Microsoft_Vole - Wiki Exile
wiki...@yahoo.com
end of this post.
[[Vole|'''Vole''']] is the nickname given to the [[Microsoft|Microsoft
Corporation]].
The nickname is believed to have been coined by the online News Journal
[[The_Inquirer|The Inquirer]].
Currently there is no definitive information as to how the name
originated, even The Inquirer's own Jargon file only has this to say:
----
VOLE: "I am a Vole and I live in a hole". Microsoft.
----
Perhaps the most compelling reason was given by a user on The
Inquirer's Message board who said:
"Well, a Vole is a small rodent whose teeth grow continuously.
Therefore they must eat (and wear their teeth down) continously or
their own growth would kill them. In otherwords, Microsoft can only
survive by acquiring/stifling the competition."
Please see the talk page for correspondence with The Inquirer and
responses
posted on The Inquirer's message board about the origin of the
nickhame. Also the below link to the Inquirer's Jargon file
shows that the entry for Vole is unilluminating.
==External links==
*[http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8069 ''Inquirer's Guide To
Inquirer Jargon'']
*[http://www.hermitscave.org ''The Inquirer Message Board '']
=============================================================
********************* Deletion Brouhaha *********************
=============================================================
The following entry in Wikipedia was deleted the following charges were
levelled against the entry:
non-notable
neologism
unencyclopedic
unverifiable
also "stupid" however i will ignore that here!
Each one of these charges were cohenrently argued against and I believe
shown to be incorrect. ( please see the deletion discussion at the end
of this entry )
Despite the fact that i believe that the deletion discussion did not
demonstrate that this entry was a valid candidate for deletion it was
deleted.
This leads this wikipedian to question whether wikipedia is itself
unencyclopedic since by precluding an argulably valid entry it is
clearly NOT comprehensive ;->
The wikipedia policy for deletion is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Decision_Policy
The article was deleted from Wikipedia after the following discussion:
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion
of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments
should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this
page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:27,
12 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit]
Microsoft vole
POV from an ONLINE news outlet. Does not belong to Wikipedia. And what
is that talk page about?? Delete. Feydey 20:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* Delete this stupid, non-notable agitprop phrase. Gosh, I hate the
Inquirer. Gazpacho 20:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A mention in the Inquirer article is fine (and I can guess
without looking that there already is one), but the phrase is no more
appropriate for an article than "Micro$oft."
* Keep. Anything anti-Microsoft is inherently notable. Delete. Not
verifiable, neologism, dicdef, and other wise unencyclopedic.
--Carnildo 23:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* Delete. Even the Inquirer's own glossary has only "Vole" anyway.
- Sebastian (talk) 23:57, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
* Delete, POV, nonce term. The Talk page seems to be a copyvio,
too, since the people on the email don't seem to have released it to
the GFDL or to fair use. RickK 00:01, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
* Keep. Neologism? It is neither meaningless as it is referenced
all over Google. It also has been a term that's been in use since at
least 2001 well before many other Wikipedia entries (e.g. podcasting ).
Yes it does seem to revolve around usage at the Inquirer, but so what?
Even if you do 'hate the Inquirer' that should not preclude it from
being a valid entry. I think entries are valid if the usage of the word
is widespread enough ( search Google and see ) and it does not exist in
Wikipedia. The sceanario was that an Inquirer article came up on Google
News where i read it and then couldn't find ANY kind of explanation (
even if it was to say that there was NO definitive an explanation ).
One of the first places I tried was wikipedia. Currently if someone
else conducts this same search they will come across this entry and at
least had some knowledge of what the word mean't and the possible
reasons( When i first read the article I didn't even know that
Vole=Microsoft! ). If this entry is deleted then someone will either
give up or waste a lot of time trying to find out ( as I did ). Even if
a term is disparaging the term itself should be included if it's in use
( e.g. fairy a male homosexual (
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fairy&x=0&y=0
)). The article is not POV in the sense that it is reporting a usage
and not condoning it or promoting it. Note that the explanation of the
term was in quotes and was said to be from a Message Board so it is not
speaking with 'The Authority of Wikipedia'. Also if this is a nonce
term then why has it been used since 2001 that's getting on for four
years! Additionally it's all very well to say that the word is used on
special occasions ( yes i went to M-W to figure out what nonce mean't!
