I recall the time when every article for deletion was compared with individual pokemon articles. Finally this struck a nerve, and they merged them all into several lists and made hundreds of redirects.
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-18 9:55
>>1
But you must agree, that WM that is used by 0.001% of Linux users (the rest would tell you that their window manager is Ubanto, kekeke), which in turn constitutes the 0.001% percent of personal computer users (the "more than 1%" figure linuxtards are proud of takes servers into account) is not really notable. Even though all five DWM users are flaming non-stop in the discussion. Even though they managed to recruit a number of linuxtards who "use Ubanto" but feel obliged to support their brothers nevertheless. Still, not notable.
As much as I hate wikipedos, I have to concede that they are absolutely right in this case.
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-18 9:59
>>3
>numbers out of your ass
>notability
>wikipedos
>Ubanto
>linuxtards
You're not helping your wikifriends by using such crude and baseless arguments.
>linuxtards
Wow. You made a portmanteau of the words 'linux' and 'retard'. Well, thats me converted. I'm going to format my Linux box, spend a few hundred on Windows and install it today!
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-18 10:04
>>5
I didn't mention any "wikipedos", its your brand of insult.
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-18 10:10
>>5
So they disowned you too? With the bitterness you express I can quite see why you have no friends.
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-18 10:11
>>6
I wasn't try to "convert" you. Your belief that there are two religions here, Linux and Windows, is mistaken, one of them is not.
>>7
The strong correlation between being a Wikipedia admin and being a paedophile does not disappear if you insist on calling them "my wikifriends". Also, attacking language instead of arguments is a hallmark of inept troll losing an argument.
>>9
No, my friend there are indeed Windows zealots too. I've worked with some of these sad, deluded individuals.
I guess some people take a dogmatic view of life and just hang on to whatever they've been told is right. Never thinking or questioning the base assumptions.
You sounds like one of them, too.
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-18 10:16
>>10
This is [spoilers]/prog/[/spoilers] not debate/rhetoric class.
Back to r9k, please
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-18 10:17
/prog/ even
damn it's too early, where's the coffee at
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-18 10:20
>attacking language instead of arguments
Not very strong arguments you have here:
But you must agree[Pleading for support ], that WM that is used by 0.001%[Number out of your ass] of Linux users (the rest would tell you that their window manager is Ubanto, kekeke[Using corrupted names, and laughing over the subject,thus not taking it seriously]), which in turn constitutes the 0.001%[Number out of your ass] percent of personal computer users (the "more than 1%" figure linuxtards[Insult] are proud of takes servers into account) is not really notable. Even though all five[Number out of your ass] DWM users are flaming[Subjective] non-stop in the discussion. Even though they managed to recruit a number of linuxtards[Insult] who "use Ubanto"[Corrupted name] but feel obliged to support their brothers nevertheless. Still, not notable[Subjective].
As much as I hate wikipedos[Insult], I have to concede that they are absolutely[baseless claim] right in this case.
>>3
I realise that IHBT, but the 1% figure is DESKTOP USAGE IN THE UNITED STATES. It does not include servers, and it doesn't take into account that Linux is more popular outside the US, and Macs are less popular
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-18 10:33
In an ideal world Wikipedia will be replaced by compatible project with same content and none of bureaucracy.
>>16 Linux is more popular outside the US
Yes, of course, especially in India and China. These ancient eastern cultures have an ingrained respect for intellectual property but can't afford to buy Windows, thus the wild popularity of Linux.
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-18 11:56
>>18
>Refute it then
The burden of the proof is on you. You provided the data.
Its like posting something that "proves existence of God", quotes Bible and asks everyone "try to refute me!", "since you can't refute me, God proven to exist".
>>20
Why you bring to this place a standard from wikipedia? Are you trying to be sarcastic about your own post quality/relevance? The burden of evidence is always on those who provide data, not those who consume it.
