Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

English Wikipedia Reaches 3 Million Articles

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the next-version-will-have-140-char-limit dept.

The Internet 192

FunPika writes "It has taken more than eight years and the work of vast numbers of people around the world, but the English version of Wikipedia has finally amassed more than three million articles. The site broke through the 3 million barrier early on Monday morning UK time, with the honors taken by a short article about Norwegian actor Beate Eriksen — a 48-year-old cast member of a popular local soap opera."

cancel ×

192 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Rob Malda fucks 3 million dicks (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29094409)

I have it on film if you want to see it.

And then it was proptly deleted (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29094417)

The site broke through the 3 million barrier, with the honors taken by a short article about Norwegian actor Beate Eriksen

And then the Wiki editors quickly deleted this article for being not important enough.

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (5, Funny)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 5 years ago | (#29094495)

Fun from the talk page. A Wiki language geek "honored" the article by translating it into Anglo-Saxon for the Anglo-Saxon language version of Wikipedia. Because if there's one language that Wikipedia needs to be translated in, it's one that no one actually speaks anymore. http://ang.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beate_Eriksen [wikipedia.org]

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29095007)

Fun from the talk page. A Wiki language geek "honored" the article by translating it into Anglo-Saxon for the Anglo-Saxon language version of Wikipedia. Because if there's one language that Wikipedia needs to be translated in, it's one that no one actually speaks anymore. http://ang.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beate_Eriksen [wikipedia.org]

Just be glad they didn't make an Ebonics version. Maybe one day, that'll also be a (low-class bastardization of a) language "that no one actually speaks anymore." We can only hope, for that would go a long way towards eliminating this "being a self-destructive asshole is cool" message behind the whole thug-glorification deal.

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29095479)

You realize Ebonics has its own grammar and established vocabulary? Rap music has the latest slang, since Ebonics has slang like any language, but that isn't all that Ebonics is.

Not that I have a problem that we standardize on en-us and en-uk for written communication. Doesn't give you an excuse for being an asshole yourself though.

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (3, Insightful)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095965)

Ebonics has its own grammar and established vocabulary?

So do Klingon and Elvish

Ebonics, etc (2, Insightful)

Nerdposeur (910128) | more than 5 years ago | (#29096647)

True, but I would argue that Ebonics is a more valid and complete language/dialect, being that it arose naturally.

For those who haven't studied linguistics, yes, every dialect has its own grammatical rules. Those who speak a dialect learn the rules by example rather than from books - the same way you know (if you're a native English speaker) that "the big red ball" is correct and "the red big ball" is incorrect. Nobody taught you that. Most of the rules of language, in fact, are embedded in your brain before you ever go to school - how else could you talk?

In the same way, dialects like Ebonics have rules that insiders know without learning them from a book. Those people can understand each other, so it's perfectly valid language. And just like say, Spanish evolved from "backwoods" Latin, Ebonics could conceivably become an independent language.

Yes, anybody who wants to succeed in business needs to be able to speak and write "standard" English (the one used in Universities and businesses) to make a good impression and communicate with people of varying races and backgrounds. But there's nothing wrong with using Ebonics, or any other "uneducated" dialect, among friends.

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29096761)

Yeah, I'd like to see an Elvish wikipedia ;-) That would be cool...

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29095645)

You know what else is stupid? All your hobbies.

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 5 years ago | (#29096959)

A Wiki language geek "honored" the article by translating it into Anglo-Saxon for the Anglo-Saxon language version of Wikipedia.

I love the fact that there's an article on the Atari Jaguar [wikipedia.org] written in Anglo Saxon. (^_^)

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (5, Insightful)

NeoSkink (737843) | more than 5 years ago | (#29094871)

Which brings up the next obvious question: Will the next milestone be 4 million articles, or 2 million articles!

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (2, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095115)

Although amusing to ponder, I don't think there's any real question. The deletionist controversy has only ever been over edge cases, some of them high profile, but always swamped by the huge numbers of new articles that nobody's attempted to delete. Even if deletionists won on some really major class of article---delete all Pokemon characters, maybe---it'd at best be only a blip in the time v. # of articles graph.

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (1)

johannesg (664142) | more than 5 years ago | (#29096291)

I have felt for a long time that Wikipedia really needs to be split into two: one dealing with things that are at least nominally real, and one dealing with expressions of culture (which would include all articles that start with "this article is about a fictional ..."). That last one could contain all the Pokemon characters, X-files plot synopses, and Star Trek star ships humanity could think of, while the first could act as an actual encyclopedia.