)but it is everywhere on Google and even if a lot of the links are to
Inquirer a lot are NOT - the word seems to have been picked up by other
writers. Also who cares if it is a special occasion surely that should
not preclude it from an entry. I guess i feel quite strongly about this
because there i was, a user on the Internet - i came across a term and
i COULDN'T find out what it mean't. My entry into wikipedia was to
increase everybody's knowledge ( and not to Bash Microsoft ). As for
'copyvio' on talk page - i could instead paraphrase or get permissions
- it is not a show stopper - however i do think it would be nice for
people to get some discussion on etymology. :->
o Above edit by 204.110.116.1 --Carnildo 19:03, 27 Apr 2005
(UTC)
o Let's put it this way: Assume somebody described someone
with a long neck and called her "giraffe". Now assume you didn't know
what it meant. You go to the Wikipedia article about giraffe and read
"Giraffes are famous for their long necks." Voilà! Same with vole. The
article already says "Unlike most rodents, voles' teeth grow
continuously." If you feel this is not enough, just expand this
statement so it sufficiently explains why people use "vole" in the
meaning you quote. - Sebastian (talk) 02:46, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC) (PS:
Please don't go ahead and create an article [[giraffe (insult)]] now.)
;-)
* OK I take it that the article is no longer being considered for
deletion? I hope so! We have two outstanding issues of contention if
the article is kept then.
1.) The quote that shows why the term was used.
(oh bugger - just read Sebastian said to go ahead and explain why
people use vole - BEFORE i wrote all this !!! Sorry. I will leave it in
anyway since it is a clarification of my view even if it may be
redundant now! Although having said that i think that it's not the Vole
article that needs to be updated it should be this article since we are
highlighting this key feature of the Vole as it relates to the nickname
(see below))
I understand that we are trying to reach a point where the article
is still illuminating but is not gratuitously negative to Microsoft
since wikipedia needs to protect it's neutral nature and not be seen as
being hijaked by Anti-Microsoft 'crusaders'. You are trying to protect
wikipedia's integrity and that is the right thing to do. I think that
the use of the giraffe to illustrate the point is fair as far as *that*
animal and *that* explanation goes and also the *key point* that the
girl is described with a long neck to start with. However i wasn't
looking into the nickname of Vole thinking to myself that "...this is
being used to describe a voracious corporation that devours everything
continuously now let's look up what vole means". I guess if i was
thinking that then i would may have understood the possible reason for
vole as nickname without it needing to be illustrated. Also I'm not
sure that voles are famous for having teeth that continuously grow and
if they are famous for it I certainly had no idea and neither does
*everyone* else. So now it's a matter of what we leave out without
assuming knowledge on the part of the person reading ( assumption of
knowledge especially where that assumption is not declared is extremley
frustrating for people seeking knowledge ). I think that the issue
revolves around highlighting the nature of teeth and the key to the
metaphor: the requirement to eat continously ( whether that is true or
not ). That is the key i think: the need to eat continously. So i think
perhaps the bone of contention that is left that maybe considered
gratuitous ( even though it is in quotes! ) is: "...Microsoft can only
survive by acquiring/stifling the competition." I have no objection to
removing this and merely paraphrasing the quote and removing the
quotation marks.
2.) The potential copyviolation.
I am currently attempting to aquire permissions to use the text on
the discussion page.
204.110.116.1
* Update on Item 2.)
OK i misjudged this one - to my suprise the provider of the quote
has wished for it to be retracted from this page for fear of 'unwanted
attention from Microsoft'. - I am removing the complete thread, since i
do not want anyone else to be subject to similar fear.
204.110.116.1
I sympathize with you. Please don't let this discourage you
from speaking up! This is a lame excuse from the provider! For all i
know, the First Amendment has not been abolished yet. It's our all duty
to keep it alive by sound practice. I see this sort of spineless appeal
to fear as a reason for much evil in our society, and i deeply hope
that it will soon go out of fashion. (To avoid misunderstandings: I
still uphold my vote for "delete"; but only because we have good
reasons, not because we are intimidated.) Sebastian (talk) 06:29, 2005
Apr 29 (UTC)
keep, its a standard phrase coined by theinquirer.net (a well read IT
news site), in the same vein as chipzilla and graphzilla (Intel and
NVidia). I am quite sure that the publisher of theinquirer.net would be
"tickled pink" to see this on wikipedia.
