Thread Tools
Old 03-28-2008, 01:55 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 32,888
Fuck Wikipedia and its deletion fiends

A while ago I came across a Wikipedia page that had compiled the genealogy of the entire Taft family. I just went to look something up on it, trying to see how Taft Broadcasting fit into there, and I see that at the beginning of March it was "speedy" deleted as "blatant advertising." Jesuswhatthefuck! Since when is it considered a public service to delete information that people find useful?
Old 03-28-2008, 01:57 PM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 20,187
Advertising for what? A Taft biography?
Old 03-28-2008, 01:59 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 32,888
I have no idea. It was basically a family tree with notes on the significant accomplishments of the prominent Tafts. So far as I remember there was no advertising on it.
Old 03-28-2008, 02:15 PM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 7,922
Everything deleted is still there. Just click the History tab and roll back to the version you want to see.
Old 03-28-2008, 02:20 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 28,767
Don't worry, acsenray, I found this nifty image for your family album.
Old 03-28-2008, 02:25 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 11,992
The jokers at it again?
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
Old 03-28-2008, 02:33 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 32,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldiboronti
Everything deleted is still there. Just click the History tab and roll back to the version you want to see.
So far as I can tell, it's not. Apparently when an article is actually deleted, it's gone, baby, gone. It's not just like editing the content of an article.
Old 03-28-2008, 02:37 PM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 16,837
It happens that I just noticed a deletion half an hour ago.

Very very occasionnaly, I've made very minor modifications to Wikipedia articles (like correcting a faulty translation or similar stuff). For some reason, I looked up the articles I had corrected. One of them was an article about a small french village whose only claim to fame is the attribution of an Ignobel prize to a scout organization whose members had damaged prehistoric cave paintings there.


All references to the scouts damaging the paintings had been removed (even though the Ignobel prize was the only reason why the article had been created), with the mention "removed unsourced scout reference". I looked up, and noticed that the corrector was apparently mostly (or only) writing articles about the scouts.


I wasn't particularily pissed off but I couldnt help thinking that it was deleted only because it painted negatively a scout organization.


That said, this is unavoidable, given the nature of Wikipedia.
Old 03-28-2008, 03:05 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In a Desert State
Posts: 2,125
I asked a Wikipedia admin about this. Here was the response:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia Admin
In this case, the article was deleted by an overzealous admin (a different admin than the one I contacted, obviously - SC). It's been restored: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft_family

The article needs better citations to reputable publications (not a freewebs genealogical site) or it will get attacked again -- if they (meaning youse guys - SC) have any books or journal articles about the lineage to add, that'd be great.

Last edited by SisterCoyote; 03-28-2008 at 03:06 PM. Reason: can't code. clown will eat me.
Old 03-28-2008, 03:14 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 10,483
blatant hijack

Nothing to add, I just wanted to say that SisterCoyote's reason for editing is pure gold.
Old 03-28-2008, 03:15 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In a Desert State
Posts: 2,125
Why, thank you.
Old 03-28-2008, 04:28 PM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 7,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by SisterCoyote
I asked a Wikipedia admin about this. Here was the response:
Great response trom Wikipedia! I had a feeling that hard deletion is very rare, if it's an error then the text would be irrecoverable.

And to err is human ..............
Old 03-28-2008, 04:39 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 32,888
SisterCoyote, that is absolutely amazing! I never once thought that my grousing here would actually result in something.

(Now I wish I had been complaining about something important. Can I put you through to my mortgage broker? )

Last edited by Acsenray; 03-28-2008 at 04:40 PM.
Old 03-28-2008, 04:54 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 75,215
As long as were on the subject of senseless deletions, can anyone tell me why the people pages were deleted? There used to be a simple alphabetical listing (along with their nationality, professions, and years they were alive) of all of the people who had biographical articles about them with links to the articles. It was a handy resource when you weren't sure of a person's exact name - as long as you had an approximate spelling of their last name, you could look them up.

As far as I can tell, all of these pages have been deleted. What possible reason did the termites give for that? Did they decide an index was too uncyclopediac? Too biocentric? Did they figure that the index was only 95% complete and it made more sense to delete it rather than complete it? Or did seeing a list of people who were more famous than them fill them with a senseless rage over society's refusal to acknowledge than the universe revolved around them?
Old 03-28-2008, 06:22 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 56,829
http://web.archive.org/web/200609130...ki/Taft_family
Old 03-28-2008, 07:08 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In a Desert State
Posts: 2,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by acsenray
SisterCoyote, that is absolutely amazing! I never once thought that my grousing here would actually result in something.

