Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Old Man Murray Entry Deleted From Wikipedia

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the i-miss-you-omm dept.

Wikipedia 432

shoptroll writes "In what can be best described as an unfortunate interpretation of the 'notability standards' at Wikipedia, Rock, Paper, Shotgun reports that the entry for Old Man Murray, once a mainstay of PC Gaming reviews and commentary, has been deleted. A sad day for gaming journalism everywhere." This is notable both because Old Man Murray was completely and totally awesome, but also because it was notable and influential on countless writers.

cancel ×

432 comments

Slashdot next... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35368984)

Slashdot the FOX NEWS of tech will be deleted next...

I'll just need to develop a serious case of super aspergers to be fit for a position at wikipedia... wait... i am there... i am almost there... hrrrnnnngggh... oh..

need to change my pants now :(

Re:Slashdot next... (4, Funny)

suso (153703) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369092)

Weren't you the guy yesterday who tried to tell us that Slashdot is the Fox News of tech?

If anything, John Dvorak is the Bill O'Reilly of the tech news world.

Re:Slashdot next... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35369162)

yes that was me too... i come here 1-2 times a day to take a crap...

i am still angry and bitter that slashdot turned political in 2001 and attracted moderators who push FUD who insults my intelligence instead of news for nerds... and the effectively banning of AC which cost so much entertainment value... this place sucks now...

4chan is more relevant for nerds these days...

Re:Slashdot next... (4)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369280)

. this place sucks now...

4chan is more relevant for nerds these days...

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Re:Slashdot next... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35369234)

Sounds like you went beyond super saiyan. [newgrounds.com]

That's sad (2)

SimonTS (1984074) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369010)

His removal is a wikid (wicked) act

Re:That's sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35369266)

Ebaums world should be removed. POS.

So why was it deleted? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369022)

Because despite the sources, it was deemed to consume too much hard drive space on the Wikipedia servers?

Re:So why was it deleted? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35369160)

It was deleted by some halfwit called Ben Schumin who appears to have a grudge against OMM.

He should be permanently removed from Wiki staff for being an absolute butt devastated ass of a manchild.

Oh, also, Delete This Ben. Oh wait.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SchuminWeb

Re:So why was it deleted? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35369286)

Oh, also, Delete This Ben. Oh wait.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SchuminWeb

I'd be happy if he deleted the picture.

Re:So why was it deleted? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35369382)

Ha! No wonder he's so butt-hurt. What a dork. Looks like a fat lady you'd see at Wal-Mart. Apparently the guys at OMM made fun of him making whale-girl cry. Now he fights back deleting a Wiki page. Maybe the Army should try deleting Al Qaeda's webpage. That will make everything better.

The Wiki page is gone but you're still a loser.

And probably not the best thing to do if you don't like being made fun of.

Re:So why was it deleted? (2)

AndyAndyAndyAndy (967043) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369592)

He self-proclaims himself to be an Inclusionist [wikimedia.org] there. Hah.

Re:So why was it deleted? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35369378)

Typical Jew.

Re:So why was it deleted? (1)

deroby (568773) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369466)

OMG, what's with the "Userboxes"... is there some weird kind of facebooky underworld for wikipedia admins ?????

Re:So why was it deleted? (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369554)

Pretty sweet purse though.

Re:So why was it deleted? (1, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369170)

From what I can see [wikipedia.org] , it didn't have sources. The references were to the Old Man Murray site itself, a primary source, and blogs, which are not reliable sources. Wikipedia articles should have references to reliable secondary sources. This is the notability [wikipedia.org] guideline. Wikipedia is meant to condense information written in reliable secondary sources, that is, edited books, periodicals and websites, about the topic of the article. If there were no secondary sources from which to condense information into a Wikipedia article, what can you write in the article?

Re:So why was it deleted? (3, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369232)

The review itself cited some good sources. Edge magazine, which is pushing 20 years old itself, has extolled the site's historical relevance. The bother is that the admin in question judged those arguments as unacceptable. It should do better at deletion review, assuming it's been passed there.

Re:So why was it deleted? (0)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369244)

Wikipedia is meant to condense information written in reliable secondary sources, that is, edited books, periodicals and websites, about the topic of the article. If there were no secondary sources from which to condense information into a Wikipedia article, what can you write in the article?

Hey people! You know all your whining about how Wikipedia needs to improve its reliability? Well, they raised standards, and this is the price! You can't have it both ways.