Mind, I'm not saying to just delete all the fictional stuff, I love being able to look up the dimensions and mileage of the Enterprise-E. Just stop mixing it in with the real knowledge.

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29096527)

Your views on "real knowledge" hints towards fascism.

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (2, Interesting)

invalid_user (253723) | more than 5 years ago | (#29096569)

I totally agree.

I personally would also like to separate out all the entries regarding contemporary entertainment (movie makers, actors, actresses, pop music, cartoons/anime, video games), from things of real concerns... but that is of secondary importance.

The fictional stuffs which currently plagues Wiki, however, is a real threat, because it makes pseudo-achievement looks equal to real achievement. Actually doing science is much harder, and much less glamorous than making a sci-fi movie. If both are given equal honor I think people will become less and less prone to doing the former.

Or maybe I worry too much...

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (2, Funny)

xaxa (988988) | more than 5 years ago | (#29096679)

What's the problem with the extra articles? They don't interfere with the "real" ones (whichever those are), and the category system serves to, well... categorise them. I've never come across an article on Pokemon, X-files or Star Trek, but if I needed some information on them I'd know where to look^W^W^W^Wkill myself.

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29096967)

> They don't interfere with the "real" ones

Actually they do. wiki editors are fighting constantly against popular culture trivia and asperger teens who think the events of star wars comic books actually happened.

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (2, Insightful)

linhares (1241614) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095843)

Which brings up the next obvious question: Will the next milestone be 4 million articles, or 2 million articles!

Actually, you're pointing out a serious flaw in wikipedia. I believe it's possible [ycombinator.com] that a fork of wikipedia might make to wikipedia what it did to Britannica. Think about this:

Deletionists have a mindset from those pre-web days; an article about paper cutters might very well have been deleted on Sept 10th 2001. If the article you're thinking is on another encyclopedia, then that's no good for your encyclopedia.

Also, I've never seen anybody in Academia or Business use wikipedia as a source (this of course is no surprise to anyone). But THE POINT is: if your encyclopedia is NOT a "reliable source"; then WTF is wrong with your encyclopedia?

I think at least these two obstacles prevent a major challenge for wikipedia to sustain itself in face of challengers. I don't know if wikipedia is sustainable as it is today. Oh, and google is craving to place ads in the web's encyclopedia, by the way.

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (2, Insightful)

dedazo (737510) | more than 5 years ago | (#29096327)

But THE POINT is: if your encyclopedia is NOT a "reliable source"; then WTF is wrong with your encyclopedia?

Wikipedia is the largest organized compendium of popular culture in the history of the human race. It has some encyclopedic content, and happens to be massively cross-referenced, so some people call it an "encyclopedia".

I like Wikipedia. I read it sometimes when I'm bored. It is undoubtedly valuable in many ways. But it's not an encyclopedia by any stretch of the imagination. A culture that shuns subject matter experts and at the same time pretends to inform me about said subjects may be entertaining, but never trustworthy.

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (5, Insightful)

I.M.O.G. (811163) | more than 5 years ago | (#29097023)

A culture that shuns subject matter experts and at the same time pretends to inform me about said subjects may be entertaining, but never trustworthy.

This implies wikipedia shuns subject matter experts. This is a popularly circulated stance which has no grounding in fact. They happily accept material from subject matter experts, they just require that the subject matter experts reference their published material which shows them as subject matter experts.

If someone speaks as an authority on a topic in wikipedia, I should be able to refer to the sources they cite in order to determine how much weight I place in the statements I read. I do not want to go to Wikipedia and read un-cited "expert testimony" from the internet. It is both reasonable and wise to expect that any subject matter expert should be able to provide reference of published work.

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29096927)

if your encyclopedia is NOT a "reliable source"; then WTF is wrong with your encyclopedia?

Possibly nothing. You might be describing a quality of the encyclopedia, or you might be describing a quality of those who define what a "reliable source" is. "Reliable source" is a jargon term within a specialized field of interest. It has nothing to do with something's reliability in the eyes of laymen.

BTW, I think you're talking about academia. If you don't think wikipedia is a source in business, you're crazy.

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29097097)

never seen a yearly corporate report citing wikipedia? Can you provide one link?

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#29094919)

And then the Wiki editors quickly deleted this article for being not important enough.