(Now I wish I had been complaining about something important. Can I put you through to my mortgage broker? )
Trust me on this: I'm the last person you want trying to help you with your finances.
Old 03-28-2008, 07:18 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 4,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldiboronti
Great response trom Wikipedia! I had a feeling that hard deletion is very rare, if it's an error then the text would be irrecoverable.

And to err is human ..............
Deletions are very common, actually. Scores of crap articles are started every day: "Joey P. Alexander" whose main accomplishment is attending Hubert H. Humphrey high school and getting with all the chicks, "Unlimited Technologies, Ltd." which is bringing the problem solving solutions of tomorrow to the consumers of today, and "Sam is a homofag", for some examples.

Outright deletions of established articles are more rare, but do happen from time to time. There's a deletion process that is usually gone through beforehand (and not the "speedy deletion" that was used here).
Old 03-28-2008, 07:26 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In a Desert State
Posts: 2,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo
As long as were on the subject of senseless deletions, can anyone tell me why the people pages were deleted? There used to be a simple alphabetical listing (along with their nationality, professions, and years they were alive) of all of the people who had biographical articles about them with links to the articles. It was a handy resource when you weren't sure of a person's exact name - as long as you had an approximate spelling of their last name, you could look them up.

As far as I can tell, all of these pages have been deleted. What possible reason did the termites give for that? Did they decide an index was too uncyclopediac? Too biocentric? Did they figure that the index was only 95% complete and it made more sense to delete it rather than complete it? Or did seeing a list of people who were more famous than them fill them with a senseless rage over society's refusal to acknowledge than the universe revolved around them?
I asked, but my contact* may not know the answer.

*hee. My contact. I feel all big and important and stuff.
Old 03-28-2008, 07:47 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 42
It seems reasonable to delete an article with absolutely no sources outside of a single web site run by a single person.

Wikipedia has pretty lax policies, but it does have policies. "If no reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

They certainly have the right to enforce their own rules.
Old 03-28-2008, 07:59 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 10,807
Some Wikipedia policies are just dumb. I've contributed a considerable amount to an article on a singer with a four octave range. This is the sort of thing that is tossed around quite freely, to the point that people have claimed that Mariah Carey has a "seven octave range". So I actually verified the singers highest and lowest recorded notes by verifying the frequency of each note. Now I'm arguing the inclusion of this information with the sort of Wiki-Lawyer type who delights in pointing out that this is verboten "original research". Apparently the cause of an encyclopedia is better suited by external, unverified sources rather than proof of facts.
Old 03-28-2008, 08:18 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaffa
Some Wikipedia policies are just dumb. I've contributed a considerable amount to an article on a singer with a four octave range. This is the sort of thing that is tossed around quite freely, to the point that people have claimed that Mariah Carey has a "seven octave range". So I actually verified the singers highest and lowest recorded notes by verifying the frequency of each note. Now I'm arguing the inclusion of this information with the sort of Wiki-Lawyer type who delights in pointing out that this is verboten "original research". Apparently the cause of an encyclopedia is better suited by external, unverified sources rather than proof of facts.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias aren't primary sources. Having primary-source information in it, even if it's true and relevant, goes against the purpose of the site. It would be useful for all gas stations to sell groceries, but that's not the purpose of a gas station.

Wikipedia has a very basic set of rules which they repeat over and over again on almost every "help" page. If you think the rules should be changed, lobby to have the rules changed, but until then, you're breaking them. You're free to start your own site where people publish their own research.
Old 03-28-2008, 08:45 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 10,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by shigyu
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias aren't primary sources. Having primary-source information in it, even if it's true and relevant, goes against the purpose of the site. It would be useful for all gas stations to sell groceries, but that's not the purpose of a gas station.

Wikipedia has a very basic set of rules which they repeat over and over again on almost every "help" page. If you think the rules should be changed, lobby to have the rules changed, but until then, you're breaking them. You're free to start your own site where people publish their own research.
Thanks for completely ignoring the content of my post. You're a shining example of a Wikipedia editor.
Old 03-28-2008, 08:47 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 4,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaffa
Thanks for completely ignoring the content of my post. You're a shining example of a Wikipedia editor.
Your post was about the dumb policy, his was explaining the "dumb policy". How was that ignoring your post? Because he disagreed with your conclusion?

