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!

cancel ×

173 comments

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

So?? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472342)

Who cares?

Re:So?? (4, Insightful)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472520)

Um, nerds. Thus /..

Re:So?? (4, Insightful)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473128)

>Who cares?

My guess: 2 kinds of people. Those that say that this Murray thing was/is notable and those that don't want the biggest encyclopedia, and a free as in freedom one at that, to be governed by corrupt bureaucrats.

Re:So?? (1)

Gible (526142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475268)

>don't want the biggest encyclopedia, and a free as in freedom one at that, to be governed by corrupt bureaucrats.

Too late...

Re:So?? (1)

Cstryon (793006) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475408)

There are only 11 kinds of people. Those that want to delete it, those that want it to stay, and those that couldn't care less.

Re:So?? (5, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#35474448)

Who cares?

Well, some people do, not neccessarily because they care about the content.

At the risk of repeating myself, I've mentioned the case of Pidgey the Pokemon before [slashdot.org] . Suffice to say that once Pidgey had his own page on Wikipedia, just like Old Man Murray, but now he does not.

Now, you may well scoff at the case of Pidgey(Or of Old Man Murray). After all, why should this trite children's toy be given space on an encyclopedia of any kind? But such views inevitably take us into rather different territory than Wikipedia's stated objective to become "A Repository of All Human Knowledge". If we accept that Pidgey can be excluded from the great library of the internet, then it follows that we can exclude a great deal more.

And indeed we have. Wikipedia has in the last three years undergone a great purge of information and content which would rival any Soviet censorship bureau. "What of it?!", claim supporters. "Why should we tolerate Pidgey's presence on the shelves of our glorious archive?".

And that's really what it comes down to. Information remains on Wikipedia, not because it is notable, (Pidgey was part of a $5 billion franchise), or maintainable (Sadly, Pokemon fans are still as numerous and eager as ever) . No; Information remains on Wikipedia only because it is tolerated . Old Man Murray is up for deletion because someone--anyone--simply did not want to tolerate its presence any longer.

That is what Wikipedia has been reduced to. The online book which anyone can burn. And they do. It is a great library who's primary task is destroying and deleting its own collections. That and streamlining the procedures which makes this possible.

Scoff at Pidgey if you like, but if a book about him sat on the shelf in any library, no librarian in the world would needlessly dispose of it. Indeed, many would be loath to do so, and would maintain that book as they would any other; diligently and with careful attention. The fact that Wikipedia, with its infinite shelf space and everlasting tombs, should so eagerly and callously destroy its volumes is nothing short of an international disgrace.

Re:So?? (1)

Count Fenring (669457) | more than 3 years ago | (#35474736)

I get what you're going for here, but there are alternate tensions at work. Wikipedia doesn't actually have infini-space (or infini-bandwidth), it has a large-but-finite space, which is subject to both technical and organizational concerns . To address your example directly, libraries get rid of books all the time - the process is called weeding, and it's where a large portion of those books with plastic jackets at library book sales come from.

To address your other example (Pidgey), well, there's still a Pokemon entry, and that Pokemon entry has links to a number of specialist Poke-resources. They're not censoring or destroying information - they're saying that the information isn't desirable to house locally, and that it's outside the scope of their function as a general purpose encyclopedia. Where and how that line gets drawn is, of course, is an incredibly sensitive and complex issue, but the line needs to be drawn - if I just copypasta the full Apache documentation into the Wikipedia entry for Apache, I'm not producing any value for anyone - I'm just adding to Wikipedia's storage and organization burdens.

Re:So?? (3, Interesting)

Dr. Hellno (1159307) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475686)

it has a large-but-finite space

I could be wrong about this, but as far as I'm aware, the full content (including edit history!) of wikipedia totals less than 5TB, which should by no means be difficult to house. Now, perhaps there are architectural considerations that I'm not taking into account, but even if that's the case, remember that these deletion discussions often grow to a size eclipsing that of the article being discussed.
This isn't about space. It's about image. Some Wikipedians don't want their encyclopedia hosting frivolous or trivial information, because that conflicts with the air of solemn academia they affect.

Re:So?? (1)

Count Fenring (669457) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475856)

I will concede that space probably isn't the biggest consideration they have, although for a donation-maintained web service, 5TB (and appropriate backup and maintenance) isn't insignificant either. But the limiting factor they'll hit first is probably either bandwidth or search efficiency problems. I'm not by any means an expert on Wikimedia internals, but I would guess that they could probably blow up their search-space without necessarily blowing up their content-space.