Anybody else find it ironic that the site that has descriptions of objects like the lightsaber [wikipedia.org] and "events" like Battle of the Line [wikipedia.org] deletes articles about actual people and/or places because they aren't noteworthy?

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (2, Informative)

Nihixul (1430251) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095221)

Your point is well-taken, but a subject's noteworthiness does not depend so much upon its literal existence in the real world.

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (0, Flamebait)

linhares (1241614) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095877)

subject's noteworthiness does not depend so much upon its literal existence in the real world.

Hi Nihixul, long time no see. So, are the meds working? Are the voices gone?

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29096065)

like the holocaust, something else that didn't happen?

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (1)

SilverEyes (822768) | more than 5 years ago | (#29096121)

I'm pretty sure the holocaust has its own article... or are you just trolling?

Notability defined (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095231)

Anybody else find it ironic that the site that has descriptions of objects like the lightsaber [wikipedia.org] and "events" like Battle of the Line [wikipedia.org] deletes articles about actual people and/or places because they aren't noteworthy?

Not especially. Wikipedia defines notability [wikipedia.org] as "several different reliable sources have written about it", irrespective of whether the subject exists in the real world or only in fiction. The best-known melee weapon from the Star Wars films certainly qualifies.

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (1)

Ruud Koot (1215742) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095279)

Anybody else find it ironic that the site that has descriptions of objects like the lightsaber [wikipedia.org] and "events" like Battle of the Line [wikipedia.org] deletes articles about actual people and/or places because they aren't noteworthy?

Well, Lightsaber has over 50 000 [stats.grok.se] page views per month and the Battle of the Line received over 5000 [stats.grok.se] in July. So one could objectively argue that they have more reason to be included than an entry on a non-fictional person, such as Francis Holburne [stats.grok.se] .

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29095813)

Well, Francis Holburne just got slashdotted, so he's probably more noteworthy now.

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (1)

linhares (1241614) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095913)

Well, Francis Holburne just got slashdotted, so he's probably more noteworthy now.

not in a good way

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (3, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095407)

I see no irony here. The light saber is iconic, and therefore noteworthy. Babylon Five is noteworthy to the wikipedia editors (and probably most slashdotters). Most people and places aren't. Springfield probably wouldn't be noteworthy had Lincoln not spent most of his life here; it almost certainly wouldn't have become the state capital.

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29095491)

Lightsabers have made more money, consumed more time, and are known by millions more people than you ever will be. It's not hard to imagine the same might be true of others.

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (5, Funny)

A. B3ttik (1344591) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095555)

What's even funnier is comparing the relative lengths of related articles:

For instance:

Pokemon [wikipedia.org] compared to Animal [wikipedia.org]
Wizard [wikipedia.org] compared to Scientist [wikipedia.org]
Afghan Civil War [wikipedia.org] compared to Marvel Civil War [wikipedia.org]
Emperor Palpatine [wikipedia.org] compared to Emperor Charles IV [wikipedia.org]
Klingon Language [wikipedia.org] compared to Mandarin Chinese [wikipedia.org]

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29095857)

Yeah, who would have thought that articles written entirely for recreation might have recreational themes.

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29096451)

Yeah, who would have thought that articles written entirely for recreation might have recreational themes.

Agreed, but don't claim the thing is an actual encyclopedia.

Wikipedia Is At It's Best (1)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 5 years ago | (#29096581)

...when it's Geekipedia. You're insane if you consult Wikipedia for any real-world event -- especially a one that happened in recent memory or is still unfolding -- but there's no better one-stop for an overview of the 4th season of Buffy or Lightsaber faux-physics. So... count your blessings. Hopefully the site will morph from an omnipedia of spurious repute to a Pop Culture bible that's the final word on the stuff it does well.

Holding out for the 30 millionth article... (4, Funny)

Lev13than (581686) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095029)

Congratulations to Wikipedia for celebrating this historic ***ERIC IS A FAG*** [theonion.com] milestone, only 750 years in the making!

Re:And then it was proptly deleted (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 5 years ago | (#29096323)

What I both love and hate about Wikipedia is how any article about sex or sex acts, even when only a paragraph long will have several gratuitous photos. Some even feature the best illustrations I've seen anywhere else on Wikipedia. But go search on some fascinating topic, where you'd expect a ton of images and you'll find a several page long article with no photos and perhaps a chart if you're lucky.

