Thanks Neil, a completely inaccurate reading of what I wrote. For the record, deletionists have been a problem for many people who are members of sub-cultures and Wikipedia has ignored the problem. Writing more arbitrary rules is not the solution. The solution is to fix the software so people can create a richer organization of information.
I personally have had some idiot with a vendetta get a page about me deleted numerous times despite me having been mentioned in about 10 trade and mass publications and having a book published (now two) as well as my own articles in the press. It was baffling that a single person can get a page deleted without any warning, flagging, or attempts to do some research.
But really it comes down to trust. I don't trust any organization that begs me for money then deletes the content that matters to me most and tries to hide behind some bogus "well it's not us really (tee-hee)". Either Wikimedia is in charge or they silently allow this kind of crap.
Finally, the issue of deletionism is purely the result of bad usability and structure. All you need to do is make a place to put these pages rather than delete them and you'll solve tons of problems.
You might be responding to an earlier version of what I said, but I absolutely agree with you that it's got a lot to do with the software.
Do you really want the Wikimedia Foundation to set themselves up as a judge of the content in Wikipedia? I mean, apart from the fact that we have no mandate or qualifications to do this, how could you get an organization that fits around a few tables in a restaurant to judge all the edit wars in Wikipedia? In over 250 languages?!
If this problem is going to be solved, it's going to be solved in some distributed fashion, by the community, or by interested hackers such as yourself pitching in and giving the community new tools. There's a good chance you (by which I mean any hacker reading this) could get PAID to solve this problem.
Or, it's going to be solved by someone forking Wikipedia content or starting over, but the same problems have to be solved somehow.
No, after this and many other things I'm not interested in working for them, at all. Especially if I find out the rumors of a "nerd purge" agenda are true. If there is a call to delete "nerdy" content I'm gonna really turn up the destruction.
Tell you what Zed. You go and turn that destruction up to eleven.
I will give you $1000 of my own money if you come out with a Wikipedia clone or fork that works better than the current version, particularly with regards to the issues you have difficulty with. Or even a prototype!
I don't have this kind of money to throw around, mostly because I work for Wikimedia. ;) But I'm pretty confident I won't have to pay it out. You aren't going to do shit one way or another. You talk big about how you could do it better. But I see you backing off when I am begging you to actually do something about it.
Only caveat, it's gotta be 100% open source (GPL compatible license) so I can copy its features back into Wikipedia if they seem to be working, or are generally good ideas. If you like we can find a mutually respected person to arbitrate on whether your version is better or not.
I think this is disingenuous and somewhat mean-spirited.
The idea of deletionism to me is actually contrary to how the internet has developed, and is an anachronism due to the era and principles in which wikipedia was founded. The internet everywhere else outside of wikipedia's curated boundaries are defined by relevance as a filter upon what is assumed to be a limitless pile of results. There is no need to delete anything because being on the last page is equivalent (for everyone else who doesn't care) to not existing.
As such, it is my opinion that wikipedia's problem with deletionism is primarily a social one. Why not just sort pages based on a page-rank type model and curate based on that? (i would hope you guys are already doing that, and i will assume wikipedians are doing that)
Futhermore, i dislike and resent the notion that if something out in the world is wrong, you have to either drop everything and fix it, or stfu. This has always been a pernicious meme in the Open Source Community. There are constraints on people's time and resources. You know it, I know it. To call them names, or impugn their character because of it isn't fair. You 'begging' Zed (or anyone else) to fix wikipedia's problems or acquese to your accusations of being full of hot air is neither fair nor intended to encourage improvements in wikipedia or Zed's behavior.
People should be able to point out things that don't make sense, or aren't fair without being told that they're wrong to point out what they perceive as unjust.
Lastly, don't give into Zed's crazy alpha-male hierarchy dominance thing. Daring him to contribute to wikipedia isn't going to compel him, nor does it make him look like he's backing down. It makes you look like a jerk (even if you think he too is being a jerk).