And, yes, some Wikipedians are dicks. But the argument that minutia of pop-culture is better located elsewhere, with a general description on Wikipedia isn't necessarily a valueless one.

Re:So?? (1)

crossmr (957846) | more than 3 years ago | (#35474890)

But such views inevitably take us into rather different territory than Wikipedia's stated objective to become "A Repository of All Human Knowledge"

That is in fact not their stated objective.
Hence the problem some people have.

Re:So?? (2, Informative)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475176)

It was their objective for many years, and you can still see mention of this objective in places on Wikipedia. Like in Jimbo's annual letter calling for donations, for example.

Re:So?? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35475846)

if a book about him sat on the shelf in any library, no librarian in the world would needlessly dispose of it. Indeed, many would be loath to do so, and would maintain that book as they would any other; diligently and with careful attention.

Not really. Librarians have finite shelf space and there are real-world costs associated with keeping a book in circulation (space allocation with associated infrastructure costs, periodic repairs, tracking, etc.) or even in storage. Libraries actually get large quantities of donated books from people, and frequently they simply have to throw out (or desperately try to give away) most of them. The reason, again, is that they just can't afford the space/time/manpower to keep every book. Librarians, in fact, view themselves not as storage personnel but as curators: trying to come up with the most useful and interesting collection possible given their finite resources.

Now, there are many aspects of this that do not apply to Wikipedia. Storage is much cheaper electronically, and there are people willing to do the maintenance for free. So I agree with you that Wikipedia's current policy is overzealous with removing so-called cruft. My only point is that using real-world librarians as a counter-example doesn't make sense, because they in fact need to be far more ruthless in deciding what they can keep.

(I am not a librarian, but my mom is. So those are my credentials.)

Re:So?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35475248)

You, apparently, or you wouldn't be wasting your own time and everyone else's telling us all what you think.

Uh, debate is where? (4, Informative)

Rurik (113882) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472344)

Where does the debate continue? There was no link in the summary pointing to any ongoing debate. Just the previous Slashdot story and the main wikipedia article. There have been no edits to the OMM talk page for a week.

Shoddy, shoddy, shoddy submission.

Maybe they're referring to the SignPost article that has a handful of comments from a few days ago?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-03-07/Deletion_controversy [wikipedia.org]

Re:Uh, debate is where? (3, Interesting)

Gudeldar (705128) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472708)

I don't think a deletion nomination would get very far now anyway. The butthurt resulting from the original deletion actually spurred people to make it a well sourced article. The original article just looked like a vanity page.

Re:Uh, debate is where? (1, Troll)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472966)

It looks like the deletion policy makes sense, if it's what's needed to get editors to add reliable third-party sources. I don't really see a controversy, just editors who are learning how Wikipedia works. Either add reliable, third party sources to the article or the article gets deleted.

Re:Uh, debate is where? (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473148)

the wrinkle is that the deletion controversy is what inspired some of those third-party sources to be written. in fact, one of them was amusingly titled "The Remarkable Notability of Old Man Murray."

Re:Uh, debate is where? (2, Interesting)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473208)

That's not a wrinkle. That's an added bonus. The threat of deletion because of too few reliable sources leads to more reliable sources in the article, and everyone wins, because now we have a well-sourced article. Would this have happened if there had been no threat of deletion? It looks to me like Wikipedia's guidelines work.

Re:Uh, debate is where? (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473242)

i mostly agree with this, but in your original post you suggested that editors could learn from this example and add third-party sources which, in this case, they couldn't have... it's also arguable that they aren't really third-party sources at all; they are more like second-party sources since they are essentially being commissioned by wikipedia itself...

Re:Uh, debate is where? (4, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473418)

The threat of deletion because of too few reliable sources leads to more reliable sources in the article, and everyone wins, because now we have a well-sourced article. Would this have happened if there had been no threat of deletion? It looks to me like Wikipedia's guidelines work.

2+2 does not equal 5. Sure, fascism produces some great art, and economic benefits. Do you want to live under a fascist regime?

There are other ways of getting good results, there are other ways of getting good sourced articles. There are much better ways than behaving like power-crazed spoiled children. There are much better ways than driving any decent intelligent person away from wikipedia for good.

But no, the jackbooted scum that are the current wikiadmins are intent on driving away the very people who could actually make wikipedia into the resource it should be, but currently is very far from being.

Until such time as the crooked Jimbo and his clique are finally kicked out of wikipedia, there will be no truth, no justice and no trust on that site.