Its applicable everywhere where you have serious discussion, not only wikipedia(..and which policies are more bureaucratic than purely logical anyway, thats the point of the thread)
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-18 12:19
>>19 Refute it then The burden of the proof is on you. You provided the data.
Waaait a second. So here are we, discussing whether DWM is notable enough, and suddenly the burden of proof that it is not falls on me? Or maybe it is you who has to prove that there exist more than five people who use DWM? Because it would be easy for you to prove that they exist if they do, while nigh to impossible for me to prove that they don't exist even if they really don't, since you could always claim that there is an entire village of DWM users somewhere in Angola?
>>22
>So here are we, discussing whether DWM is notable enough
Not quite, we're discussing why "notability" is a failed policy.
There is clear difference between things purely imaginary(Russell teapot), and
dwm(which every normal human being can find its existence in 5 seconds of googling).
>>22
I use dwm. When are the young nubile ladies in the mood coming round?
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-18 12:42
>>23 Not quite, we're discussing why "notability" is a failed policy.
Yes? Since when?
dwm(which every normal human being can find its existence in 5 seconds of googling).
No one is disputing the existence of DWM. Notability is about the existence of its users. I must point out that this is your second failure to make rational argument in a row.
I can also add that searching for "dwm window manager" in Google proves to be rather unhelpful for establishing the existence of its users, as after a few links to the official site and some guy's blog about it, results are dominated by posts like "Is dwm.exe a virus?". Funny, isn't it?
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-18 12:44
>>17
Do you understand the scale of Wikipedia? They operate clusters of computers with terabytes of text and media, which are accessed by everyone on the internet. Its not cheap.
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-18 12:44
>>24
I'm afraid you are confusing "using DWM" and "flying a plane into WTC".
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-18 12:57
>>25
isn't this subjective? You find irrelevant results-> thus subject is irrelevant. You complain about lack of users and than discard blog posts(of its users, which is ironic).
>>28 You find irrelevant results-> thus subject is irrelevant.
The burden of proof is not on me. I mentioned my perception of the Google results as a funny curiosity, not trying to prove anything. I do not have to prove that dwm is not noteworthy, you have to prove that it is.
You are moving in the right direction. In fact, that list of sites would have probably been enough to "prove notability" in formal Wikipedia terms if freetards (oh, that's an insult, that means I'm wrong, let's pretend I've said "Freedom Loving Individuals") stopped Sticking it to the Man and for a minute and took time to read the WP:Notability. Because, you see, Wikipedia actually allows completely useless articles if they are well-sourced, e.g. if enough Freedom Loving Individuals have written external articles about dwm without, you know, actually using it. Or maybe not, I'm not going to waste my time checking how many of your links are genuine.
But since it turns out that we're "discussing why "notability" is a failed policy", the question still holds: how many users does dwm have, i.e. how notable it is by the common sense criterion?
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-18 13:16
>>27
But if I flew a plane into WTC (ignoring the fact they're dead and gone) then when they came round to my house I wouldn't be there cause I'd be dead. Get a grip man. Think this through.
>how many users does dwm have, i.e. how notable it is by the common sense criterion?
This is the problem with notability: your article must win a popularity contest, and it must have the "right kind" of popularity(and highly dedicated defenders to fight deletionists).
Wikipedia is a free ency..Soviet Union is a free socialist republic.
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-18 13:53
I miss the time when there was information on the internet.
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-18 13:54
>>33
Its sad, but wikipedia is worse, Soviet Union can be toppled from the inside or defeated and replaced. Wikipedia owns your data, the servers and the Party is always right(since its their site).
It seems that in this case it does work exactly as intended, except the article would be deleted two-three weeks later, when everyone except dwm's five users (or am I being too generous here?) gets bored.
Because Wikipedia really doesn't need articles on every single piece of useless code ever written.
On an unrelated note: I just discovered something AMAZING http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Löb's_paradox
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-18 14:07
>Because Wikipedia really doesn't need[Subjective] articles on every single piece of useless[Subjective] code ever written.