And that's... (5, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 5 years ago | (#29094499)

And for those of you keeping track, that's roughly 50,000 non-Manga/anime/Simpson's related articles.

Re:And that's... (4, Funny)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#29094771)

[citation needed] [wikia.com]

Re:And that's... (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 5 years ago | (#29094837)

See this Article [wikipedia.org]

Re:And that's... (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095533)

And for you, dear sir, there is this [merriam-webster.com]

Re:And that's... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29095585)

[citation needed] [wikia.com]

Here you go:

[1] ^ [slashdot.org] MyLongNickName (2009). And that's.... Slashdot. CID 29094499.

Re:And that's... (2, Insightful)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 5 years ago | (#29094847)

And 5 million reverts.

Re:And that's... (4, Insightful)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 5 years ago | (#29094933)

Spot on.

When you have some time to kill, just keep clicking the "Random Article" link. By gum lad, there's some shite on that there Wikipedia.

I edited once, my own village's page FFS, some of the dross on there was laughable, and obviously cribbed from some online tourist agency. After I corrected some blatant rubbish, some uber-tosser later reverted the edits, because apparently it was not a "NPOV".

What's that all about?

Re:And that's... (2, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095309)

When you have some time to kill, just keep clicking the "Random Article" link. By gum lad, there's some shite on that there Wikipedia.

First random article: Thomas Fitzherbert [wikipedia.org] , an English Jesuit. Born in the 16th century, lived to be 88 years old. That's pretty impressive for those days.
Second random article: Chhota Saula [wikipedia.org] , a village in Bangladesh.
Third random article: Some mafia dude named James Emma [wikipedia.org] . How do you shake someone down for protection money with a name like Emma???
Fourth random article: Shri Devi [wikipedia.org] , navigation page for a Hindi and Buddhist deity.
Fifth random article: Dan Nicolae Potra [wikipedia.org] , some Romanian gymnast dude.

And my attempt at a sixth one timed out. Guess Wikipedia is bogging down today. Kind of surprised I didn't get any garbage to be honest with you. Maybe the pseudorandom number generator gods are smiling upon me today?

I edited once, my own village's page FFS, some of the dross on there was laughable, and obviously cribbed from some online tourist agency. After I corrected some blatant rubbish, some uber-tosser later reverted the edits, because apparently it was not a "NPOV".

I edited the homepage for my city with a population of "50,000" to include information above and beyond the generic census data that every township as and they were reverted as not being "noteworthy". Gotta love it! On the flip side, if I ever need a summary of every single Babylon 5 episode, I know where to go.....

Re:And that's... (2, Interesting)

savanik (1090193) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095525)

  • Stub about BocaiÃva, a region in Brazil.
  • Stub about The Gaucho, a movie I've never heard of.
  • Stub about Moorkkanad, a village in India
  • Stub about GrÃ¥kallen, a mountain in Norway somewhere.
  • Stub about Canfield Casino and Congress Park, New York
  • Stub about Sport Mastermind, a quiz show from BBC.

So here's to the three millionth stub - congratulations, everybody! Somebody let me know when Wikipedia takes 'notability' seriously.

Re:And that's... (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 5 years ago | (#29096889)

Surely a stub is better than nothing?

We had a game: take two random non-stub articles (I'll use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Fitzherbert [wikipedia.org] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Emma [wikipedia.org] from the GP). Find the minimum number of pages that link them (you have to be able to click links from one to get to the other)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Emma [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish-American [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool,_England [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcastle_upon_Tyne [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcastle_Cathedral [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Hammond_(minister) [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Collins_(theologian) [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Fitzherbert [wikipedia.org]

Eventually, someone downloaded Wikipedia and wrote a program to solve it.

(I read too much Wikipedia. I read it if I'm bored at work, then later say things like, "actually, the £ symbol is shaped like an L, for the latin "librum" meaning 'pound'". People think this is strange.)

Re:And that's... (4, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095333)

I had the same experience trying to add up to date informaton in 2006. I needed cataract surgery, so the first place I went to satisfy my curiosity about it was wikipedia. My surgeon had told me about a new type of implant, an accomodating (ficusing) lens which wasn't mentioned in the article. I think my edits were erased in onl;y a few hours; they didn't even bother doing a google search. I tried to update it several time, without success. I stopped editing wikipedia then; it's a futile effort.

Interestingly, I mentioned that in a slashdot comment, and the accomodating IOL was added that day, and stayed.