Perhaps it sounded like I was defending deletionism, but I meant to do the opposite. I was trying to say we lack the appropriate tools and policies. This is a huge problem. Zed is right to be exercised, even enraged about it.
As someone who thinks about this problem all day, and who works with people who think about this problem all day, I resent the implication that I'm part of a deletionist conspiracy. This is the polar opposite of what everybody at the WMF that I know is trying to do.
However, as I pointed out, there also are constraints on what the central organization can do (or ought to do). We need more people willing to fight these negative tendencies in the community, to set new norms and policies.
I understand that Zed and others may feel it's a bit weird to give money to the WMF because of the good parts of Wikipedia, but then for the WMF not to take responsibility for the bad. It's a strange relationship, for sure -- really the WMF just keeps the lights on, and maintains the software, and the community writes the encyclopedia. The community, for its part, doesn't want to be taken over by some central administration either. But the WMF can allocate resources. (My feeling is you'll see more and more resources allocated specifically to combat these usability and community interaction problems.)
In the meantime, I don't feel bad for calling attention to the ways that others can help out.
> Lastly, don't give into Zed's crazy alpha-male hierarchy dominance thing.
You're right. I got angry and did not represent my point well. I apologize to HN.
I've talked to a few people who work at WMF (mainly at SxSWi last year) about deletionism and the WMF, and i definitely distinguish between the policies, the contributors implementing them and the WMF. My main point in discussing the issue was simply to explain why i thought your previous post was on the disingenuous side.
What i don't see a lot of, either though, is discussion about what are alternative models that can avoid conflicts like this that flair up. So it's mainly just two groups of people who are angry at each other and shouting, rather than a meaningful discussion either about the way that wikipedia functions, or about the particular subject matter being administrated.
Does the WMF have a blog, mailing list, or some sort of place where technical stuff, or things about how tools interact w/ the community are discussed?
Additionally, i think that it is definitely possible for 3rd parties to look at wikipedia and things that can be done to improve it from the outside, and that the WMF could encourage them both actively and passively (i know you guys have done a bunch of things like providing dumps of wikipedia and api access and all that).
Does the WMF have (code) contests to achieve/highlight goals they have for Wikipedia? If so i'm not aware of them.
Wikipedia provides a lot of opportunities. I'm sure being inside the WMF does too. Would love to know more about it.
Does the WMF have a blog, mailing list, or some sort of place where technical stuff, or things about how tools interact w/ the community are discussed?
I don't know. That's a good question. It's sort of in everything we do as a subtext, but not as the theme of a blog or mailing list.
I never said I could do it better. I don't have Jimmy's pretty face to put on a web site and attract 10 MILLION dollars. I barely make enough to pay rent and work on the few projects I do work on for free.
One thing I can do though is criticize abuses in my profession and hope someone like you, someone who does have influence in the organization, actually gets off their ass and does something about it. Apparently that's not going to happen because you're waiting for me, a powerless outsider, to do your job. Awesome, well thanks for letting me know that's where donations go.
Instead, you're going to hide behind the age old defense of "Well if you don't like it do it yourself!" I'm sort of getting tired of doing that, and don't insult me like I don't attempt fixing things I think are broken. If I had more money I'd totally do more fixing, but best I can do is write a few books and some small bits of software.
Alas, I'm not wealthy and have no control. I could spend the next ten years fixing Wikipedia's broken PHP code and there would still be this stupid notability requirement. You know why?
Because, instead of fixing the technical problem of categorization and search, they created a social solution of notability and bizarre rules. Once they did that there's no putting the Djin back in the oil lamp.
I've started to notice that a lot of "nerdy" topics get deleted lately. I can't prove it, but I suspect there's some attempt to cleanse the "white male nerd" out of Wikipedia in order to attract normal people. Again, I can't prove it. If it's true that's about the worst way to crap on the people who donate the most money and do the most work keeping the project going.