Re:Uh, debate is where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35474124)

Do you want to live under a fascist regime?

That depends... do the trains always run on time?

Re:Uh, debate is where? (4, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473500)

The problem is the one pushing for deletion, which had also deleted other articles about anyone connected to OMM, was a big fat tie dyed loser that OMM had seriously ragged that was using his mod status as a way to "get even".

He is a perfect example of why many refuse to have anything to do with Wikipedia, because it lets big fat douches that brag about being giant pricks (look up his Twitter feed, it is pretty much "I'm better than all of you so suck it down bitches") do whatever they want and the other (most likely big fat pricks) admins will circle the wagons and call anyone who points out the douchey behavior a "meatpuppet" and refuse to listen to anyone that "isn't in the club".

I'd say the fact that they have their own terms like meatpuppets and the fact this big fat tie dyed douche is still a mod after all his asshattery (which was pointed out in his own words from his tweets and blogs) just shows what a broken fucked up mess Wikipedia has become. While the original idea was a good one, they have made sure actual experts and anyone else who has something to do other than jerk off to Wikipedia all day will have to run a gauntlet of skanky losers who have claimed the Wiki as "their domain".

Where Wikipedia once worked on crowdsourcing and allowing experts in a field a chance to help fill in the gaps now it is just a haven for trolls and losers with no life outside Wikipedia. Hell look at the deletionist troll's own article history you'll find he's writing articles about places like the Memphis Mall which haven't existed in years and frankly nobody cared about in the first place while saying anyone who caused him butthurt isn't notable. If he isn't a classic assburgers troll on a powertrip I don't know who is.

Re:Uh, debate is where? (1)

Doctor Morbius (1183601) | more than 3 years ago | (#35474172)

The term is sockpuppet not meatpuppet.

Re:Uh, debate is where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35474392)

No, it isn't.

Re:Uh, debate is where? (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35474406)

Nope sorry, in forums it is sockpuppet, but the Wikitards have their own version and definition which is "Meatpuppet: Anyone who hears about deletionist BS and actually tries to show why something shouldn't be deleted. They are a meatpuppet because they are not part of the Wiki community and are only there to show why the deletionist is wrong"

Go ahead, feel free to look it up. It is a word that Wikitards use a hell of a lot for anyone not in their little "group" and it is this little mod cabal that has people coming up with words like Wikitards and deletionists. pretty much if you don't spend every waking minute breathing the Wiki you are not allowed to speak because you are a meatpuppet and therefor worthless. look it up, sad but true how far it has sunk.

Re:Uh, debate is where? (2)

crossmr (957846) | more than 3 years ago | (#35474924)

sockpuppet means many accounts being controlled by a single person
meat puppet is anyone who shows up simply to say something because someone else instructed them or asked them to.

They're actually different people, but they only joined the discussion because someone instructed them to, or went to some forum and said "Hey everybody look at this!"
You can have existing editors be meat puppets, it's not just limited to off-wiki users, though typically that's the case.

Re:Uh, debate is where? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475096)

No, sockpuppet is a slashdot term for a fake account. Meatpuppet is a wikipedia term for any real person who has been informed about wikipedia corruption by a [probably banned] person with an account on wikipedia. To qualify, the "meatpuppet" usually has to create an account for the first time during a controversy and post on the controversial page.

Re:Uh, debate is where? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35474574)

You know, anybody can run mediawiki.

Re:Uh, debate is where? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475136)

a gauntlet of skanky losers who have claimed the Wiki as "their domain".

Then they may be in violation of WP:OWN.

Re:Uh, debate is where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35475608)

Amusing Language. Where can I subscribe to your newsletter?

Re:Uh, debate is where? (2)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#35474282)

What is the pragmatic difference between writing original research directly in Wikipedia, or writing the same original research into a blog article or separate domain specific wiki, and then sourcing it on Wikipedia?

It seems wikipedia shares something in common with C: "Any problem can be solved with a layer of indirection."

Re:Uh, debate is where? (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475156)

There isn't. Sources have to have editorial control, so personal webpages and blogs are not allowed as reliable sources.

What is editorial control? (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475656)

Who decides what qualifies as editorial control? How does a source demonstrate "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"?

Re:Uh, debate is where? (5, Insightful)

grumbel (592662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473200)

It looks like the deletion policy makes sense, if it's what's needed to get editors to add reliable third-party sources.

No it doesn't, as that is pretty much a classic case of the broken window fallacy [wikipedia.org] . The energy and effort wasted in those deletion debates could have been spend far better and the fallout of those deletions is rather horrible, as you always lose some authors in the process.