Re:So why was it deleted? (5, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369354)

nonsense. wikipedia, has for example, summaries for each and every episode of popular anime *as a separate article*, yet uses "notable" argument against content of actual cultural significance. That is hypocrisy and a double standard.

Re:So why was it deleted? (5, Insightful)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369482)

If Wikipedia had to be consistent, then nothing would ever get done. There are millions of articles, so you'd need to make a million edits all at once if every editorial policy (e.g. establishing notability) had to be applied to all articles consistently. So, when someone with an interest in gaming reviews makes a call on whether Old Man Murray has sufficient notability, there is no expectation that he should therefore have to go looking for animé articles to delete.

Re:So why was it deleted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35369616)

I can relate to the GP, but I have to admit you're right - until a Wikipedia admin goes on a war against all-things anime, then their articles will simply be ignored.

The trouble is that an alarming percentage of geeks are fascinated by anime.

Re:So why was it deleted? (1)

callmebill (1917294) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369504)

+1 insightful

Re:So why was it deleted? (3, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369546)

You'd have more of a point if "Wikipedia" was a person. It's not. The clique that handles anime articles has different standards than the clique that handles this, that, and the other. You can impose consistency but at the cost of causing people to complain about this or that article being left in or deleted.

Re:So why was it deleted? (5, Informative)

Winckle (870180) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369258)

Deletion is supposed to be the last resort [wikipedia.org] No notices were put up to improve the article, no messages sent to a relevant wikiproject for volunteers to help out. Just Ben Schumin (a man a writer of OMM made fun off a decade ago) tying to pull a fast one. Schumin also removed references to Erik Wolpaw from several pages recently.

Re:So why was it deleted? (4, Informative)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369326)

Yes, because PCGamer, Kokatu, Wired & the UGO Network are completely irrelevant when it comes to the gaming community.

Re:So why was it deleted? (3, Interesting)

C_amiga_fan (1960858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369410)

>>>What is unclear about the word "published"?

What will Wikipedia "cite" when books/magazines stop being published, and only exist in the ephemeral world of the web? I guess all articles will have to be deleted from wikipedia..... or better yet, make a sane world that doesn't require sources to be published on dead trees/weeds/hemp.

Also looking over the discussion it appears KEEP was the dominant vote tally, but somehow the page still got deleted. This is a bit like how Florida tallied votes in 2000.... "Hmmm. 20 keeps; 15 deletes - it's clear who is the winner! Delete."

Re:So why was it deleted? (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369526)

Deletion votes are not a pure numbers game, if I troll a forum and get a dozen people to chip in on a subject then that does not mean I get my way. The strength of the arguments presented and the reasons why certain policies should apply are far more important than the number of KEEP or DELETE posts.

Re:So why was it deleted? (1)

C_amiga_fan (1960858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369574)

I saw a lot of Strong arguments that listed dozens of valid references, which should have defeated the "no citations" claim against the article.

And the mere fact so many people were interested in the vote, negates the "non-notable" claim. But whatever (shrug). NEXT UP: Slashdot article for deletion. Same reasons (not notable/no references).

Re:So why was it deleted? (1)

C_amiga_fan (1960858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369476)

Here are a few more Wiki articles that should be deleted (same reasons as given for OldManMurray):

Atari Age/Amiga World/RUN magazine
VHS/Betamax/Umatic
Divx/floppy disk
scifi.com (no published sources it ever existed)
netscape.com (ditto)
geocities.com (ditto)
Mozilla App Suite (it's dead jim)
et cetera

If OMM can be deleted for lack-of-interest or citations, then the above needs to be gone too, for similar reasons.

Re:So why was it deleted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35369542)

This is a problem, as reliable second hand sources sometimes are less reliable than primary sources. I remember one case where a British newspaper was cited on an issue relating to a speech held by an EU commissioner. The "reliable second hand source" was filled with so many factual errors that no one with more than two brain cells could interpret the speech as. Someone tried change it and entered a reference to an EU site that had the full speech transcript online.

An editing war broke out, and in the end the primary sources where dropped, despite being more accurate.

Re:So why was it deleted? (2, Insightful)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369208)

Debate 1 [wikipedia.org] . Debate 2. [wikipedia.org]

Also: good lord, do we really need a Slashdot front page story every time Wikipedia does something suboptimal?

Also 2: When an article is up for deletion and someone posts a link on some forum to get a bunch of fanboys to come in and flood the deletion debate (or any other debate), that's Generally Considered Lame and not really effective at building consensus. Slashdot too.