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-18 14:21
"except the article would be deleted two-three weeks later, when everyone except dwm's five users (or am I being too generous here?) gets bored."
One day the people will finally get enough of your bureacracy, and Wikipedia will end(I will personally come to see the moment and I will enjoy it). People will start hundreds of their own wikipedias and your clusterfuck of policies will be enshrined in guides as "What not to do with wikis".
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-18 14:34
>>39
Wikipedia(and MS Windows) exists because its convenient and has a large userbase. You will not displace it, and neither a bunch of amateurs without corporate backing can displace it(As they lack money and servers).
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-18 14:34
>>38
You keep saying "subjective" as if it were something bad.
You are also perpetuating a subtle logical fallacy for which I don't know an established name, twice. You are using a theoretical possibility as if it were reality.
My opinion that Wikipedia doesn't need articles on every single piece of useless code ever written is subjective, so there is a theoretical possibility that someone has a justified opposite opinion. Namely, that Wikipedia does need an article of every useless piece of code ever written, including the entire collected works of /prog/, with every implementation of fibs and loeb having its own page. Except that it doesn't happen, the theoretical possibility for a reasonable dissenting opinion due to subjectivity of the original opinion fails to realize.
The same is for your second use of [subjective]: you are hinting at the possibility that enough editors would have wrong subjective opinion of usefulness of some code and wrongly delete an article about it. Again, theoretical possibility is not enough, and in fact in this particular case of DWM it fails to realize -- it seems that is useless except for an extremely limited number of users. So the subjective oppinion happens to be true and other possibilities do not matter any more.
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-18 14:35
(A) This is an OUTRAGE.
(B) Fuck wikipedia, they can go screw themselves and so can anyone that pretends it's a reputable source.
I pick (B).
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-18 14:48
>>42
Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away. Wikipedia is powerful enough to shape modern "digital culture"(and this is understatement: Wikipedia decides what belongs to our culture ).
Its more informative than newpapers and TV. People have trust in Wikipedia. Its process and democratic methods attract editors(the idea of Wikipedia is considered very good).
Can you see the problem now? will you say Facebook/Google/4chan are just names and sites without importance?
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-18 15:10
lets summarize it:
Wikipedia is popular because:
1. Its generic(no preference or focus for any field)
2. Its stable(servers have high uptime) and has alot of bandwidth
3. Its free and does not charge for any "premium" services
4. It does not depend on ads or commercial sources
5. Its convenient to use
6. Large userbase of editors correcting/expanding articles
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-18 15:12
>>44
7. It consistently shows up in Google search results.
>>45
Will Google ever replace wikipedia? They started some stuff like Citizendium, and this define:keyword, but these are far more restricted and limited. I would say Wikipedia is a more free project.
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-18 16:22
Google and Wikipedia can be replaced by P2P networks(distributed search and storage).
Its the only thing that scales in terms of costs/bandwidth.
We just don't have the software which would make this a compelling choice...current architectures(routers/ISP/OS) are biased against slow upload speeds and many user-to-user connections.
I never contribute to Wikipedia for something along those reasons.
I may be an expert in my field, but most progress of it is done privately or behind closed doors. Some papers are published, but they're not that numerous. If I wanted to add something, I'd have to produce my own sources and cite them. This makes it quite a PITA, so I never actually contribute to Wikipedia.
I've looked at the articles they already had about things I would be interested to contribute to and I've seen cases of:
1) Article being rather inaccurate, but kept for years, probably because they lack actual experts.
2) Article being acurate at some point in time, but eventually ends up stripped of its content (I haven't seen that many deletions, even though the topics are a lot less notable than OP's DWM, although in most cases they were about middleware software which a lot(likely millions) of people touch/use without actually knowing they're using it. I don't know if this is ``notable'' enough for Wikipedia.) by editors because it lacked sourcing or the sourcing wasn't liked by them (for example, if it's about some software and someone references and article in a blog of the author or some other person that worked on the software and knows the most that one could know about it, it would still be deleted, because it's a personal blog and not a professional publication ).