You did the research and you know you're reliable, but *I* don't. I'd rather read that "Scientific American" did a study of octave ranges of popular singers or something than "Yeah so I analyzed it with my computer and they're wrong".
Old 03-28-2008, 08:47 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In a Desert State
Posts: 2,125
Little Nemo, whaddya know. I got an answer!

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Same Wikipedia Admin
Ah yes, the "List of people by name" ..... I'm still annoyed about that deletion myself (I voted against it). I miss my LoPBN. It was hopelessly unmaintainable, with hundreds of new biographies added to the wiki every day, but that wasn't a good enough reason to delete it when they didn't have anything better to replace it with. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...people_by_name from May 07, if you're curious about the arguments that were made.

Search is your best bet for finding people, although a Google site search such as http://google.com/search?q=site%...pedia.org+taft will generally get you better results (and catch more misspellings) than the internal search. (Side note: Suggestion for Firefox users: add a bookmark for http://google.com/search?q=site%...kipedia.org+%s (note the %s at the end), right click on the bookmark to go to properties and add a Keyword (such as "wp"), and then you can search Wikipedia any time using Google by typing "wp whatever" into your Firefox address bar. See http://lifehacker.com/software/geek-...hes-129658.php for more details.)

You can use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex to find "all page titles starting with <letters>", if you know the first name. (Half of why LoPBN was useful, though, is that it indexed by last name.) There are also some tools and starting points at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Biography, but again while the contents of individual categories are alphabetized by last name, there's no category for "people whose last name starts with Mc" -- you have to drill down to, say, Category:Composers and then look in the Ms.

The LoPBN lists were largely the work of one dedicated individual who worked on them every day, with sporadic help from others (including myself) and, as I said, was always woefully behind -- but it was better than nothing, better than it had any right to be, really (like the rest of WP). It was never even close to 95% complete -- my guess is 20% in the early days, and probably slipping further behind as WP grew abruptly in 2006. At the time of its deletion, it was estimated that there were 400,000 biography articles in the wiki, and the list was probably a tenth that size.

There is an extension called Semantic MediaWiki that could be installed in the future, which will make it much easier for WP to automatically generate lists of people, sorted as desired, as well as to find the intersections of categories -- say, Category:Left-handed people and Category:African Americans and Category:Politicians. See http://semantic-mediawiki.org/ for more. More research needs to be done on how much server load the SMW extension would add, though -- Wikipedia's traffic just keeps rising and the hardware/cache infrastructure is struggling to keep up as it is (285,000 page views per minute as of 4 months ago, the most recent stats I can find).

Anyway, regular editors at Wikipedia can be just as frustrated about deletions as readers looking for info. If anyone is really motivated to do anything about it, they'll need to get involved in the wiki -- start editing, get to know the basic guidelines such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars and then start participating in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...s_for_deletion where deletion discussions take place.
And with that, I think I'm done pestering the admin - I'll nag them to get their own account here.
Old 03-28-2008, 09:00 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaffa
Thanks for completely ignoring the content of my post. You're a shining example of a Wikipedia editor.
I completely ignored the content of your post? So my post just coincidentally refuted what you were saying?
Old 03-28-2008, 09:08 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 34,324
I find the "notability" requirements to be capricious and subjective. Some articles are deleted solely on the basis of the personal whims of deletion goons who hang out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and review every nominated article for "notability" based solely on the argument, "I never heard of that before".

What is the point of deleting non-notable articles, anyway? It is a virtual encyclopedia; it cannot become cluttered, because no one sees articles they aren't searching for. What I find notable and interesting may not fit your standard; should it be deleted for that reason alone?

I think the deletion policy is exercised needlessly and far too often.
Old 03-28-2008, 10:14 PM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 10,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by shigyu
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias aren't primary sources. Having primary-source information in it, even if it's true and relevant, goes against the purpose of the site. It would be useful for all gas stations to sell groceries, but that's not the purpose of a gas station.

