>>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.