Re:Uh, debate is where? (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#35474272)

I agree that editors could simply add the references to reliable sources in the first place, but what if they won't unless the article or material in it may be deleted? It's not the broken window fallacy at all. It's just repercussions from not following the rules, which leads to the rules being followed.

If you don't pay your water bill on time, the water company shuts off your water. That leads to you paying your water bill and your water gets turned back on. It's not that evil water fascists that are controlling your water are out to get you and get their jollies from shutting off your water. Shutting off your water was what they had to do to get you to pay your bill. It would have been easier for everyone if you'd simply paid your bill in the first place, and then your water wouldn't have been shut off.

Re:Uh, debate is where? (2)

grumbel (592662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35474498)

I agree that editors could simply add the references to reliable sources in the first place, but what if they won't unless the article or material in it may be deleted?

The point is: The deletionist contributes nothing of value. He is like the thieve that breaks into your house. Sure, he might force you secure your home, thus resulting in a safer home, but that doesn't stop it wrong being a fucking annoying waste of time. Back in the day when Wikipedia was awesome you'd simply stick a "citation missing" or whatever template on top of the article and call it a day. Deletions should be reserved for things where there is good reason to assume that the content is fraud, fake, copyright infringement or spam , not be abused for cases where the article is ok and just missing a bit here and there. If the deletionist doesn't like the article the way it is, he should fix it himself and not try to force others to do so under the thread of destroying their work.

Deletionism is a far bigger problem then vandalism ever was and it is sickening that it is accepted behavior. But hey, maybe I should just ignore it and stop caring, after all I have already pretty much given up on actually contributing to Wikipedia because of that.

Re:Uh, debate is where? (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475168)

Material in Wikipedia needs to be sourced. Material for which no source can be found should be deleted, because there is no way to verify the information.

Re:Uh, debate is where? (1)

Pathwalker (103) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475718)

Material for which no source can be found should be validated the same way you would verify any other data. A minute or two of searching can usually locate sources. The reader can update the page to include the source, or delete the offending statement if no verification appears to exist.

This is the constructive way to handle the issue. To blindly delete without attempting to validate is simply vandalism.

Re:Uh, debate is where? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475648)

Deletions should be reserved for things where there is good reason to assume that the content is fraud, fake, copyright infringement or spam

"Fake" may be part of it. After the Seigenthaler incident, information about a living person is assumed fake unless clearly verifiable. "Spam" may also be part of it. An article about a subject attracts readers to click on the article's external links.

Re:Uh, debate is where? (2)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472820)

Click "Discussion" at the top of the main Wikipedia article.

Re:Uh, debate is where? (1)

Rurik (113882) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472858)

"There have been no edits to the OMM talk page for a week."

Re:Uh, debate is where? (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473024)

Well, yes, but how long do you think it takes for the news to reach /.?

Wait, what? (4, Insightful)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472354)

Why is there even a debate? If the article is generating such a controversy, then OBVIOUSLY it's notable enough to stay there? Where the hell is common sense when you need it?

That's what search is for. (3, Funny)

DeVilla (4563) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472558)

Here. [wikipedia.org] Note that it has material that may be challenged or removed as it does not cite any references or sources.

Re:That's what search is for. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35473678)

Versus the deletionist [wikipedia.org] page, which is well-cited and fairly comprehensive. :-)

Re:Wait, what? (4, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472566)

Welcome to Wikipedia - common sense means nothing, and they actually have to have ESSAYS on what constitutes "Wikilawyering", "Gaming the system", and pretty much every tactic that is adopted by asshole "admins" and their followers but forbidden to everyone else (even if you're trying to counter their own bad-faith scumbaggery).

Remember - you can learn a lot from what former admins write [livejournal.com] regarding how Wikipedia really works [blogspot.com] .

Re:Wait, what? (1)

imthesponge (621107) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473682)

"common sense means nothing"

That phrase means nothing in this context. "Of course everyone knows how to build an open collaborative encyclopedia. Anyone who disagrees with me is a fool." I don't mean to say that everyone's opinion shouldn't matter. There should be no "caste" system and I understand Wikipedia has a problem with that.

But it's a fallacy to assume there exists some universal "common sense" for a task that's never before been attempted.

Re:Wait, what? (5, Funny)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472580)

Because the deletionists won't be happy until Wikipedia consists of nothing but an article on itself and vanity articles extolling the many virtues of the deletionists?