It's come a long way (1, Interesting)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 5 years ago | (#29094517)

Wow. Maybe I'm getting old, but I remember when "Wikipedia" was James Wales's Geocities page where he exhaustively listed his favorite episodes of The Simpsons. Then he wanted his friends to be able to contribute their knowledge, but Geocities did not allow CGI scripts. So with a generous grant from the National Endowment for Democracy and the Carnegie institute for International Peace, he started "Wikki-Web," a fan-site for FOX network cartoons. The scope later broadened to topics as diverse as astrophysics and science dogs, and the name changed to "WIKIPEDIA." The rest, as they say, was history...

Re:It's come a long way (4, Informative)

Ex-Linux-Fanboy (1311235) | more than 5 years ago | (#29094931)

[citation needed] [wikipedia.org]

Seriously, mods, please check to see if stuff like this is real by checking out sources [wikipedia.org] before modding posts up.

Re:It's come a long way (1, Insightful)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095451)

If you were a serious researcher, you would not take Wiki, Inc.'s PR "history" as good coin. Learn to research independent sources before you jump to conclusions based on a cursory Google search! Jeez, kids these days... have they ever been in a library?

Re:It's come a long way (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095629)

Yes, We kids these days have been to libraries, because the library has faster internet than some of our homes.

Re:It's come a long way (1)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095659)

Seriously, mods, please check to see if stuff like this is real by checking out sources [wikipedia.org] before modding posts up.

Check sources, require citations? What do you think this is, Wikipedia?

Re:It's come a long way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29095731)

There.

Just changed Wikipedia to reflect the author's post, and used it as a confirmed source.

Re:It's come a long way (1)

fuzzlost (871011) | more than 5 years ago | (#29096359)

[citation needed] [wikipedia.org]

Seriously, mods, please check to see if stuff like this is real by checking out sources [wikipedia.org] before modding posts up.

Are you kidding? The editors don't even check sources

Re:It's come a long way (5, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095059)

Lest anyone be confused:

1. WikiWikiWeb [wikipedia.org] was founded by Ward Cunningham, not Jimmy Wales; and focused on cataloguing software patterns, not Simpsons episodes.

2. The direct precursor to Wikipedia was MeatballWiki [wikipedia.org] , a wiki based on a new wiki engine, UseModWiki (which Wikipedia would adopt for its initial period), and focused on online culture.

3. Wikipedia was formed as a side project of Nupedia [wikipedia.org] , an attempt to produce an open-content encyclopedia along more traditional lines (get volunteer writers, editors, a review process, have professors submit draft manuscripts, attach author names---usually a single author---to articles, etc.). The idea was that Wikipedia could be used as work space where people collected and organized the information, making it easier to write Nupedia articles. It never really cracked up that way, as the workspace itself quickly became a lot better encyclopedia than Nupedia ever was.

Re:It's come a long way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29095325)

There is a very successful peer reviewed (scientific) website called Scholarpedia (http://www.scholarpedia.org/ [scholarpedia.org] ) which I tend to trust over wikipedia.

Re:It's come a long way (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 5 years ago | (#29096117)

I'm going to go with *WHOOSH*

Re:It's come a long way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29097069)

And your humorless wikipedia sperglord reply was exactly what he was looking for.

Score 5: YHBT

Re:It's come a long way (2, Informative)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095119)

I am not sure whether to despise or marvel at above poster. He consistenly posts drivel yet gets modded up just as consistently. I have read several of his posts where he puts together lengthy words that mean absolutely nothing when put beside each other. Yet, despite being utter non-sense (far beyond an argument that makes no sense, really, truly nonsensical) he gets modded up to +4 and +5.

See this post, which at one time made it to +5 Insightful: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1335281&cid=29052559&art_pos=4 [slashdot.org] . Then go through the rest of his posting history.

Much like a train wreck, I can't take my eyes off of these posts and the ensuing up mods. I think I have answered my own question. This man is a troll. But a damn good one.

And Slashdot should run a query and find anyone who has modded him up. Then they should not only ban these people from modding, but from visiting Slashdot at all.

Re:It's come a long way (1)

anonymousNR (1254032) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095787)

As "an Idiot" who just modded him up before I ran into the next comment(so is the reason for my reply to cancel my mods on this post)
I think banning people who modded him up is a little too extreme, because there might be some who would have done that like me, without verifying sources and who are new to /. in being a mod.
And may be ignoring him also is a good option than "hunting him down".

