November 10, 2006

• [[WP:AFD]] is really quite fascinating. I've found some extremely interesting information from my time there. I think the question of notability is increasingly making WP very schizophrenic. If mobs are terrible at producing comprehensive well-researched and definitive articles on the sum of all human knowledge (and they are terrible), they are much, much worse at gauging what is important and what isn't. On alternate days I feel like all junk ought to be deleted in the quest of an encyclopedic ideal and that most articles of dubious relevance ought to be kept because, pragmatically, deletion is eventually futile. After all, how many times has Im in ur base killin ur d00dz been created and deleted already? Surely it is less harmful to just let the article exist than to repeatedly debate its notability and delete it. Yet, somehow the mob invariably picks the most bureaucratically wasteful path.
• Um, this is going to be a dumb question -- but why delete at all? If the attraction of Wikipedia is its sheer size and scope, that it lists the most obscure of cultural references, why take away from that? Wikipedia is not an authoritative source like a proper encyclopedia, and it never will be -- so why not play to its strengths? Detailed information on arcane subjects that the big boys simply aren't interested in, nor could ever afford to pay attention to?
• Yeah, that was a dumb question. Now give us a kiss ya big lug!
• The stodgy people at Wikipedia should just accept that there are going to be things like this all the time. Classify them as "pop culture ephemera" and move on. In a few years if nobody is interested anymore, delete it then. I, for one, found out what the whole "im in ur base killin ur d00dz" thing is about from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is dead! Long live Wikipedia!
• Is this where I can find out information concerning owl semen?
• Wikipedia is all about the NPOV, but deletion of articles has often been very POV and very political. Personally, I think that the wikipedia is complete crap and will be until they get some professional editors in there. Until then there is way too much factionalism and "editing" being done by the dog in mom's basement with its own axe to grind.
• Holy mixed metaphor, Batman!
• has to be done: Monkeyfilter: the dog in mom's basement with its own axe to grind.
• Bonkum anyone?
• Bosco?
• I love Wikipedia. The NPOV and AfD fights are certainly quite visible but I bet most real encyclopedias have the same fights. The difference is that now you get to see the fights laid bare. I can imagine an irate encyclopediaist (?) storming into his editor's office because his article on some ancient egyptian king was axed because the P volume is over 1000 pages. Most of the obvious Wiki vandalism is caught fairly quickly by automated scripts and Recent Changes Patrol (you should join, I'm a member, it's fun!) and a lot of the non-obvious vandalism is caught later on when a resident expert finds the page. Oh, and this site is not designed to be a critique on Wikipedia. It's edited by polymath/slightly crazy person Cliff Pickover, a standup fellow who I doubt has an angry bone in his body. He's showcasing these articles because they're neat.
• ah! Clifford Pickover, I haven't visited his fascinating website in a while...
• I once created a page called "Chaos Theory of Literature" since I did my undergraduate thesis on this area of study (chaos theory as applied to literature such as Paradise Lost and others). It was delcared "pomo nonsense" and blammed from WP. The experience turned me off from the wikiworld and I feel as though the time I invested was wasted. Admittedly, CTL it's not a certified "theory" of study. But neither is it scattered ideas or "pomo nonsense". I felt like I'd been spat upon and shown the exit. So I'm in the bizarre position of loving WP's depth and thorough wealth of information -- and detesting its asinine demand for arbitrary standards of inclusion. More ranting here.
• It's a good starting point upon which to acquaint ones self with the basics of a subject. . . BUT NOT A REAL ENCYCLOPEDIA. And maybe that's okay. Maybe that's all it needs to be.
• It's also a boon to lazy journos and copy-editors everywhere! Less real fact checking, more time down the pub!
• So I'm in the bizarre position of loving WP's depth and thorough wealth of information -- and detesting its asinine demand for arbitrary standards of inclusion. The standards for inclusion are not arbitrary. They are verifiability (from reliable sources), no original research, neutral point of view and notability. Without reading your article, it seems that it fails at least NOR, NPOV and N, or at least would have had a hard time meeting them.
• It's a good starting point upon which to acquaint ones self with the basics of a subject Doesn't that mean it's like a real encyclopedia?