Demographically, Wikipedia is white male nerds. You might have seen some stuff in the media lately about how it's felt that this limits the scope of the encyclopedia. But it's not so much that there's an anti-nerd sentiment, it's that we have to broaden the base.
It can be a bit crazy sometimes. You think you have problems with your page -- I heard that the #1 actor in India had his page deleted because some kid from a Western country thought he was non-notable. Wikipedia can be a great place to learn about science and technology, but let's say, the history of feminism? There are articles on every micro-neighborhood of San Francisco, but sometimes hardly anything on major cities of Africa.
Oh wow, I definitely wasn't trying to start some kind of a "nerd purge" meme! I was just trying to say that there are other wikis besides wikipedia on all kinds of nerdy subjects. Where there aren't any delete wars and contributions are encouraged, and everyone can be happy tralalala. I work at that place, we encourage nerdy things! There's also a pretty long tail that nobody really pays much attention to. :) So maybe part of the reason this blew up so big could be the anxiety that if it's not on wikipedia, then it might as well not exist? I don't really think that's true...
The problem is that WP is a place where a "global culture" (i.e. an encyclopaedia with global scope) meets sub-culture (in this case a sub-set of programmers).
My own personal feeling is that we are too quick to scrub stuff. But there is an important reason for the notability guideline; even though the Wiki is essentially limitless there is a point where indiscriminate inclusion just becomes impossible to handle. I reckon near 70% of the current content is sub-standard and probably about 20% is abysmal - the clean up effort on that is going to take decades. Without some form of line in the sand that gets worse and worse and worse till in the end we have a spam filled mess.
In this case the GNG was clearly being applied a little strongly; bottom line is that common sense is important :) A programming language with a tenuous but credible claim to notability should probably stay.
I wrote the Mongrel2 article, which is potentially hanging by the skin of its teeth if really questioned. Fortunately common sense does tend to prevail with most editors, so I don't see it being deleted any time soon.
> I personally have had some idiot with a vendetta get a page about me deleted numerous times
Which one? I cleaned up your [1] article a little while ago and all I found in the history was on old PROD (proposed deletion) [2]
The deletion process is designed to be flexible; so we have speedy deletions for stuff that is quite obviously out of scope or otherwise problematic from a single glance. Those are quite tight criteria and all they really need to be bypassed is a credible claim to significance (not notability, it is a lower claim). Next is the PROD; which requires you to make a statement about why it should be deleted. That sticks around for 7 days when an admin will have a look and either agree or disagree - during which time anyone else (this is what I spend a lot of my time doing) jumps in to fix it and decline the prod. Then we have AFD which is a full discussion lasting 7 days to establish whether the article can stay. The point is to make sure a few people are checking out the article.
It's not a perfect process for certain and sometimes it is possible for "a single person can get a page deleted", but never really without warning (to someone..).
There is, I think, two problems; firstly a groundswell of material we are slogging through the get up to scratch. And secondly we don't have enough active editors in the sub-domains. Feel free to fix the latter :)
All you need to do is make a place to put these pages rather than delete them and you'll solve tons of problems.
2. The PROD stemmed from when the article was first created. That is a real problem, it pisses me off how quick people are to tag & get rid of new stuff nowadays.
I personally have had some idiot with a vendetta get a page about me deleted numerous times despite me having been mentioned in about 10 trade and mass publications and having a book published (now two) as well as my own articles in the press. It was baffling that a single person can get a page deleted without any warning, flagging, or attempts to do some research.
But really it comes down to trust. I don't trust any organization that begs me for money then deletes the content that matters to me most and tries to hide behind some bogus "well it's not us really (tee-hee)". Either Wikimedia is in charge or they silently allow this kind of crap.
Finally, the issue of deletionism is purely the result of bad usability and structure. All you need to do is make a place to put these pages rather than delete them and you'll solve tons of problems.