* Delete, it hard to tell what's going on here, but
editorial/unverifiable content is not suitable for an
encyclopedia--nixie 04:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* Delete. Neologism, unverifiable, unenyclopedic. Jayjg (talk)
04:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* Response:
Please can someone explain the meaning of unverifiable here. If it
relates to what is the truth behind the REASON for the application of
the term then I would agree that is not verfiable. What is verifiable,
however, is that the term IS used to reference Microsoft. It is
verifiable that the term did turn up in what i consider to be a
mainstream news outlet ( google news ) and i can verify (;->) that i
was completley clueless for quite a while as to what the term was even
referring to. I think even on that point alone the term deserves
inclusion in wikipedia, whose purpose is, I believe, to provide non
biased ( as far as possible ) knowledge. I did not coin the phrase I
came across it - i had no knowledge - i went to wikipedia to seek
knowledge - it was not there and that was when i decided to pin down
this term as far as possible, create a wikipedia article and help
others like myself. As for the reason the term was applied, I feel that
to level verifiability at etymology would be unfair as a reasoned
speculation can be more helpful than none at all. Where would we be
without the idea of putting forward a theory? There are lots of facts
in this world that are without a verifiable explanation but there are
theories to explain these facts and these theories are usually included
when discussing the facts.
As for neologism please see my previous comments ( above ) regarding
the application of neologism to this article.
As for unenyclopedic can someone explain which definition we are using.
I just went to www.m-w.com and looked up encyclopedia. It says:
encyclopedia: "...a work that contains information on all branches
of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge
usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject." - ok
well under this definition I cannot see that this entry qualifies as
unenyclopedic any more than many other 'approved' wikipedia articles.
I am trying to address each point as they are put forward - i can see
that another one was editorial. Again i will have to use www.m-w.com to
discover the definition ( rather than just the vauge idea that i have
;-> ).
editorial:"a newspaper or magazine article that gives the opinions
of the editors or publishers." I think this has been an issue since the
term seems to have originated with The Inquirer. I think the key point
here is *opinion*. It is not The Inquirer's opinion that Microsoft is
'The Vole' it is simply a fact that they nicknamed them that. If i say
I am going to call IBM 'Diggy Diggy Dog' that is not really my opinion
it is a fact. If I say that IBM ARE Diggy Diggy Dogs that is my (
nonsensical ) opinion. I don't think we can really say that the
Inquirer is of the opinion that Microsoft is a vole, it is merely their
nickname for them and as such it is a fact. So although it may seem
editorial at first glance I don't think that applying editorial to the
entry is applicable here.
204.110.116.1
* Delete. Neologism, non-encyclopedic, non-notable,
non-interesting. Zzzzz. Quale 05:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* Delete, for reasons given by Quale. I don't know that the
Inquirer's Jargon File is as notable as the Jargon File. --Idont
Havaname 02:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
* Why not mention this nickname somewhere near the bottom of the
Microsoft article in some sort of errata section? The fact that MS is
in one of those positions of disputed alliance (People love MS, other
people really hate it.) would seem to be of encyclopedic value to
address, in and of itself. Perhaps rather than simply deleting the
entry, have it redirect to Microsoft's errata area. --JD 09:11, 7 May
2005 (UTC)
o The problem is that there are so many names people call
Micro-soft, that if we did so, the list of names would overwhelm the
rest of the Micro$oft article. --Carnildo 23:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
* Delete. If somebody thinks this is a neologism, it is probably
stealth/fiction from the author. We could BJAODN it. --SuperDude 05:10,
9 May 2005 (UTC)
* Delete -- not encyclopedic. - Longhair | Talk 05:12, 9 May 2005
(UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like
some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on
the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be
placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Derek
voles. That is one of the defining characteristics of rodents. If it
doesn't have continuously growing teeth, it's not a rodent. Secondly
the phrase (from the formerly well known top 20 song by the
Southlanders) is "I am a mole and I live in a hole". Voles don't live
in holes -- they live in runs which they make in the long grass of
meadows.
Cheers
Derek