to AfD.
Wikipedia is not YouTube. If you enter the name of a subject in Wikipedia, its search facilities are actually really good; if the page of the same name exists it will find it right away, and if it doesn't, it'll be in the first page (probably the top article).
I suspect you know this but choose to ignore it.
I think this is ultimately just another way of saying "anywhere but here, thanks". That's not what we're discussing (and ultimately is pretty insulting to those who have put effort into such articles).
Actually, I think the rule against original research would prevent people using it in the way you suggest. Articles still have to be about a single something, and if that something is ultimately unpopular, it'll just get orphaned.
Also, your perceived publicity requirements are not a Wikipedia guideline. Who gives a shit about the "ratio"? It's not really affecting you when you're looking for a serious topic, is it?
So don't look at them. It's not hard.
I have my own personal ideas about what I like to read and what I don't. However, for something like Wikipedia, the goal is the have a user-generated encylopedia. If the users wish to add encyclopedic content about their favourite TV show, who am I to stop them?
I would argue that it's not necessarily Wikipedia's goal (or shouldn't be) to provide knowledge in whoever's definition of the word, but to provide verifiable information. Clearly someone is finding these deleted articles useful since there is a site about them.
Who are you to determine what is "actual knowledge" and what is not? Shouldn't that be determined by that greatest of all Wikipedia buzzwords, consensus?
Heretics! How dare you question the great Wikipedia's policies! They are infallible!
*cough*
Maybe we're not ignorant. Maybe we just disagree.
How does it detract? Again, the fact that articles are in the database doesn't make it any slower for you to find the article you're actually interested in. And if something is irrelevant to an article, the link inside that article can be deleted.
Basically, I'm saying that you should orphan where appropriate, but not delete. That keeps those who are looking for the "fancruft" you're not happy while still leaving the mainstream articles you want unmolested.
You mean Guitar Rising?
Except you are not Wikipedia's users. I am not Wikipedia's users. I am one of them, but I don't deign to control what those users write. I don't think admins should be in that position either. If you want to create more mainstream articles, try to get people interested in creating them, not deleting other articles so that the mainstream ones have a larger overall ratio.
I have thought about doing this very thing. I think I would keep some of the Wikipedia guidelines, as many are very useful. I would, however, get rid of the notability guideline, and quite possibly the verifiability guideline... I would still ban original research however, since if that guideline were lifted, the site could potentially become purely a blog by different authors.
It should be noted that Wikipedia did make the great decision early on that all content was under the GFDL and thus it is very forkable; such an encyclopedia could be started with current Wikipedia articles and expanded under the new, wider rules.
And of course, the underlying problem: It's an open, user-editable Wiki, but only insofar as those users keep with the goals of the administrators. The second part is never explicitly stated but there's a definite undertone that most editors who have contributed a fair amount have noticed.
IANAL, and I doubt you are either. If this is in fact a problem, Wikimedia's legal team could advise. However, I doubt a short paraphrasing of a plotline or details of a character would count as copyright infringement.
Wikia is just a commercial Mediawiki hosting service. Think of it as Wikipedia's for-profit sector. (They're not formally linked, but they're headed by the same guy and much of the same staff.)
So you don't like it, then?
So here's a question. Other than attacks, racism, unverifiable information and such (which are already banned under other Wikipedia guidelines), what real effect would it have on the encyclopedia other than another record in the database that nobody other than the author would ever access?
Remember, anyone could take an irrelevant link to the article out of other, more accessed articles where it doesn't belong, so the chances of someone seeing it would be next to nil with the exception of the Random Page button (which itself could weight pages by the number of accesses they've had already, or possibly number of incoming links a page has, in order to make the chances of finding such useless pages next to nil as well).
Besides, something as personal as a "daily morning routine" would be a perfect candidate to be moved to userspace... they could leave a redirect if you like.
There, fixed that for you.
I honestly don't get the whole hate that Wikipedia seems to have against sci-fi and geeky topics... I think it's an attack by people who figure that if they have too much of it that Wikipedia won't resemble an old media encylopedia. This argument is pretty stupid, given the nigh-unlimited space in their database (Wikipedia themselves have said not to worry about performance).
Somoene's going to come in here and say that the problem isn't the topic, it's that the articles are either original research, aren't verifiable, or aren't "notable" (the latter is the worst argument I've heard), but IMNSHO there is a definite bias, especially among admins, against these types of articles.
Oh, and tell the Wikitruth.