Re:It's come a long way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29096461)

I think banning people who modded him up is a little too extreme, because there might be some who would have done that like me, without verifying sources and who are new to /. in being a mod.

Lots of people can be new to a thing without being a n00b. You apparently are not one of those.

Besides, familiarity with the Slashdot moderation system is not a requirement for realizing that maybe you should know something about a post before you decide to either promote it or demote it. You might not know anything about writing articles or publishing them in a magazine, but none of that is necessary to figure out that if you are going to write a review about a movie, you should watch the movie first. QED.

And yes, I am trolling you.

Re:It's come a long way (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 5 years ago | (#29096455)

I'm not sure I've ever seen a joke go so quickly over someone's head. Are you from Vulcan?

Re:It's come a long way (3, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 5 years ago | (#29096597)

Have you gone through his posting history? Seriously, read my entire post instead of just one sentence. I tell you, this man is brilliant.

The "3 million barrier" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29094529)

So... this "3 million barrier" the summary mentions... I think I'm going to have to ask for a citation please.
Sounds like an arbitrary number to me...

Re:The "3 million barrier" (2, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#29094719)

You could count them, but that would be original research.

Re:The "3 million barrier" (4, Funny)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 5 years ago | (#29094747)

And no, you can't go to Wikipedia and count, because that would be "original research." Wait for someone to tweet about it - THERE's your proof.
;)

3 million eh? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29094589)

Pity that two million of them are hopelessly biased toward whatever agenda has the most dweebs willing to re-write the articles 40 times a day.

Re:3 million eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29094943)

Mod Parent Up.

Most articles that are even remotely controversial (and even some that are not) are guarded by mouth breathing, mother's basement dwelling, welfare receiving geeks who monitor their little article constantly throughout the day.

Crazy but true. (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 5 years ago | (#29094695)


Beate Eriksen (who?) will be more famous for being the 3,000,000th wiki article than for his acting skills.

Re:Crazy but true. (4, Funny)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 5 years ago | (#29094863)

Especially when you can't even get her gender right.

Re:Crazy but true. (1)

grub (11606) | more than 5 years ago | (#29094949)


Ouch. Me == Tard.

Re:Crazy but true. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29097035)

Well, the summary does say "Norwegian actor", not "actress"!

(long live gender-specific nouns in English!)

*ducks*

tmegapscm

Wow, exciting news (1)

WindowlessView (703773) | more than 5 years ago | (#29094733)

just when I was beginning to think the internet was getting boring and staid...

Beate Ericksen! (2, Funny)

GPLDAN (732269) | more than 5 years ago | (#29094755)

Poor Beate. He now knows he's only the 3 millionth thing people got around to caring about.


Beate baby - gotta work on your rep! Get a new agent. Have a scandal with an underage girl. No wait, this is Norway, make it a boy. You'll never make it into the post-apocalyptic ark that Norway is building in the Fjords at this rate!

Re:Beate Ericksen! (2, Informative)

Desler (1608317) | more than 5 years ago | (#29094905)

Beate

He

Did Beate recently get a sex change or something? Last time I checked, Beate was a female.

Re:Beate Ericksen! (2, Funny)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095883)

Not according to Wikipedia!

/Hold on, I have to make a quick edit

Re:Beate Ericksen! (1)

ajs (35943) | more than 5 years ago | (#29094973)

No, he's about the 10 millionth. The other 7 million were deleted because they weren't considered "notable," but were actually better known and more readily written about than Beate Ericksen.

What's special about three million? (4, Funny)

line-bundle (235965) | more than 5 years ago | (#29094763)

I am personally waiting for it to reach 3294199.

(For those of you mathematically illiterate that number is pi*(2^20).)

Wake me up when we get there.

Re:What's special about three million? (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 5 years ago | (#29094855)

Do they have to be retained articles, or do deleted ones count? Because if you really wanted to, you could write a Wikipedia article about the number 3294199 and simply submit it 294199 times. Then your number is doubly significant.

Quick, get to Google Voice and see if you can get that number in your area code! Now THAT'S geek cred.

Re:What's special about three million? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29094869)

er... so pi = 3?

Re:What's special about three million? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29094925)

For sufficiently large values of 3.

Re:What's special about three million? (1)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095015)

You're neither proactive enough nor do you bother with enough precision. I plan on writing that article, but I'm holding off a little for 3294198 to be posted. You see, my fireworks are poised to fire when I'm 65.8% done writing it. Posting it will just be a formality.