Re:Wait, what? (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473184)

The idea to only have those articles in Wikipedia someone actually cares for (e.g. maintaining it and incorporate new facts and sources), and of those editors so many, that there is actually a peer review of the articles in question has something for it, don't you think?

Maintain? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35473442)

It's hard to maintain deleted articles. The problem with deletion is that the contribution of the user is lost, not tagged as low quality and given a chance.

Also, I think Wikipedia is a fine example of why communism doesn't work. (i.e. the grouthink, and informal hierarchies)

Re:Maintain? (3, Insightful)

Sique (173459) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473536)

For "Communism not working", Wikipedia works remarkably well, don't you think? Or -- what an heretical thought! -- maybe Wikipedia has nothing to do with Communism?
(The way some US-americans label anything and everything not adhering to some very strange voodoo economic theories as "communist" has striked me always as some odd personality trait. Probably because US-americans have never directly experienced the real existant communism, and have no clue what they are talking about.)

Re:Wait, what? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473524)

Once an article is complete, there's really nothing you can do to it except make it less clear or less factual.

Everyone who reads is a peer to review it, isn't that a central part of the whole philosophy? Perhaps they found it to be good enough. If you disagree, by all means fix it.

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35473356)

+1
deletionista trolls are ruining that site. Agalmic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agalmic) was/is another great example of something that should exist on wikipedia but is destroyed by low-lifes.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473512)

You forgot the interminable list of Wikipedia references in anime.

Re:Wait, what? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472586)

Common sense isn't as common as the name would imply, so the deletionists deleted it.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

Paracelcus (151056) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473438)

There is no better way to get lots of attention than for somebody to try to suppress you!
Think Wikileaks for example.

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472636)

What are you saying, that the vote threshold for deletion should be something like 75% instead of 50%? Yes, with this fix, articles close to 50-50 such as this one will be kept and the debate will be avoided, but now you'll have the same raging debates for *other* articles that are close to the 75-25 boundary.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

hduff (570443) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472694)

Note that the submission states "An anonymous reader writes . . .".

So it's all BS and a mistake for Slashdot to run it.

Re:Wait, what? (3, Funny)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472748)

Clearly, we're running out of internets, and need to delete stuff to keep the drive clear for more "important" information.

Re:Wait, what? (3, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473046)

The theoretical reason for deleting articles is that if they're not notable, there's likely to be inaccuracies due to nobody looking at the page on a regular basis. And even if it was accurate when it went up things change.

The main problem is that nobody can really decide what is and isn't notable, and it frequently comes down to politics. However now that there's been this scandal, Old Man Murray should be considered notable. If for no other reason than demonstrating Wikipedia editorial douche baggery.

serious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35473274)

Internet is serious business, punk!

Re:Wait, what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472766)

Knowing Wikipedia, they'll probably delete the original article, but have an article on the debate about deleting the article.

Where it is? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35473484)

It's pining for the fjords, that's where it is!

Re:Wait, what? (1)

Improv (2467) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473522)

Nope. Someone might decide that their ordinary family, street, or manhole cover deserves an article and some bunch of clueless inclusionists would show up to protect it out of principle.

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35474292)

I agree that those things shouldn't get articles - but let's look at the harm/gain here. How is the existence of something I won't look at worse than the non-existence of something I'm looking for?

Re:Wait, what? (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 3 years ago | (#35474442)

Degree of controversy has nothing to do with notability. Having a lot of people outside Wikipedia come and claim something shouldn't be deleted happens all the time for things that aren't at all notable (one common class of examples are bands that have nothing more than a myspace page and try to get lots of their friends to go and shout rude things at the Wikipedians.) The ability to send large numbers of people to scream at Wikipedia is not a good argument for notability. Old Man Murray turned out to be notable, in that their were sufficient reliable sources. That is the primary notability criterion and so it was kept. There's no good reason for level of internet drama to measure whether or not something should have an article. There are serious problems on Wikipedia with deletion of good content. The Old Man Murray discussions are not an example of those problems.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475724)

I'm sorry but I disagree. I have never heard of XYZ band getting a few dozen friends to whine about their page deletion. Thousands of people have now heard about Old Man Murray getting its page deleted. I personally didn't know the site, but now I do. You could argue the site is even more notable than it was before.

If you want to be technical, the very fact the news has made the headlines created dozens of back links from sites like /. or RPS. That alone would be enough for notability, thus controversy brings notability but only when it is important enough (like here). Despite this, my point was about common sense. Deleting something should be given a lot of thought and any doubt should put off the deletion. I have a hard time finding good reasons for deleting anything at all (bar the obvious spam), so I'm even less inclined to find any good argument in deleting a page which was known to have at least a certain amount of importance. You can't index always determine that by the amount of sources the article has.

