Help defend the comp.sys.sinclair Wikipedia page!
kora...@gmail.com
I today found that Wikipedia has pages on just about every *other* use
of "css", but not this one; so after checking that individual
newsgroups are allowed to have pages (I checked NANAE), I added the
above to the CSS disambiguation page, and then created it.
Almost immediately, some scumbag (a C64-lover no doubt:) marked it for
speedy deletion on the grounds of it being "not notable enough"!
So, could anyone who can be arsed [That'll probably be Lister and Alex
Farlie's cat then -- Ed] kindly go to Wikipedia (link above) and add
their own arguments to the page's Talk page. We must save our
Wikipedia outpost! [Why? -- Ed] [To stop the Commies getting it all
their own way -- 2nd Ed]
Bill H
I think you pretty much shot yourself in the foot with this comment on
the initial page:
"Because this gives a somewhat limited range of discussion, there
tends to be a lot of off-topic discussion, particularly of
confectionery and of children's television."
Though that pretty much sums up this group and why I dont post much on
it anymore
BIll H
Bill H
Their argument pretty much sums it up:
CSD A7 - article about a person, group, company, or website that does
not assert the importance of the subject. You can put {{subst:nn-warn|
page name}} -- ~~~~ on the user's talk page, or, if it seems that
someone has created a user page in the encyclopedia section instead of
their user page, you can use put {{subst:Userfy warning|page name}} --
~~~~ on their talk page.
Graham J Lee
That's why I don't bother with contributing to wikipedia. If you _do_
assert the importance of a subject in an article, you will get marked as
using weasel words. Basically wikipedia is an affirmation by the
contributors of their own areas of interest and ignorance.
--
Graham Lee
http://www.thaesofereode.info
Bill H
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Entry is gone now - no one defended it?
kora...@gmail.com
wrote:
> That's why I don't bother with contributing to wikipedia. If you _do_
> assert the importance of a subject in an article, you will get marked as
> using weasel words. Basically wikipedia is an affirmation by the
> contributors of their own areas of interest and ignorance.
I've had contributions deleted as "original research" despite their
containing no trace (that I can fathom) of (a) originality or (b)
research. I suspect that in this context "original research" means "I
don't like this contribution, so I'll make up a bullet-proof 'reason'
for deleting it".
Robert Baker
<info.thae...@leeg.invalid> wrote:
>That's why I don't bother with contributing to wikipedia. If you _do_
>assert the importance of a subject in an article, you will get marked as
>using weasel words. Basically wikipedia is an affirmation by the
>contributors of their own areas of interest and ignorance.
I've today edited my user page on Wikipedia, only to have it reverted
by some clueless idiot because I made my edits without logging in!
(Because of their suspect editorial policies, I make a point of not
logging in unless I absolutely need to in order to do the edit.)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Korax1214&action=history>
Matthew Westcott
> I've had contributions deleted as "original research" despite their
> containing no trace (that I can fathom) of (a) originality or (b)
> research.
Ah, you see, "original research" actually means "there isn't already a
page elsewhere on the internet containing this exact information". On
the other hand, if there *is* a page elsewhere on the internet
containing that exact information, it must of course be deleted as a
copyright violation.
A similar policy applies to usernames. Even as I write this, there's
probably someone out there arguing that the name 'Korax1214' should not
be allowed as it appears to be a random collection of letters and
numbers. But don't even think of changing it to something that's bold,
memorable and makes a clear statement about your identity, because then
it will be blocked for being potentially offensive to a hypothetical
person who disagrees with the statement you're making.
(I signed up with the username Slovakia, which is a nickname I'd been
given around that time. But then somebody else with a country for a
username got into an argument about nationalism, which meant that I was
clearly a troublemaker as well, because I could potentially use my
username to potentially cause offence in a potential argument about the
status of Slovakia (hey, it's a contentious topic you know. The
secession from Czechoslovakia might have been totally peaceful, but that
was only 15 years ago and anything could happen. And apparently there
was some war there 60 years ago. Gasp!) that I might potentially want to
take part in. And the same went for the user 'Jordan', who couldn't even
escape the attention of this eagle-eyed admin by his cunning ruse of
*actually being called Jordan in real life*.)