Re:So why was it deleted? (5, Insightful)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369346)

do we really need a Slashdot front page story every time Wikipedia does something suboptimal?

Yes, without public pressure ego-tripping editors could do "suboptimal" AKA wrong things with impunity. Transparency is supposed to be Wikipedia's strength, and good decisions should have nothing to fear from public knowledge.

Generally Considered Lame and not really effective at building consensus

Which is a euphemism for "all the deletionists get butthurt when they can't hide from the public backlash".

Re:So why was it deleted? (3, Insightful)

Winckle (870180) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369386)

I wish I could mod you up. They kept using the slang term "meatpuppets" which is apparently somebody who enters the discussion after being tipped off on it taking place. They might as well say outsider.

Re:So why was it deleted? (0)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369536)

"Outsider" would practically be a compliment. They seem to think that anybody who isn't an editor is a scum-sucking sub-human whose opinion is intrinsically worthless.

Re:So why was it deleted? (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369458)

Because despite the sources, it was deemed to consume too much hard drive space on the Wikipedia servers?

Because Encyclopedia Britannica would not have included the article.

Deletionists win again.

sigh.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35369028)

Just because it's old and no longer updated doesn't mean it wasn't notable. Anyone who thinks that deleting that page was a good idea can hand in their geek card right now.

Who? (3, Insightful)

C_amiga_fan (1960858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369030)

Never heard of OldmanMurray.com?

I don't see any wiki articles about PSXnation.com or scifi.com either.

Re:Who? (5, Insightful)

triazotan (1895064) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369096)

Never hearing about something is not a pro-deletion point. If it was, well, what would encyclopedia be for, anyway?

Re:Who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35369478)

Encyclopedias would be for learning about things we heard about. Next question?

Re:Who? (1)

zwei2stein (782480) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369124)

This is first time I ever heard about it.

Have you ever heard of writer Jiri Kulhanek?

Thought so...

Never heard of it (3, Insightful)

some_guy_88 (1306769) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369062)

I've never heard of Old Man Murray but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. This all got argued about last time over obscure programming languages but, why are we deleting history? Are we running out of disk space? I think not.

Re:Never heard of it (2, Insightful)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369174)

Agreed.

Imagine an encyclopedia that only contained information you already knew.

based on increadibly unreliable technology (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369388)

I've got one of those.
You wouldn't believe how much it cost to compile!!

Notability (1)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369072)

Articles only stay on Wikipedia if they are deemed notable.

What makes an article or its contents notable? Well, that's the opinion of the Administrators.

Re:Notability (2, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369146)

Actually it's the opinion of the concensus of contributors who bother to contribute to deletion discussions. Which is just such a small group, in numbers and experience. The key to solving this is appreciating that Wikipedia is not a machine where you put in good information and get out the encyclopedia you want to see, it's about actually dealing with human beings on a large-scale collaborative project which has differences of opinion. Wikipedia needs more internal bickering, not snide remarks on the outside. You, you reading this, are the potential source of that bickering.

Re:Notability (4, Informative)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369468)

Actually, outsiders are hated and despised. If any of the wiki admins finds out that YOU have been encouraging people to contribute, expect a lifetime ban.

Re:Notability (2)

surgen (1145449) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369518)

Wikipedia needs more internal bickering, not snide remarks on the outside.

It should be aware of and listen to the snide remarks and then go be introspective about it. The snide remarks are coming from people who don't have the time on their hands to deal with all the luggage that comes with being a even somewhat-involved editor.

Really Wikipedia needs to establish once and for all who its target audience it. The masses or the just the assholes who want to play admin and then proceed to listen to desires of its target audience.

But its easier to point the passerby at the established guidelines weather they are right or wrong, so that's what will happen. In the end that passerby doesn't care enough to even question them anymore and stops (or doesn't start) editing.

Re:Notability (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369358)

No, that's the opinion of the community (people willing to participate in an Articles for Deletion discussion) as interpreted by the administrators in light of the community guidelines.

Not that they're without bias, but if 50 bona fide good-faith contributors (note: not random fans you dragged in off your local phpBB community to say "omg awesome") are saying "keep" and giving good reasons, and 5 are saying delete, an administrator who doesn't go along with the 50 is likely to be the subject of some future inquiry, and possibly censured or de-adminned.