Here's the guy... (2, Funny)

DataDiddler (1994180) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472442)

... who led the charge to take down OMM from Wikipedia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g6eUC2_-RA&feature=player_embedded [youtube.com] . Yes, he talks about fire drills for a full fourteen minutes.

Re:Here's the guy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472552)

I almost feel like going through every submission he has made and marking them as not notable enough.
Most of them have less (useful) links than OMM had.

Also, he should be forced to remove the inclusionist badge from his profile, he is FAR from it.
It certainly wasn't exclusionism that led him to his rampage against it and Portal Of Evil.

Both him and his buddy HalfShadow are still super mad about something that happened on some forum a long ass time ago that nobody but those 2 cared about.

Re:Here's the guy... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472812)

Wow, looking ugly and being retarded like that would sure make you want to remove articles from people more popular and important than you.

Re:Here's the guy... (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472944)

I looked into his web rantings when the OMM issue first came up. That is one seriously disturbed person. Who in the hell is THAT passionate about fire drills? He talks about it on "The Schumin Web' alot.

Re:Here's the guy... (1)

wmbetts (1306001) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473142)

Thank you. Now I know what's wrong with Wikipedia.

Was first on Rock Paper Shotgun (1)

Grapplebeam (1892878) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472720)

And I was figuring it'd be the last place we heard about it. Slow news day? Or... month? Since it was restored a while ago. It's certainly notable, and the moderator that wants it gone is just on a power trip. So, yeah. Whateva.

Of course... (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472892)

And by swarm, you mean all 3 of you.

Cocksuckers then ask for money (1)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473052)

And then the cocksuckers have the balls to ask for money after pulling shit like this.

Wikipedia is not getting one fucking donation from me until they get rid of these deletion happy mutherfuckers.

Who the fuck cares if an article is notable to you, that the same bullshit, can't fucking call it reasoning because it isn't, that fuckers in Texass used to keep Ã"scar Romero out of their history books Kinda surprised Wikipedia hasn't cited the Texas State Board of Education and removed him from there as well.

The next article (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473186)

So when do we create a Wikipedia article about the OMM deletion controversy? I can't wait to see the THAT article's deletion controversy!

Re:The next article (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#35474238)

An so on. And so on.

Re:The next article (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35475404)

All of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again, and all of it was anticipated somewhere in Borges.

Wikipedia is overrun by deletionists (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35473206)

I am a former Wikipedian who stopped making substantial edits in 2006. I have seen so many articles that are covered by relable sources but are still deleted by deletionists. Just like how the idea of Linux on the desktop was destroyed by warring KDE/Gnome factions which further split up into Plasma/Classic and Shell/Spatial/Unity and Xfree86/Xorg/Wayland factions. Wikipedia deletionists destroyed the original goal of "imagine free access to the sum of all human knowlege, thats what we are doing" motto. Now Jimbo just facespamms every few months BEGGING for your money that could go to legimate educational institutions while letting deletionists and thug admins eliminate good faith editors.

Wikipedia needs to be blacklisted and replaced by an inclusionist project that bans deletionists and promotes legitmate edits. The closest is probably Wikia but it is advertising and has COI with Jimbo.

Re:Wikipedia is overrun by deletionists (1)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473380)

Linux failed on the desktop because of bitchfights between gnome and KDE fans? If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you. See? It even has a penguin spraypainted on the side.

Re:Wikipedia is overrun by deletionists (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35474426)

Yank its content. It's all Creative Commons'd.

Re:Wikipedia is overrun by deletionists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35474534)

Couldn't agree more - well said.

Fork it already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35473298)

Why isn't there a wikipedia fork yet? We could leave the deletionists at the old rotten one, and welcome people who actually contribute to the new one.

Wouldn't it be glorious?

Re:Fork it already (1)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473496)

My first guess would be expense. Sure, the data is free, but it takes up a whole lot of space, and Wikipedia goes through bandwidth like nobody's business.

My second guess would be apathy. 99.99% of current Wikipedia users would continue to use the original, even if you hired (or hacked!) every screen and marquee in Times Square to advertise your fork.

My third guess is French: "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose". Wikipedia is a bureaucracy wrapped in red tape and Byzantine nerd politicking, but it didn't begin that way. Entropy and ego infiltrate any social system, and sooner or later the Old Guard is going to get annoyed with new arrivals adding 'irrelevant' entries, deleting them, and circling the wagons (and the jerks) when someone makes a fuss.