Wikipedia has a very basic set of rules which they repeat over and over again on almost every "help" page. If you think the rules should be changed, lobby to have the rules changed, but until then, you're breaking them. You're free to start your own site where people publish their own research.
What is the limit of cites out of wonder? Is it anything that looks reasonable? I.E. said I did some hard-hitting original research, could I, say, create a geocities page with all this stuff dumped there and then cite my own page to get around the rule? Or would that citation be considered non-reputable and deleted?
Old 03-28-2008, 10:37 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself
I find the "notability" requirements to be capricious and subjective. Some articles are deleted solely on the basis of the personal whims of deletion goons who hang out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and review every nominated article for "notability" based solely on the argument, "I never heard of that before".
Then they're breaking the rules. Wikipedia has exactly one rule defining notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable" -Wikipedia:Notability. If an admin deletes an article that meets this standard, it should be contested. It's a wiki; if people are breaking the rules, do something about it.

Quote:
What is the point of deleting non-notable articles, anyway? It is a virtual encyclopedia; it cannot become cluttered, because no one sees articles they aren't searching for. What I find notable and interesting may not fit your standard; should it be deleted for that reason alone?
"Interesting" has nothing to do with it. The rule above is fairly objective. If there are multiple reliable sources with information on the subject, it is considered notable and will not be deleted. If there aren't any, then it doesn't belong on the site.

This is really just an extension of the "verifiability" requirement. If a fact does not have a source, it will be removed.* It follows, naturally, that an article consisting entirely of unsourced facts will be removed, since there's nothing left.

"Cluttering" isn't the issue. It's not about quality, it's about quantity. Infinitely many articles are allowed, but they need to be good articles. Wikipedia has defined five criteria that the site revolves around: "Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with external sources, and neutrally presented, with external sources cited." The site has been founded on those five points since day one.

Wikipedia detractors should know that there are many similar sites with their own goals; you can go to one of those. For example, one group didn't like the neutrality requirement, so they did away with that and started Conservapedia. If you and SisterCoyote don't like the "external sources" requirement, start your own site. But don't act like Wikipedia editors are being unfair or irrational; the purpose of Wikipedia is spelled out simply and clearly.


* It's an uphill battle to enforce this, of course, and the majority of articles have at least some unsourced statements "pending" a citation. But in theory all unsourced statements will be removed in the long run.
Old 03-28-2008, 10:42 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 12,140
It is remarkable how important and far-reaching the Tafts are in Oho and US history. Carry on.
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?
Old 03-28-2008, 10:47 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in Saudi
It is remarkable how important and far-reaching the Tafts are in Oho and US history. Carry on.
And all English familiesóBrad Pitt and Barack Obama are supposedly related!
Old 03-28-2008, 10:47 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 75,215
Quote:
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe..._people_by_name from May 07, if you're curious about the arguments that were made.
Wow. That's some sad reading. They really did go for the "it's incomplete" reason.* I wonder how long it will be until somebody nominates the entire Wikipedia for deletion. I fear the termites will win in the end.

*Actually, as with most calls for deletion, the majority of delete votes said they agreed with deletion for whatever the reasons were. I'm sure if I proposed deleting an article because it contained vowels, I'd get a bunch of people to back me on it. If you go to the deletion pages, you'll see people who vote yes to every single deletion proposal.

There was one interesting vote however. One guy said the index should be deleted because it was original research. I'll admit nobody was able to provide an offsite cite to prove him wrong.
Old 03-28-2008, 10:47 PM
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Where the T-Girls Are...
Posts: 15,972
Is anyone else at all bothered by the removals of Trivia sections? I used to love reading the Trivia sections; I thought it was one of the neatest parts of Wikipedia. Now they're either being deleted or they have the "scare message" that the trivia should be incorporated into the article. So then when you do that, someone trims it out because the article is "too long" or something. Oh well...
Old 03-28-2008, 10:56 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jragon
What is the limit of cites out of wonder? Is it anything that looks reasonable? I.E. said I did some hard-hitting original research, could I, say, create a geocities page with all this stuff dumped there and then cite my own page to get around the rule? Or would that citation be considered non-reputable and deleted?
Well, there's two halves to the requirement. The objective half is that an external citation is required (gaffa broke this rule, hence the immediate, uncontestable removal).