The ruling party on Wikipedia is not "the administrators", it's "the people of the community who are willing to contribute (and who don't piss everyone off and flaunt the established guidelines while trying to get their way or effect change)".

Re:Notability (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369516)

The ruling party on Wikipedia is not "the administrators", it's "the people of the community who are willing to contribute (and who don't piss everyone off and flaunt the established guidelines while trying to get their way or effect change)".

The problem is that one asshat can easily make a thousand 'good-faith contributors' decide that they have more useful things to do with their time than argue about whether some random Wikipedia article is really notable or not. So you run out of 'good-faith contributors' well before you run out of asshats.

Slashdot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35369078)

News for nerds, stuff that DOESN'T matters.

Sounds like someone with an axe to grind. (4, Insightful)

Hawkins (219795) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369084)

Eric Wolpaw and Chet Faliszek have worked in the gaming industry, and the site itself is referenced in numerous interviews, articles, quotations, and even in games. All valid reasons for a Wikipedia entry, I'd think.

Re:Sounds like someone with an axe to grind. (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369176)

Eric Wolpaw and Chet Faliszek have worked in the gaming industry, and the site itself is referenced in numerous interviews, articles, quotations, and even in games. All valid reasons for a Wikipedia entry, I'd think.

For reference, they both work for Valve now, and worked on things like Half-Life 2, Portal 1/2, and Left 4 Dead 1/2.

(For the people who hadn't heard of them)

What ablue Blue's News? (1)

molo (94384) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369094)

I can't even find a wikipedia article on Blue's News.

-molo

Moderation (5, Insightful)

Joe U (443617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369098)

Wikipedia needs a better moderation system.

Articles that are not verified or not notable can go into a second tier where they have to be searched for by specifically requesting second tier access.

As it stands now, I've seen articles deleted because their sources have started falling off the net. This makes Wikipedia one of the absolute worst encyclopedias for anything outside of standard historic events.

Re:Moderation (2)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369204)

A "shadow-wikipedia" isn't a good solution. It's about a notch below just putting up a specific wiki for the subject in question. Which solves the issue of having a project you want to work on, but it doesn't make Wikipedia any better. I think the answer is to have a better deletion appeals and article recovery system. Right now an article that's on the brink of falling into the deletion hole is a lot easier to fix than an article which has gone into the hole. It's like an event horizon. The way it should work is that you would happen across a subject and see that the article on it was deleted, could quite easily use your expertise to boost it back up to a level the admins found acceptable, and then easily have it flagged for an undeletion review.

Re:Moderation (2)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369362)

How about better curation features (i.e., let a user/group of users create a 'view' of Wikipedia), so that people who think effort battles are an awesome way to manage a project can have effort battles and people who aren't so worried about notability can still have a centralized data store? The effort battle folks would even be able to pilfer articles once they met notability standards.

There would still be a holy war over what the default view should be, but that seems nicer than driving people with only mild interest away.

Re:Moderation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35369500)

It seems to work for Debian just fine.

Stable: these are absolutely perfect things.
Unstable: these things are being worked on but are probably right.
Sid: zomg, who knows.

Right now, 'unstable' is Wikipedia's pages and 'sid' is Wikipedia's userland.

I don't see any reason why Wikipedia can't support these tiers directly.

Re:"Shadow" (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369578)

I disagree.

I feel we do need some secondary spinoff with clearly marked borders that contains all the range of stuff from pure astroturf to just-barely-deleted. Wikipedia is becoming a worm that eats its own tail. Once you remove the notability bit, you both get trolls, but you also get current culture items which are "popular" but not "notable". Call it "Descartes System". The topics exist therefore they are there on the ShadowWiki.

Then later when some "reputable" source decides to make it officially notable, it gets to be "promoted" to the main Wikipedia. If something on the main Wiki gets voted off the island, it just flips back over to the ShadowWiki.

People who believe they are doing the right thing can still work on protecting the ShadowWiki from abuse. The main difference is that it should be a little harder to delete pages - not from "notability", but more on abusive grounds if it's slander, etc.

Re:Moderation (1)

crath (80215) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369262)

Your idea is sound; however, it would cause 90% of the articles to immediately be demoted to the 2nd tier. Most of WP's content is un-sourced and unverified; which only becomes a problem when the page comes to the attention of one of the wiki-deletionists / wiki-elite.