• The notability thing is just a guideline, however, it is an official policy that wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. I think wikipedia is destroying what it does best when it goes delete happy. Wikipedia is not a good academic encyclopedia. It's always out of date and half-written by amateurs who barely understand the subject. The articles on television shows show far more thought and intelligence than half of the historical articles. But that's okay, because Wikipedia is not an academic encyclopedia. It's a pop culture encyclopedia. It has individual pages for every Star Trek episode. They even have the animated series. But then some idiot delete queens go and get entire online games deleted, and communities of actuaries -- because these are all "not notable", but every single episode of every Star Trek series is. Sorry, I'm pissed. I just came off the Votes for Deletion page. It's enough to keep me from ever using wikipedia again. If it were up to the deleters, the Flying Spagetti Monster would probably have been deleted when it first appeared, and then no one would have known what Dawkins was talking about on Colbert. Wikipedia deletions are killing wikipedia. And I think the world is poorer for that.
• In other words, what Capt. Renault said, only ten times over, and louder.
• It's pretty stupid for Wikipedia to have Star Trek entries -- That is exactly what Memory Alpha is, a wiki for Star Trek and beautifully illustrated in Star Trek clothes.
• That's too cool, Flitter! I love the Mirror Universe Version!
• jb, as I said to you on IRC, you should view WP as a process instead of a product. What is notable today may stop being notable a couple years from now. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is notable and will probably remain notable for quite some time, so I really don't see why it will be deleted. A lot of internet memes (eg. Im in ur base) are of extremely questionable notability; I would be surprised if anyone remembers it five years from now. WP should not attempt to be the (or even a) definitive account of passing web fads and in-jokes. I think you are seeing Wikipedia as a historical record of the present day, but it isn't one. Even historians, I am sure, make a distinction between background noise and useful information. Wikipedia is not a primary source!
• MonkeyFlitter, you should post that to the front page! It's always so quiet around here on the weekend. More nerdiness!
• Looks like Actuarial Outpost got the axe after all.
• Citizendium: a progressive fork of Wikipedia.
• [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MonkeyFilter]]
• (By the way, if you feel the urge to comment on the AfD for the MoFi article, I would urge extreme caution. Remember that MoFi's worth does not derive from its article on WP. Keep your arguments narrowly focused on WP policies and guidelines, and definitely refrain from saying anything about the motives of the Wikipedians. If the article gets deleted, then it is not the end of the world -- as jb said earlier, WP is just hurting itself by going delete happy.)
• Bah, I broke down and added to the noise. Maybe WP will surprise me by actually reading my comment, but I doubt it. I expect they will instead flag me as a "meatpuppet" or something equally dismissive.
• All right, I've now competely given up on WP. It is hopeless. Ignore what I said earlier about AfD being sensible.
• That MoFi deletion page has now become radioactive. Color me unsurprised.
• Better to burn out than fade away?
• Did you see the kind of shit they're saying about us? I didn't take my own advice and lost my cool. I've been bitching about this nonsense on irc 24/7 and I think everyone's tired of me now.
• I did, but my self-righteousness is on the fritz. I'm tired of the internet.
• Monkeyfilter: I'm tired of the internet.
• AHA!! On the WP: Notability page, it says, "The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation... Examples of such awards: Eisner Awards, Bloggies or Webby Awards. See Category:Awards for more. Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability." MoFi was nominated for "Best Community Weblog" in the 2005 Bloggie Awards.
• I find it odd that they have us pegged as spammers. Wha?
• Probably more from assumption than from actually clicking the link. There are a lot of faux-blogs just made for google advertising and spamming. Still, if you're going to call for deletion the obvious thing to do would be to actually know what you're on about.
• Can we take the initiative and request deletion? The Wikipedia article isn't doing anything for our image.
• I'm actually agreeing with drivingmenuts. Aside from some sort of bragging rights, what good does Wikipedia do Monkeyfilter to have an article or not?
• No need to request it any more. It was deleted. Apparently I am a drama queen.
• I'm in ur wiki spamming ur pimply white ass.
• BALEETED!