The subjective half is that it must be reliable. This, like all subjective debates on Wikipedia, comes down simply to majority consensus. For example, if gaffa published the research on the singer on a geocities page, it would almost certainly be allowed as a reference and added to the article since there's nothing outrageous about it (and sounded well thought-out the way gaffa described it). But it would depend on the other editors' agreement. If someone thought gaffa was full of crap, they'd start a debate on the article's "talk" page and take a straw poll to see whether it was an acceptable conclusion.

If you started a competing geocities page with nothing more than "OPRAH WINFREY IS A TRANSEXUAL" in bold letters, editors would probably not accept it as a reference.
Old 03-28-2008, 10:57 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by shigyu
It's not about quality, it's about quantity.
Old 03-28-2008, 11:00 PM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 10,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Una Persson
Is anyone else at all bothered by the removals of Trivia sections? I used to love reading the Trivia sections; I thought it was one of the neatest parts of Wikipedia. Now they're either being deleted or they have the "scare message" that the trivia should be incorporated into the article. So then when you do that, someone trims it out because the article is "too long" or something. Oh well...
I agree, I also dislike how "references in popular culture" are considered trivia sections, they have their own flavour that really polish the article and add to it in a way that can't be accomplished by integrating it into the body oftentimes.
Old 03-28-2008, 11:11 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Una Persson
Is anyone else at all bothered by the removals of Trivia sections? I used to love reading the Trivia sections; I thought it was one of the neatest parts of Wikipedia. Now they're either being deleted or they have the "scare message" that the trivia should be incorporated into the article. So then when you do that, someone trims it out because the article is "too long" or something. Oh well...
Absolutely. I don't see the value in removing information as a style decision.
Old 03-29-2008, 08:58 AM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Una Persson
Is anyone else at all bothered by the removals of Trivia sections? I used to love reading the Trivia sections; I thought it was one of the neatest parts of Wikipedia. Now they're either being deleted or they have the "scare message" that the trivia should be incorporated into the article. So then when you do that, someone trims it out because the article is "too long" or something. Oh well...
I've been involved in some pretty heated discussions about whether or not firearm appearances in movies should be noted in a WP article. I say they should be- within reason (for example, a WWII film is obviously going to have people with Lee-Enfields, M1 Garands, and K98 Mausers, so there's no need to mention them in the relevant rifle's article).

Trivia is very interesting, and one of the things I used to love finding in Wikipedia. The current crusade to rid articles of them is regrettable, IMHO, and I hope they reverse the policy eventually.
__________________
Note: Please consider yourself and/or your acquaintances excluded from any of the author's sweeping generalisations which you happen to disagree with or have different experiences of.
Old 03-29-2008, 11:55 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 75,215
Quote:
Is anyone else at all bothered by the removals of Trivia sections? I used to love reading the Trivia sections; I thought it was one of the neatest parts of Wikipedia. Now they're either being deleted or they have the "scare message" that the trivia should be incorporated into the article. So then when you do that, someone trims it out because the article is "too long" or something. Oh well...
Exactly. The termites just want to delete things - reasons are not important. A few years back, the termites went into a tizzy about list pages. They decided that list pages were somehow wrong. They didn't actually violate any established rules, but they offended the termites just by existing. So the termites invented a new rule that list pages weren't allowed and started a crusade to delete them. The admins caved in and created the category system as an alternative.

To nobody's surprise, within six months the termites were complaining about the categories and claiming they should be deleted.
Old 03-29-2008, 12:43 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Madison WI
Posts: 22,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Una Persson
Is anyone else at all bothered by the removals of Trivia sections?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jragon
I agree, I also dislike how "references in popular culture" are considered trivia sections, they have their own flavour that really polish the article and add to it in a way that can't be accomplished by integrating it into the body oftentimes.
This discussion has been had here a few times previously. The problem with "trivia" and "in popular culture" sections and articles is that they routinely grow out of control from editors adding every time a thing is seen or mentioned in a movie or TV show. It doesn't add anything encyclopedic to put that Chandler said "doorknob" on Friends or whatever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo
Exactly. The termites just want to delete things - reasons are not important. A few years back, the termites went into a tizzy about list pages. They decided that list pages were somehow wrong. They didn't actually violate any established rules, but they offended the termites just by existing. So the termites invented a new rule that list pages weren't allowed and started a crusade to delete them.
There are 446,819 list articles on Wikipedia at the moment. There is no rule against list articles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo
The admins caved in and created the category system as an alternative.

To nobody's surprise, within six months the termites were complaining about the categories and claiming they should be deleted.
Can you possibly link to the discussion in which it was advocated that all categories be deleted?