Chris Young
to MC Matthew Westcott:
> Ah, you see, "original research" actually means "there isn't already a
> page elsewhere on the internet containing this exact information". On
> the other hand, if there *is* a page elsewhere on the internet
> containing that exact information, it must of course be deleted as a
> copyright violation.
It's the usual moderation dictatorship masquarading as a democracy. I
get around it all by not actually having a username on Wikipedia, you
don't need one anyway unless you're starting articles (in which case
you may as well stand in a crowded public place with a sign saying
"kick me"[1]).
Chris
[1] Which I daresay is a far more productive use of time than
bothering writing articles that will be deleted in a matter of
minutes.
--
+-------------------------------------------+
| Unsatisfactory Software - "because it is" |
| http://www.unsatisfactorysoftware.co.uk |
| Your Sinclair: A Celebration |
+- http://www.yoursinclair.co.uk -----------+
DISCLAIMER: I may be making all this stuff up again.
int...@gmail.com
I'm a modest editor at Wikipedia and I would like to address some
criticism
some of you have been throwing at it. My intent is not to troll this
newsgroup; if you want me to go away, I will.
Anyway, it is a very common misconception that Wikipedia is the wiki
about
everything and anything that anyone can edit. And it is a very sad
misconception since people expect to be able to talk about anything
and
publish it on the top10 web site of the Internet without any
scrutinity, and
are intensely disappointed, claiming that Wikipedia has double
standards.
The reality is that Wikipedia is an open content encyclopedia in the
form of a
wiki that everyone is welcome to *improve*. What consistutes an
improvement is
defined by various guidelines and policies, and consensus on
discussion pages.
"Wiki" is not synonymous with Wikipedia -- there are numerous of other
wikis
that have different goals and different standards.
Encyclopedias do not publish original information ("original
research"), they
summarize existing knowledge published elsewhere. Wikipedia in
particular has
set its criteria for inclusion to "verifiability" -- all content on
Wikipedia
has to be supported by a reliable source (as defined on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS), or it may be removed if anyone
challenges
it. Note that this is "verifiability", and not "truth". More
information at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V (verifiability policy)
This leads to the question of notability -- if multiple reliable
sources on a
topic cannot be produced, then a verifiable article cannot be written.
To
establish notability, it suffices to *list* such sources. More
information at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:N (notability guideline). As already
pointed
out by Bill H, the criteria for speedy deletion is *not* "this topic
is
non-notable", it says "this article does not assert notability."
In addition to being notable and verifiable, Wikipedia entries must
also be
neutral. Articles about organizations and communities in particular
need to be
verifiable, since there is a big chance that they would be written by
people
part of the organization who might have a conflict of interest; if the
claims
cannot be verified then they will likely to be biased in favor.
Entries on
these kinds of topics, whose notability is not established, are
normally
deleted.
Now, not every verifiable, notable and neutral topic/entry is
inherently
encyclopedic; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
That was a very brief introduction into the core ideas of Wikipedia.
Noboody
said that writing an encyclopedia article was easy. By all means, if
you
you dislike others scrutinizing your work then by any means, do not
edit.
Given that the number of articles on the English Wikipedia has
exceeded 1.75
million, *someone* must be getting their articles in.
Finally, note that the majority of edits made on the English Wikipedia
are by
normal users with no administrative powers whatsoever. If you disagree
with
them, why not discuss it?
> If you _do_
> assert the importance of a subject in an article, you will get marked as
> using weasel words.
And how is that bad? It's an invitation to improve the entry. Noone is
forcing
*you* to dot it. If you disagree with a tag, you can always discuss it
on the
talk page of the article, or asking the editor in person. Other
editors are
people and make mistakes too.
> On
> the other hand, if there *is* a page elsewhere on the internet
> containing that exact information, it must of course be deleted as a
> copyright violation.