The end result is that Wikipedia is inaccurate or lacks information of more technical content. This doesn't really bother me since their aim seems to be to be a general encyclopedia and not one containing detailed expert knowledge. I still find it useful for looking up movies, information about characters or other media crap, but I won't be relying it for anything technical, instead if I want to find out information about that, I'll look it up myself.
However there is a problem with it being a general encyclopedia, and that is that a lot of people would like it to be more, so they made all kinds of articles on things more obscure than DWM(as an example). A lot of these articles end up being inaccurate, or made inaccurate by a non-expert editor.
The solution can be either:
1) People stop treating Wikipedia as a truly comprehensive and accurate knowledgebase and start treating it as a general editable encyclopedia. This would make it considerably less useful, but it would be close to what they want Wikipedia to be.
2) Wikipedia improves their policies in ways that makes experts more willing to contribute(some way not to have their contributions butchered) and just allows both notable and unnotable things. Make it into a very comprehensive knowledgebase which includes every possible detail.
I'd like 2 to happen, but I know it won't, so I don't hope for it. 1 won't happen either because there's always going to be people wanting it to be more and people that want it to be less.
>>55
Funny, I've been thinking some time ago that at some point programmers should be able to write DNA code and create their own artificial living beings.
When i think of "Association of Deletionist Wikipedians" i always get the nazi association of "racial purity" and "inferior races".
Could this be the same thing, conservative and zealous people trying to purge "inferior articles" and maintain "academic purity"?
I must say I'm disappointed in you, /prog/. I mean really, allowing yourselves to be trolled this obviously? Come on now, let the kiddo run along to /r9k/.
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-19 9:55
>>68
Such people are not uncommon in Wikipedia. And if you accuse them of trolling when they have the high ground you might get banned, reverted, blocked or in worst case get your ISP range blocked.
Imagine reddit's /r/circlejerk userbase gaining mod powers.
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-19 16:06
>>69 Imagine reddit's /r/circlejerk userbase gaining mod powers.
Something tells me that either I have been trolled or you're mom is a whore.
the only way i ever contribute to wikipedia is by posting on talk pages. why? because the only times i have anything to contribute it'd probably be considered "original research". so instead of fixing the counter-factual claims (with no cited sources) in an article, i just put a note on the talk page where no one will ever see it.
>>74
I do that too, except people do read over the talk pages and the articles sometimes get revised. I'm not source-less, just too lazy to word things properly. Better to have someone else do the edit than to have mine reverted.
except people do read over the talk pages and the articles sometimes get revised.
Whatever helps you sleep at night...
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-19 23:57
Science has recently discovered that Wikipedia is not, in fact, a wiki, as most had previously believed. It was discovered that all wikis compel an instantaneous and irresistible urge to "wiki walk." "Wiki walking" is an endless browse through the pages of a single site, induced only by an insatiable desire for more information. Scientists brought in a team of basement dwellers, those most affected by the urge to walk, and set them loose on various sites of which a small sample is wikipedia, Tvtropes, and everything2. It was found that all of the sites effectively and instantaneously induced wiki walk in the neckbeards, with the notable exception of wikipedia. Scientists are still working on why, but sources have informed by that the current working hypothesis is that wikipedos have destroyed what was once holy and good.
>>83
Autoconf uses --with-foo switches to identify the existence and location of a library which should be linked with the program being built. (For example, --with-x11=/usr/X11, or --without-x11 to skip the default behavior of searching for the library if no option is given.)
What you want is --enable-force-sage, which suggests that force-sage is a configurable option of the program. You could do this with:
AC_ARG_ENABLE(force-sage,
AS_HELP_STRING([--enable-force-sage],
[Force all posts to be submitted with ``sage'']),
FORCE_SAGE=$enableval,
FORCE_SAGE=no)
Then, later in your configure.ac you would write a conditional like test x"$FORCE_SAGE" = x"yes" to check if the option was enabled.