Re:What's special about three million? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29096369)

Well I'm waiting for article 3811170.

(For those of you mathematically illiterate that number is tan(sqrt(2.4555))^e.)

Let me defend the Wikipedia here (2, Insightful)

Ex-Linux-Fanboy (1311235) | more than 5 years ago | (#29094835)

Let me quickly defend the Wikipedia here: Yes, the deletionists are annoying. However, there is a reason why "non-notable" articles are deleted: To minimize the number of articles that have to be watched to make sure spammers and vandals don't damage the articles.

Every time someone makes an article, that's one more article admins have to baby-sit. Even with thousands of people looking for spam and vandalism, there's a lot of subtle vandalism that gets in under the radar.

If every single high school or every single garage band or every single webcomic had a Wikipedia article, it would strain the admins ever more.

It's amazing that admins are able to keep the vandalism under control as much as they have been able to. Wikipedia is an Alexa top 10 site (I can't say the same for Slashdot, not by a long margin), and its purpose is to provide useful information for readers. Which is does very well. Yes, the Wiki is imperfect, and, yes, it has admins who have power trips, but the system works.

Re:Let me defend the Wikipedia here (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095013)

If that is the reason, than it sounds like what is needed is a method, perhaps some flavor of tagging, for indicating salience/likely level of admin attention. Have it sort of like those "no lifeguards on duty" signs. Sure, there aren't enough lifeguards to cover all possible swimming locations; but you don't coat all the beaches you can't watch with razor wire, you just let people know that nobody is even going to notice if they drown there.

On wikipedia, the same basic thing would apply. If you wander into a low interest/low traffic area, you'd have a little notice at the top of the page, telling you that this is a minimally trafficked article, and anybody could have scrawled anything on it, and nobody would notice.

With storage costs(particularly for minimally formatted text) so damn low, you don't save much by deleting(and you potentially lose something by doing so) which makes some means of organization that allows a compromise much more attractive.

Re:Let me defend the Wikipedia here (1)

basementman (1475159) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095017)

Well it's true Wikipedia does a lot more traffic than Slashdot, Alexa rankings are total bullshit.

Re:Let me defend the Wikipedia here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29095109)

If every single high school or every single garage band or every single webcomic had a Wikipedia article, it would strain the admins ever more.

That, and if you want TV Tropes [tvtropes.org] , you know where to find it.

For those not in the know (or haven't seen xkcd #609 [xkcd.com] ) it's like Wikipedia for all forms of entertainment media, only there's no such thing as notability. Oh, and have fun spending the rest of your work day on that site should you choose to click the above link.

Re:Let me defend the Wikipedia here (2, Interesting)

ajs (35943) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095179)

That excuse was invalid when it was first asserted, and is equally invalid today. The claim is that at 1million articles, Wikipedia was at the bursting point, and deletion was necessary to keep spam and abuse at bay. Now the claim is that at 3mil, WP is at the bursting point, and deletion is necessary to keep spam and abuse at bay. Guess what, neither was true.

Wikipedia could allow articles about everything anyone ever cared about in a reasonable way, without any loss of quality overall if it started from the premise that every possible string of letters on length n or less (where n is the maximum allowed length in MediaWiki) is a valid article. It just requires a tiered system of article management. I don't think that an article about Simpson characters' nose lengths should show up in initial search results. However, I don't understand the seemingly "natural" desire to exclude such an article from an online database of the collected knowledge of mankind. How is a censored list of articles ever to be exhaustive? Is it somehow more comprehensive because it's censored based on popular consensus rather than societal taboos? I don't think so.

Re:Let me defend the Wikipedia here (4, Insightful)

gambino21 (809810) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095239)

Why would the admins have to watch these pages? Does it even matter if there is vandalism or spam on a page about some small garage band or anime episode X? The people (if any) who are interested in those pages are the ones who will notice or care if there is spamdalism on those pages, and I'm sure many of them would be happy to fix it. The reason wikipedia is successful I believe has a lot more to do with the decentralization of administration than the diligent efforts of the deletionist admins.

Just as an example, let's say I go to a page about important topic A (let's say Obama's page) this causes me to follow links to several other relevant topics (Health care, economy, etc). Where in this scenario will I be affected by the spam on the page of Joe the garage band member?