Last edited by Otto; 03-29-2008 at 12:44 PM.
Old 03-29-2008, 01:15 PM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 10,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto
This discussion has been had here a few times previously. The problem with "trivia" and "in popular culture" sections and articles is that they routinely grow out of control from editors adding every time a thing is seen or mentioned in a movie or TV show. It doesn't add anything encyclopedic to put that Chandler said "doorknob" on Friends or whatever.
And that gets out of hand, I agree. But wouldn't a better solution be to have editors use discretion when putting up and equal discretion when taking out points ("this is a little too unimpressive, sorry") rather than doing away with the sections altogether? When you have an encyclopedia with the potential number of editors equal to the number of people that have access to the internet it's not really nescessary to cut corners to avoid complications like unimpressive bullet points when the editors can duke it out.

Last edited by Jragon; 03-29-2008 at 01:16 PM.
Old 03-29-2008, 01:27 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 32,888
Look how far removed we are from Wikipedia and see how much tension is arising. I used to be more involved in Wikipedia than I am now, but I've made a decision to reduce my involvement because really, the principal consequence of "getting involved" in Wikipedia is aggravation. It's simply not worth it to wade into battles over content.

Here you have a cabal of Wikipedia editors dedicated to deleting whatever category of article is currently bugging them. How many times can one go up against this?

Here you have a cabal of Wikipedia editors who are really into Tolkien and are going to vigorously defend a minute word-for-word documentation of everything Tolkien ever wrote about. So all that Tolkien stuff is going to stay in.

And, face it, when a person goes through the time and effort to write an article or to research sources or whatever, he or she is going to have some emotional attachment to it. That's natural. Personally, I like it when someone takes an article and improves it and expands it. But if there's a danger of the hatchet coming down in the form of aggressive deletion monkeys, then why should I put my time and mental equanimity on the line? I'm a professional writer and editor. I get paid to do this stuff. I'm less willing to write and edit articles on a voluntary basis when those contributions aren't welcome.

So, I don't see it as worth my while to try to jump through the hoops to save this one article that I occasionally find useful to look at. Instead, I'm going to download it to my computer so when I want to look it up, I'll have it. I appreciate the effort you've taken, SisterCoyote, in recovering that information, and now that I have it, I'm going to keep it. But I'm not going to put forth any significant effort in what I think I'm justified in believing will be an ultimately futile attempt to save the page from further "attacks" as the Wikipedia admin put it.
Old 03-29-2008, 02:18 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Gallatin, TN
Posts: 21,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur
It happens that I just noticed a deletion half an hour ago.

Very very occasionnaly, I've made very minor modifications to Wikipedia articles (like correcting a faulty translation or similar stuff). For some reason, I looked up the articles I had corrected. One of them was an article about a small french village whose only claim to fame is the attribution of an Ignobel prize to a scout organization whose members had damaged prehistoric cave paintings there.


All references to the scouts damaging the paintings had been removed (even though the Ignobel prize was the only reason why the article had been created), with the mention "removed unsourced scout reference". I looked up, and noticed that the corrector was apparently mostly (or only) writing articles about the scouts.


I wasn't particularily pissed off but I couldnt help thinking that it was deleted only because it painted negatively a scout organization.
And, yet, if we don't remember our past FUBARs, we're doomed to repeat them. Some months ago, the Scouts stumbled across some previously unknown rock paintings in Utah, IIRC, they very carefully erased all evidence of their presence (so as not to encourage passersby from looking), wrote down the GPS coordinates of where the paintings, and then gave the information to archeologists. I can't help but think that the mistakes at Lascaux influenced their actions.
Old 03-29-2008, 04:23 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 37
You might recover the old page with Google by clicking on "cached" links.
Old 04-07-2008, 01:41 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 9,335
Mind if I bump this still somewhat fresh thread?

I'm finding myself caught up in some deletion wars as of late. Since 1994, I've been running a Web site that is considered authoritative in its field; it's not some insignificant fly-by-night Geocities page or commercial site.

ALL of the links to my site from related articles were deleted by some administrator, as spam. I'll admit I added a couple, but like I said, it's not as if I'm running some obscure or for-profit site; my site comes up second or third in a Google search for the profession's name.m Meanwhile, links to a rival commercial site, many of which were added by the owner of that site, remain intact. Why aren't they deleted? The response from the administrator was akin to "we're talking about you, not them." They also accused me of posting only links to my site, when it wasn't the case.