Re:Fork it already (1)

imthesponge (621107) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473576)

What would you do differently?

Re:Fork it already (1)

azgard (461476) | more than 3 years ago | (#35474144)

I agree that Wikipedia is overrun by deletionists, so I will tell you what I would do differently:

1. Add more democracy, get rid of the crazy "majority doesn't decide, consensus does" which can be subjective, and decide objectively with voting.
2. Equate power between admins and normal users - give users ability to recall admin, separate admin privileges (like bans and deletions).
3. Weigh votes slightly by stable (not reverted) added content to the main pages or images.
4. Create several notability levels for articles. This would also organize content better, because it would make easier to find more notable things.
5. Give more consideration to the readers - make feedback polls, consider number of accesses to page in deletion, and so on.
6. Stop worrying when things are not perfect. Do not remove unsourced content unilaterally, but encourage experts to confirm/deny it and add sources. This creates opportunity for crowdsourcing. Also encourage experts to add just sources (and not text) to stub articles.

Re:Fork it already (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#35474588)

What would you do differently?

Place accredited experts and academics in charge of pages. Give knowledgeable, identified individuals ultimate editorial control over pages or groups of pages so that, while anyone can edit, disputes, in-correctness and cruft can all be managed by an overall editor proficient in that field.

Establish a new foundation to run the encyclopedia, with close links to academia and higher educational bodies. Fund the site though these links and not via private donations. Establish a board of governors, drawn from library organisations and academia, who will ultimately oversee the project and who are charged with its good running.

And of course, fire Wales and his cronies, sweep away the existing bureaucracy and evict the destructive admins currently in place, replacing them with experts. At all times, keep the focus on harnessing the energy of altruistic contributors, to be organised and amalgamated by experts.

Wikipedia can succeed, but not with passive aggressive control freaks running it.

Re:Fork it already (1)

imthesponge (621107) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475700)

It sounds like you're describing Citizendium [citizendium.org] .

Re:Fork it already (2)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473970)

Why isn't there a wikipedia fork yet? We could leave the deletionists at the old rotten one, and welcome people who actually contribute to the new one.

The fork doesn't solve the problem.

An encyclopedia has to maintain some minimal level of substance and credibility if it not to become a vanity press.

Articles need to be well-written. Reasonably up-to-date and credibly sourced.

Re:Fork it already (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35474656)

Deleted pages can be found on DeletionPedia [dbatley.com]

I anticipated this development (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473416)

as a connoisseur of fine irony.

Before the Wikipedia brouhaha, Old Man Murray probably didn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards, which require citable external sources of information on a topic. Then the act of deleting the article caused such sources to spring into existence, thus making Old Man Murray notable if one follows the guidelines literally.

The reasonable intent of the citation rule is that a thing should not be considered just notable because some Wikipedia contributors *claim* it is. Yet, somehow, this reasonable rule doesn't seem to cover the possibility that a topic becomes notable because some Wikipedia contributors claim it is *not*.

Re:I anticipated this development (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 3 years ago | (#35474572)

as a connoisseur of fine irony.

Before the Wikipedia brouhaha, Old Man Murray probably didn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards

Wikipedia is full of articles that don't meet "notability" standards. The real issue is "is there someone out there in a position of power who gets a bug up his ass and decides that this particular entry is not notable". It has been well documented that Wikipedia is controlled by a handful of OCD control freaks.

Evades me (2, Interesting)

hydrofix (1253498) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473504)

The point of this Slashdot submission just totally evades me. Apparently someone nominated the article for deletion with perfectly sound reasoning in January. No proponents responded (meaning: nobody cared for the article), so it was deleted accordingly. Wikipedia does not accept something being articleworthy just because you know the organization / website / whatever – you have to provide evidence that this phenomena is real and notable – otherwise Wikipedia would be just full of all sorts of hoaxes and articles someone wrote from the top of their head one Saturday. See, not all phenomena are well-known in all subcultures, so we need neutral standards to measure what phenomena is articleworthy.

The closing admin thought the amount of participation (two votes) was not enough to form consensus, so when closing the debate he wrote he would (quote) "restore on request." Someone went ahead and requested restore, and the article was resurrected. Then, after a grace period, it was renominated, and wider participation was achieved. This time the closing admin was a bit trigger happy, but the article was again resurrected after quick discussion.