Another scenario, I know Joe the garage band member and I look up his band on wikipedia. Oops, it has an add for penis enlargement. Since I know Joe I check the history and revert the changes to see the page. Compare this with going to Joe's bands page and finding nothing. I spend 20 minutes writing something up. The next day it is deleted. Now the next person who goes to the page after seeing Joe's band at a local bar also finds no information on wikipedia.

My main point is that an article with history and spam is better than no article at all. It doesn't matter if the admin's can't monitor all the pages about every trivial topic, no one expects them to. I think a non-deletionist wiki could beat wikipedia in the long run. The problem is that wikipedia just has so much momentum that it would be very tough for a new site to catch up.

Re:Let me defend the Wikipedia here (3, Informative)

Tweenk (1274968) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095503)

Every time someone makes an article, that's one more article admins have to baby-sit.

If admins have to babysit each article, something is wrong. And in fact they don't have to. There are already spam prevention bots that do it for them. The entire deletionist argument has absolutely no standing, and is only a weak attempt of control freaks to justify their behavior.

It's amazing that admins are able to keep the vandalism under control as much as they have been able to.

Keeping vandalism under control is actually easy because they can't really delete anything - everything is preserved in the revsion history. And the common trait of people responsible for vandalism is that they are easily bored - revert them 2 or 3 times and they will never come back.

on friday (3, Funny)

Tom (822) | more than 5 years ago | (#29094981)

in other news, the english Wikipedia is expected to reach 2.5 million articles by friday, when all the deletionists are back from their holidays and are back on track again.

Pet peeve: round numbers are not barriers (4, Insightful)

JoeBuck (7947) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095673)

I guess it's too late to stop people from claiming that a barrier has been broken whenever some round number has been exceeded. The sound barrier was a real barrier, in that aerodynamics works very differently above and below the speed of sound, meaning that engineering a plane to fly stably above the speed of sound was a nontrivial undertaking. But it was no harder to write article number 3 million than article number 2,999,999. There was no barrier.

And twelve of them are factually correct ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29095881)

And twelve of them are factually correct ... perhaps

A Pause for Pidgey. (5, Interesting)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 5 years ago | (#29095951)

I've mentioned the sad case of Pidgey before, but considering this milestone, I think it's worth bringing it up again.

Pidgey is a Pokemon. In February 2007, Pidgey had his own page [wikipedia.org] at Wikipedia. You could go there and see a small template(since deleted [wikipedia.org] ) explaining to you what Pidgey is and various other pieces of information about him. It was objectively a useful resource.

Pidgey no longer has a page. Pidgey has a paragraph [wikipedia.org] . A tragically short and dry affair devoid of even the most basic image. One can learn very little about Pidgey from reading it. And why is this? Why must Pidgey be so excised from the the site? Because he is a Pokemon? Does being a cartoon character or a children's toy or anything else automatically make something unworthy of a few kilobytes of page space on the the supposed repository of all the world's knowledge. The sad fact is that answer to that question is a resounding YES.

"A page for every Pokemon" was once used as a derogatory remark about Wikipedia. Evidently, enough faceless wikicrats took exception to this and decided to purge all mention of Pidgey and all the rest of the Pokemon, beyond the barest minimum of exposure, to make sure Wikipedia was regarded as a "professional" and "encyclopedic" resource. Pidgey and the Pokemon, and countless others have been subjected to the digital equivalent of a book burning by people who held an opinion that certain information was not "worthy" of archival. This from the same crowd of people who think that the Cloud Gate [wikipedia.org] , Wood Badges [wikipedia.org] , Ima Hogg [wikipedia.org] and Books on the psychology of Est [wikipedia.org] are all topics worthy enough to be Featured Articles [wikipedia.org] . Compared to such worthies, perhaps Pidgey, merely part of a 5 billion dollar franchise [american.edu] , does fall a little short. But as short as all that?

Technology is improving, access to knowledge and the cost of providing it are plummeting; Yet Wikipedia's growth is slowing [slashdot.org] . Pidgey is merely a symptom of the underlying decay present in the online encyclopedia. His purge was less about practicalities than it was about running Wikipedia in a way at odds with it ostensibly free, open and inclusive nature. His fate was the result of all information on Wikipedia that falls under the baleful eyes of those editors with opinions and the power to exercise them.

Pidgey's was not the first page to be purged from Wikipedia, nor the most important. But it will not be the last, or the smallest.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?