The popularized idea behind WP is that everyone contributes. In this instance, if the content was unverified / unsourced, then the individual who deleted the article should have "contributed" by providing sources (via wayback.org, if need be); but, the deletionists have no interest in contributing, and so they delete the content and then hide behind WP rules in defence of their laziness.

Re:Moderation (5, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369350)

In this instance, if the content was unverified / unsourced, then the individual who deleted the article should have "contributed" by providing sources (via wayback.org, if need be); but, the deletionists have no interest in contributing, and so they delete the content and then hide behind WP rules in defence of their laziness.

Indeed, this is the real problem: people who would rather delete things than fix them. What's worse are the bots which go around posting deletion notices based purely on whether the page has some tags missing, when the bot has absolutely no idea whether the page is actually within Wikipedia policies.

IMHO rampant deletionism has caused far more harm and driven away far more editors from Wikipedia than poorly referenced articles ever will.

Re:Moderation (5, Insightful)

williamhb (758070) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369380)

Wikipedia needs a better moderation system. Articles that are not verified or not notable can go into a second tier where they have to be searched for by specifically requesting second tier access.

Why is anything (any established article) being deleted from Wikipedia? Is the world suddenly running out of bits? Is Jimmy Wales really so hard up for storage that individual text pages will make a difference? It's not as if they have to print and bind books with it like a traditional encyclopaedia.

At the very least, it should be pretty simple to measure notability by access statistics. But that begs the question that if nobody is accessing it, it isn't even costing you in bandwidth to hang onto it, so you might as well not delete it even then.

Re:Moderation (2, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369492)

This makes Wikipedia one of the absolute worst encyclopedias for anything outside of standard historic events.

and porn stars, manga characters and Star Trek episodes. Don't forget about the really important stuff, will you?

Re:Moderation (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369524)

OT: Great sig!

Re:Moderation (1)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369498)

Articles that are... not notable

Define "not notable"

Re:Moderation (2)

surgen (1145449) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369582)

I've felt for a while this is how deletions should be handled. A stub that says that it was deleted, a link to the deletion discussion, a caution that its probably a bad article, a link to an archived version of the article and a link that brings the article back.

All the other articles have their histories available to non-admins, even historical versions of deleted articles should exist for the masses.

Sad state of deletionist wankers (5, Informative)

Winckle (870180) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369114)

The deletion of OMM was instigated by Ben Schumin, a sad man who still holds a grudge against Erik Wolpaw, a writer at OMM, now working for Valve as a writer for games such as Portal. The fact that some sad sack like him can point at an article and say "this should be deleted" and the circle jerk of deletionist admins ignore the salient points made by users and experts of games journalism such as Kieron Gillen, delete the article and then pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

Barnstars all-round you deletionist creeps, keep ruining Wikipedia one kangaroo-court AfD at a time.

Re:Sad state of deletionist wankers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35369288)

If only Eirk Wolpaw's [wikipedia.org] references would start falling off the net too...

Re:Sad state of deletionist wankers (1)

Winckle (870180) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369356)

Then it would be a shame, because his work is humorous and well regarded by many respected games media outlets.

Re:Sad state of deletionist wankers (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35369428)

A similar problem came up a few weeks ago on either Slashdot or Reddit. Someone was researching an old obscure programming language and found its entry had been deleted for being to obscure or not relevant for being an entry. Now if I recall correctly the individual/admin who deleted the entry was a huge supporter of Power Rangers, so much that the entries for power rangers went into such detail that if that granular level of detail was allowed for Power Rangers why not for some old obscure programming language?

Re:Sad state of deletionist wankers (4, Interesting)

trifish (826353) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369534)

You know what should make your scratch your head? The problem you have just described at the same time happens to be the very essence and fundamental principle of Wikipedia. That anyone, including stupid morons, trolls with hidden agenda (competitors), and outright psychopaths can edit it any and every second, repeatedly and infinitely.

It follows that Wikipedia is, and has inherently been from the very beginning, a fundamentally flawed experiment. Thanks god Google is starting to realize this and is moving the Wikipedia result to SERPS position #5, while the first 4 links point to the authoritative or official site (if one exists).

Welcome to Wikipedia (5, Interesting)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369122)

I used to contribute a fair amount to Wikipedia to get my brain going in the morning. I quit doing so a couple years ago, because the whole infighting and "notability" crap was ridiculous. Every single character from a book, movie, cartoon, video game, anime (pokemon, etc) gets a many-paged detailed entry while real people quickly get the brush because someone gets a thorn in their ass over something. And those "somethings" are hard to pin down. Some entries surprisingly don't exist, while others (someone with a podcast you've never heard of or who is supposedly some self-described social media expert, etc) gets an entry. That idiot from "Hot For Words" even has a wikipedia entry.

