Ask Jimmy Wales A Question.
Webcomics and Wikipedia have had a stormy relationship of late, and I thought it would be nice to have a conversation about it with Wikipedia's foremost authority.
I will be interviewing Jimmy Wales for Broken Frontier. I have a few questions of my own, but if you want to suggest a question, this would be an excellent time. Use the comments line, or just e-mail me privately.
I will be interviewing Jimmy Wales for Broken Frontier. I have a few questions of my own, but if you want to suggest a question, this would be an excellent time. Use the comments line, or just e-mail me privately.
Labels: BF
Posted at
3:44 PM
4 Comments:
Why delete anything at all? Isn't the purpose of an editor to 'edit', not decide if it's notable?
The discussions, or nominations for deletion when the comic being targeted for deletion has been anywhere from mild annoyance from a handful of fans to extreme outrage, and then all contributing outrage is dismissed as sock or meat puppets, when the editors themselves who aren't even apart of the webcomics community go ahead and meatpuppet for deletion anyway?
Doesn't it hurt the credability of wikipedia by having editors with deletionist attitudes? 'Help improve it' don't delete it. If something is truely not notable, nobody then will improve it.
My opinion, though nothing I've added has been deleted, including questioning the validity of using Alexa and Google, the editors are still using flawed logic to determine notability, and as such I do not feel compelled to contribute to wikipedia because of the general bad attitude given off by the editors. The editors give the impression that biased against webcomics, and don't even try to hide it.
I feel that if I make any 'edits' or create a new entry on something webcomic created, the deletionist webcomic editors will come by and nominate it for deletion and nobody will ever get the chance to 'improve it'.
(Personally, I'd rather not see anything be deleted, rather flag things as vanity/advertising if that is in fact what something is.)
I agree with kisai that you should ask why they feel the need to delete stuff that isn't blatant vandalism. And I think you should build into that question the additional question of how the Wikipedia is improved by deleting stuff. After all, some random webcomic having a page does nothing to hinder the integrity of the rest of the information in the Wikipedia, does it?
I concur; the only thing Wikipedia has over any other information source is the breadth of its content. It used to be you could look up -anything- on Wikipedia and have a good chance of at least being pointed in the right direction.
Deleting information, even if it's trivial, negates Wikipedia's single advantage.
-The Gneech
Thank Jimmy Wales for me.
Thanks to their paradoxical standards, they deleted the "Mindmistress" entry---but left in the reference to "Mindmistress" under "orachalium".
Which paradoxically has Wilkipedia referencing something it doesn't explain...
Post a Comment
<< Home