All of this has soured me on the Wikipedia experience. No credit for editing pages over the past few years, just accusations of being a spammer.

Last edited by elmwood; 04-07-2008 at 01:42 PM.
Old 04-07-2008, 01:48 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Madison WI
Posts: 22,505
There are processes in place, including arbitration, where if you're really cheesed about this you can bring it to the attention of the community. I haven't been involved in this sort of dispute but if you post {{helpme}} to your talk page and a request for advice on how to try to resolve the dispute, someone more knowledgable about the procedure can point you in the right direction.
Old 04-07-2008, 01:59 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Madison WI
Posts: 22,505
Missed the edit window, but I think that the Administrators' noticeboard/incidents is the place to start.
Old 04-07-2008, 02:03 PM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: O-K-L-A-H-O-M-A
Posts: 2,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuckerfan
And, yet, if we don't remember our past FUBARs, we're doomed to repeat them. Some months ago, the Scouts stumbled across some previously unknown rock paintings in Utah, IIRC, they very carefully erased all evidence of their presence (so as not to encourage passersby from looking), wrote down the GPS coordinates of where the paintings, and then gave the information to archeologists. I can't help but think that the mistakes at Lascaux influenced their actions.
(Emphasis mine)


Gee! I didn't realize that "leave no trace" included those previously left by ancient civilizations!


Last edited by Darth Sensitive; 04-07-2008 at 02:04 PM.
Old 04-08-2008, 02:22 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 75,215
Quote:
There are processes in place, including arbitration, where if you're really cheesed about this you can bring it to the attention of the community. I haven't been involved in this sort of dispute but if you post {{helpme}} to your talk page and a request for advice on how to try to resolve the dispute, someone more knowledgable about the procedure can point you in the right direction.
But a process like this is long and complicated. The problem is that deleters find it easy to just keep hitting over and over again. I once likened it to a race between people trying to build houses and people trying to destroy houses. It takes months of skilled labor by dozens of people to build a single house. But one idiot with a book of matches can burn down twenty houses in a single hour.
Old 04-08-2008, 02:44 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Madison WI
Posts: 22,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo
But a process like this is long and complicated. The problem is that deleters find it easy to just keep hitting over and over again. I once likened it to a race between people trying to build houses and people trying to destroy houses. It takes months of skilled labor by dozens of people to build a single house. But one idiot with a book of matches can burn down twenty houses in a single hour.
I was speaking of the specific case under discussion, which was that a single admin went in and (probably bot-assisted) deleted all of elmwood's links as spam. Since it's a conflict between a single editor and a single admin, it can probably be resolved fairly quickly and the admin, if found to be in error, can restore the links.
Old 04-08-2008, 03:40 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Wikipedia is still a valuable resource when it's done right.
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:58 AM.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: [email protected]

Send comments about this website to:

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: [email protected].

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: zsalynn divorce heroine pronunciation watney party seven tipping contractors tunguska blast drink jaw feels misaligned sneeze smell jew sideburns yoda fight aliyah schimmel onna japanese meaning blockbuster origin cyanide sale middle east techno slang for vacation rubber suit fetish sopressata vs pepperoni breastmilk cheese number one pencil ac working intermittently surgical matricectomy female cuckhold savory taste definition mulan's mom ray jessel death deviled definition cigarette man dress unifrom horned creatures six legged animal 190 cc hp how to get a cat out of a tree does enterprise charge for miles where to find typewriter ham bad for dogs white trash last names how did apollo die how to break a cast iron tub tonsils bleeding from tonsil stones in the pipe 555 what is a teener acid orange juice story lighting farts on fire mythbusters how do you pronounce padraig how high can you dive into water without dying leftover pork chop recipe 167 minutes to hours song about leaving home hitting a parked car dmv eye chart cheat sheet does alcohol affect serotonin levels meaning of ra's al ghul im coughing alot and my chest hurts t zone vibration machine reviews and the horse you rode in on origin states that end in ia best cheap haircut near me sanford and son filming location amazon prime didn't arrive in two days can you ban someone from a funeral goobers and raisinets 1971 jingle franklin electric well pump control box troubleshooting audi a4 ecu chip