I won't be surprised if a lot of things get deleted in the next few years, because a bunch of people who are twelve years old today will, in the future, say "I've never heard of this Commodore thing, it must be totally made up. Or at least not notable enough, or I'd have heard of it! DELETED!"

Of course, I don't know how you'd solve the problem, either. It's not a solution to just say absolutely everything can be a wikipedia article. Every self-promoting jackhole is going to create their own entry, then and the quality of each article itself will drop. On the other hand, how much attention can really be given to the countless deletions that are proposed? Especially since, while some deletions occur with no discussion and immediately, others drag on indefinitely and are knock-down drag-out events. It's not a solution, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to raise the bar for deletions, at least. It should be a lot harder to delete something that isn't obvious spam or vandalism than it is to create it.

There's also DeletionPedia [dbatley.com] , though I can't really tell what the current status of the site is.

Re:Welcome to Wikipedia (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369250)

I think you should go back through - they've become very good at culling crap about anime and the like as a secondarly consequence of the push for citations. (Primary sources are devalued. It's hard to have an article about a Pokemon where the only discussion of it is the game it appears in.) However "X is less notable than Y, and X is still there!" is not a persuasive argument for keeping Y or deleting X. The whole issue has to be addressed.

Re:Welcome to Wikipedia (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369422)

The primary sources thing doesn't make a lot of sense, either, though. Granted, a first-person source about a person shouldn't be given any/much weight due to obvious bias. However, characters in a book or movie shouldn't need additional sources, since they *are* documented within the material itself and are easily verifiable. I don't think having to read a book to refer to the characters for an article is itself considered "original research". At least, it shouldn't be. There is an inherent problem in saying that only things covered by "the news" (where "the news" is a loose term to cover all media) are article-worthy. There are a lot of significant things in the world that aren't particularly well covered but are deserving of being documented.

I don't actually have a problem with every character from every piece of fiction in history being documented. In fact, I think it's often quite valuable. I just think that it's important to give real people serious consideration rather than so flippantly discarding them. Potentially treat them at least as well as actual people.

By the way, did you know that "Slashdot People" has an entire wikipedia Hub for itself?

Re:Welcome to Wikipedia (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369586)

Citing a primary source for descriptive purposes is sensible, but if that's the only source, you're just going to recapitulate it by writing a Wikipedia article. If you're going to rewrite Sherlock Holmes in encyclopedia form, I'm not sure you've actually written an encyclopedia article that's going to help anyone out. Hence, secondary sources. There's enough secondary writing about Holmes to thoroughly analyse him, for example.

"News" shouldn't be the measure of suitability, that's for damn usre.

How you'd solve the problem? Simple. (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369374)

Grade the articles.

On a scale of 1 to 10, 0 to 100% notability, 1 to 9000... whatever.
Simply slap a big red "CAUTION: Information written here may not actually be fact checked."-sticker on top of the article and leave it be.

Give the article a chance to be improved - not removed.

Re:Welcome to Wikipedia (1)

Tom (822) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369474)

Of course, I don't know how you'd solve the problem, either. It's not a solution to just say absolutely everything can be a wikipedia article. Every self-promoting jackhole is going to create their own entry, then and the quality of each article itself will drop.

There's your solution, right there, staring you in the face.

Judge the article, not its subject. If someone or some place or some thing has enough going for it that a good article of some length can be written about it, and if there are other sources mentioning the subject, then it most probably is notable enough to stay.

The entire notability criterium is bullshit. Anything worthwhile can be covered by other WP:* rules, and the only purpose it serves is to give self-absorbed assholes on a powertrip something to shoot with.

And as long as it exists, I won't contribute to Wikipedia. And I know that I'm by far not alone with that sentiment.

Re:Welcome to Wikipedia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35369494)

Pages on real people have become very problematic for WP; even for deceased persons: the issue is our litigious society. Here's a real example: the entry for Guido Colonna di Paliano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_Colonna_di_Paliano). One of the references, "Enemies Within: Italians and Other Internees in Canada and Abroad" By Franca Iacovetta, Angelo Principe, and Roberto Perin. Published by University of Toronto Press, 2000 ISBN 0802082351, 9780802082350 clearly described Mr. di Paliano as having worked in Canada for the Facists, during Mussolini's reign; however, the article is silent about those activities. That period of his life was contributed to the article in 2008, but a user named "Ascaniocolonna" removed the info. No one likes to see their family's dark days on public display, and based on the userid of the editor it looks like di Paliano's family isn't any different.