The deletion debate has since cooled, and the article seems now well-sourced and no deletion nomination is underway. There is one non-bot edit in the talk page during the last week or so. It boggles me how did this submission get through the screening process? It is totally pointless, and the advertised "debate to delete the article" is nowhere to be seen. Only thing I can come up with is someone getting butthurt from the deletion debate and deciding to have hard-failing "revenge" on the admins.

I can' believe Slashdot actually bought into this.

Re:Evades me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35474616)

It boggles me how did this submission get through the screening process?

/. has a screening process?

theft (1)

jmcvetta (153563) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473802)

Deletionists steal knowledge from the public.

How popular could this website have been? (1)

Doctor Morbius (1183601) | more than 3 years ago | (#35474140)

I've been playing PC games since 1995 and before that on the Amiga and the Apple II. I have over 200 gaming or gaming related websites in my bookmarks. Some of them very obscure. I have read countless forum posts and articles on these websites. Not once did I ever encounter a mention of Old Man Murray. How significant could this website have been? I suspect that this website was popular among a very small but fanatical group of people who somehow gained influence in the gaming industry.

Re:How popular could this website have been? (1)

Weedhopper (168515) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475054)

Slashdot used to link to OMM right on the front page, right next to the E2, Themes and Penny Arcade links.

Re:How popular could this website have been? (1)

Doctor Morbius (1183601) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475804)

That must have been before I discovered slashdot.

The real problem with a "notability" standard... (5, Insightful)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 3 years ago | (#35474148)

If Wikipedia and its current admins had been around in 1890, they'd have deleted the entry for Vincent Van Gogh.

Encyclopedias have to restrict themselves due to their medium. They would love to be repositories of all knowledge if they could, but that's just not possible, it would take too much paper. Wikipedia has the potential to become what traditional encyclopedias can only aspire to be -- but they've decided instead to imitate as if it were a virtue what encyclopedias do out of unfortunate necessity. They've basically decided to self-limit themselves to make sure they don't transcend the limitations of their paper relatives, and for some reason consider themselves better off for making sure they are no better.

Studying history, it's often frustrating to go over what people wrote centuries before, because they often fail to note precisely what you're most interested in finding out. History shows people are extremely poor at determining what's actually worth noting at the time. The best service that could ever be provided to the future would be to try as hard as possible to note as much as possible. The catch, of course, is to keep from drowning the information in noise, but the answer to that is organization and search tools, not limiting the data. No one is going to miss the information they're looking for because a page for Old Man Murray is on the site, and if there ever were so many similar entries that this was at all a danger, an index page of "notable" writers would clear up the problem lickety-split.

They should be working on how to organize information to make sure whatever the current generation finds most notable is most easy to find, not on limiting information to what history tells us will inevitably be a large number of very poor decisions on what's actually worth recording.

Editorial supervision (1)

lyinhart (1352173) | more than 3 years ago | (#35474774)

I rarely get involved in deletion debates these days. The problem is the whole concept of "notability" is definitely screwed up. Notability on Wikipedia is supposed to be objectively decided, but that runs contrary to establishing notability in the first place. To some an article on a certain topic might be important, but other people it might be something that should be deleted.

Normally this is where editorial supervision would come into play. For better or for worse, this is how it works in professional publications. People higher up decide what gets put into the book, what makes the newspaper. But there's no editorial hierarchy on Wikipedia, so that's out. So we're forced to adhere to some vague notion of notability, which basically states that anything that's mentioned a few times on the Internet is notable, nevermind old topics that might only have print sources that may or may not exist.

But by maintaining Wikipedia's facade of "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit", they've refused to do things that would be the first steps in any large professional writing project. That is, relying on a set of topic experts, quality copyeditors, fact checkers and researchers and professional level editorial staff that decides what's in and what's out. Citizendium has tried to establish such a system, but as they're finding out it's hard to get quality editors to do this stuff for free. It's far easier to do what Wikipedia does and let anyone whose passions outweigh their expertise and ability to contribute on a short leash.

The result? An encyclopedia that's quite imbalanced. E.g. we get tons of people weighing in on the debate for the notability of an Internet games review site, and far less people working on stuff like Mathematics and Health-related topics, stuff people get paid top dollar for their expertise on, but wouldn't necessarily write about for their own leisure. If you look at the featured articles [wikipedia.org] , you'll see that there's lots of articles on pop culture stuff, recreation and warfare (stuff people like to write about for fun), but far less on seemingly cornerstone topics like Education, Math, Healthcare and Chemistry.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>