Yes, if it contains the exact same phrases, and if you didn't make it
clear
that you were quoting someone. If it wasn't a copyright violation and
was
deleted, then you can rightfully request undeletion at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DELREV
> It's the usual moderation dictatorship masquarading as a democracy.
Wikipedia is not [masquerading as] a democracy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY
However, neither is Wikipedia a dictatorship. These policies have been
developed through a consensus between editors. You are welcome to
challenge
any of the policies and guidelines on their respective discussion
("talk")
pages. Your arguments are considered based on their merit, not your
power.
Now, this long essay would have been unnecessary if people took their
time
getting acquainted with what Wikipedia is and what it is not, or even
trying
to find out *why* their entry was considered inappropriate for
Wikipedia. All
of this, and more, is documented. If you have any questions, I can
answer them
to my best knowledge.
Regards,
intgr
int...@gmail.com
(
intgr
Paul E Collins
kora...@gmail.com
> Ah, you see, "original research" actually means "there isn't already a
> page elsewhere on the internet containing this exact information". On
> the other hand, if there *is* a page elsewhere on the internet
> containing that exact information, it must of course be deleted as a
> copyright violation.
The "it's definitely not Stonkers" bit has been deleted from the
Stonkers page by some American idiot (who ironically complains on his
user page about Wikipedia being spoiled by idiotic edits done by
"people who don't know what they're doing" -- I think said user page
should be a redirect to the "pot, kettle, black" page) on the grounds
that it's "not notable" -- and this despite my providing a link to a
Google search on this very newsgroup which returns over 100 hits from
a variety of sources; how much more "notable" can anyone want? Or is
it because, according to Wikipedia, this newsgroup Officially Doesn't
Exist?
I suspect it's a case of "I've never heard of this, therefore it's not
notable".
spi...@freenet.co.uk
Isn't it even possible to add a LINK to the newsgroup on the zx spectrum
page? (you know, at the bottom "outside links" section?)
It is a vast resource of speccy info, nostalgia and crisp flavours after
all. And it's been around a heck of a lot longer than wiki itself. (any
wiki, the entire wiki thing wasn't invented 14 years ago)
> I suspect it's a case of "I've never heard of this, therefore it's not
> notable".
Aye.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Young
to MC :
> Isn't it even possible to add a LINK to the newsgroup on the zx spectrum
> page?
Apparently this is possible. Whether it will stay there is another
matter. As I've linked it to news:comp.sys.sinclair I suspect it
won't.
Chris
W Marsh
> korax1...@gmail.com did eloquently scribble:
>
> > I suspect it's a case of "I've never heard of this, therefore it's not
> > notable".
>
> Aye.
spike. Read the post...
...read the post again...
...then read the post another few times...
THEN, and only then, consider if it's REALLY worth responding with an
"aye".
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> spike. Read the post...
> ...read the post again...
Oh smeg off you insufferable arsehole.
That wasn't all I replied with and you fucking well know it.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W Marsh
> W Marsh <wayne.ma...@gmail.com> did eloquently scribble:
>
> > On 23 Apr, 10:56, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> >> korax1...@gmail.com did eloquently scribble:
>
> >> > I suspect it's a case of "I've never heard of this, therefore it's not
> >> > notable".
>
> >> Aye.
> > spike. Read the post...
> > ...read the post again...
> > ...then read the post another few times...
> > THEN, and only then, consider if it's REALLY worth responding with an
> > "aye".
>
> Oh smeg off you insufferable arsehole.
> That wasn't all I replied with and you fucking well know it.
> --
> | spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
> |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
> | in | suck is probably the day they start making |
> | Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
Oh, annoyingly you're right (Google Groups highlighted the entire
first half of the message as if it was all quoted). So I APOLOGISE.
Still, copy and paste it for me ready for the next time you do the
same thing you criticised Lister for. Thanks!
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> same thing you criticised Lister for. Thanks!
And what did I criticise lister for?
Replying with nothing but a single word?
Or ruining a joke with a misplaced oo-err?
GOD you're pathetic. Just drop it.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------