Wikipedia should allow any info (4, Informative)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369130)

I wrote some time ago that Wikipedia should allow any content that could be interesting / informative to someone, after all she did not have the space limitation of a physical encyclopedia. I honestly can not understand why something has to be "remarkable" to be included in Wikipedia, especially when the criteria of "outstanding" is usualy being cited in news sites and the like that are not always have ethical criteria to decide what he saw or not "remarkable." or public interest.

Re:Wikipedia should allow any info (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369270)

Interesting/informative isn't the defining characteristic of an encyclopedia, though. I mean, my PhD thesis is interesting, but it's not going up there. Encyclopedias are about a different kind of content, specifically a review of a subject. They've at least reached a useful metric for suitability with the guideline that articles should have proper secondary sources. That, IMO, should be the sole criterion - "can you write a properly referenced review of this subject?".

Re:Wikipedia should allow any info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35369564)

I wrote some time ago that Wikipedia should allow any content that could be interesting / informative to someone, after all she did not have the space limitation of a physical encyclopedia. I honestly can not understand why something has to be "remarkable" to be included in Wikipedia, especially when the criteria of "outstanding" is usualy being cited in news sites and the like that are not always have ethical criteria to decide what he saw or not "remarkable." or public interest.

because we don't need an article on TheDarkMaster and how he produces valid /. comments.

There is no perfect solution, however for now they need to rely on how frequently the topic is referenced in other media.

wiki deletes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35369132)

Then all stuff republicanism orientated should get deleted too.

Notability rating (5, Interesting)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369172)

Probably the best solution to this deletist/keepist nonsense is to rate articles according to their noteworthiness. This rating can either be derived according to how many other articles link in, or according to human judgement. Using this system, lower ranked articles will be naturally found far less, but at least they're there if you dig. It'd work like pagerank to a degree.

Keeping or deleting is otherwise a false dichotomy. There isn't a magical line that makes an article suddenly not important any more. There are however shades of grey.

Re:Notability rating (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369508)

I'm [wikipedia.org] not [wikipedia.org] so [wikipedia.org] sure [wikipedia.org] that [wikipedia.org] this [wikipedia.org] is [wikipedia.org] a [wikipedia.org] good [wikipedia.org] idea [wikipedia.org] . [wikipedia.org] Do [wikipedia.org] you [wikipedia.org] have [wikipedia.org] any [wikipedia.org] idea [wikipedia.org] how [wikipedia.org] hard [wikipedia.org] people [wikipedia.org] try [wikipedia.org] to [wikipedia.org] game [wikipedia.org] Pagerank [wikipedia.org] ? [wikipedia.org]

the state of the internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35369182)

"notable both because" ... "also because" ... "notable." i know yr taco and you effectively got millions for nothing, but give me a break. you've got a sentence or two to write. this shit is terrible.

Feh... (5, Insightful)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369188)

One of the neat things about Wikipedia early on was that you could find entries on obscure people or places or things. That was one of the charming things about it. No matter how peripheral an item or event, there was someone, somewhere who could write an article about it.

Bias in Wikipedia (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35369202)

This is why I quit writing for wikipedia. I would spend hours writing and posting reference links only to be told my references weren't good enough.

I've had "editors" tell me Foxnews was biased and not a good citation, and then two months later tell me CNN was biased and not a good citation. Wikipedia is the most unreliable source of information on the internet IMHO.

I've also had articles and updates deleted because the citation website had removed the content or completely shut down.

Wikipedia's notability standard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35369252)

Wikipedia's notability standard, while not perfect, has the benefit of helping to eliminate a lot of trite rubbish. It requires: (1) significant coverage of the topic; (2) reliable sources to support the assertions; (3) secondary sources to demonstrate significance; (4) content supplied by individuals independent of the subject matter, and (5) the potential for a test of inclusion requiring a consensus among Wikipedia contributors. Unfortunately this means that some subjects are going to be excluded, even though they are factual and well edited. Ensuring that a topic will remain on WIkipedia usually requires digging up mentions from books, peer-reviewed journals or professional news stories. Hence, if you want Old Man Murray to appear on Wikipedia, try submitting an article about him in a newspaper or magazine. Of course, you should be prepared to demonstrate your sources there as well.

Does this make Wikipedia the worse encyclopedia ever? Yes, except for all the other encyclopedias that have reliable publishing standards.

Hardly unexpected (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369276)

It's a fundamental weakness in the Wikipedia model and I have no idea how it could be addressed. One of the things you want an encyclopaedia for is to preserve the past, but by allowing deletion (which is necessary to get rid of junk) you risk losing exactly what you are trying to preserve. Add into the mix that there's a high probability that many of the people who want to maintain an online encyclopaedia want to do so because there is a particular bit of reality they want to control, and it's a recipe for long term obsolescence.

The other issue with "notability" is copyright of paper documents. I have a number of textbooks dating from the 1920s which are probably by now quite rare. As a result I have noticed errors in some Wikipedia articles - but the textbooks are (a) not on line and (b) still in copyright. It is not possible to cite them.

Wikipedia is an example of why we continue to need printed books, and why the Internet will never be a complete substitute - distributed archiving in an unarguable format. If I have a physical copy of, say, Ricardo's The High Speed Internal Combustion Engine, it is easy to demonstrate that it is real - the binding, paper, ink and so on can all be analysed to show that its claimed publication date is correct, the pages can be viewed to show that they have not suffered alteration. No file can offer that security. But there is no practical way to use it to demonstrate to a Wikipedia editor that an article on engine balancing contains nonsense.

Re:Hardly unexpected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35369402)

As a result I have noticed errors in some Wikipedia articles - but the textbooks are (a) not on line and (b) still in copyright. It is not possible to cite them.

That's not actually correct.

Being in copyright is irrelevant if all you're doing is referencing a book to support a factual statement - after all, Wikipedia articles cite web pages, and most of those will be copyright protected. (What you couldn't do is copy content verbatim from an in-copyright book.)

And their not being online is not an obstacle to citing books - it's perfectly ok to cite a book. Here's how - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style#Books

And you verify it, how? (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369596)

Anyone can cite an imaginary textbook, or indeed make up the content of a real one with a limited distribution, just like a Republican senator just misrepresented the content of a report on climate change knowing none of his target demographic would ever read it and find out. That is the problem.

Why Delete? (1)

sycorob (180615) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369292)

What is Wikipedia's obsession about deleting things that "aren't noteworthy?" Putting aside the fact that "noteworthiness" is pretty subjective, why is there a whole system in place to purge articles? Are they running out of disk space? Is the system not scaling?

I can understand that they should probably purge spam articles, or articles about nothing that people try to put up ("Gramma Jones' Shortbread Recipe"), but why are they going to all this trouble to purge articles about real people, that did stuff? As a writer, do you have to win a Pulitzer or something to get in Wikipedia?

Notability sucks. Long live TV Tropes. (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369310)

I had entire PAGES of material written in wikipedia deleted because the webcomic I detailed "had won no awards." I gave up on those snobs ever since.

Re:Notability sucks. Long live TV Tropes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35369370)

I still can't figure out if TV Tropes is the ultimate middle finger to the Wikipedia notability nazi, or the Wikipedia notability nazi's ultimate rebuttal.

Re:Notability sucks. Long live TV Tropes. (2)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369416)

Begging your pardon, but if you had to write the articles yourself, I'm not sure that your webcomic needed "entire pages of material" written about it.

Google Cache (4, Informative)

Roary (1027566) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369338)

For those who may be wondering what Old Man Murray is:

Wikipedia Google Cache [googleusercontent.com]

Oh the irony

Awesome. (1)

Improv (2467) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369472)

If a topic would not be notable from the perspective of 100 years in the future, it should not have an article. The purpose of a general-purpose encyclopedia is to convey codified academic knowledge to common people.

There are other wikis for non-encyclopedic stuff. Wikia has plenty of them (see Memory-Alpha as an example).

6:6 foresight is a wonderful thing (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369622)

And you know what will be notable 100 years in the future? I can just imagine some Wikipedian of 600BC deciding to remove an article on the religious beliefs of a small tribe living at the Eastern end of the Mediterranean because nobody would ever be interested, and they would never have any consequences.

What's this got to do with Charlie Sheen? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35369484)

What's this got to do with Charlie Sheen? Get some priorities, okay?

temptest in a teapot (no text) (1)

smylingsam (312959) | more than 3 years ago | (#35369552)

NERD RAGE

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...