On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:58 AM, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
Gwern Branwen wrote:
The [[dwm]] deletion discussion has caught the
interest of some of the
more nerdy online communities:
-
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/b8s29/the_wikipedia_deletionis…
-
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1163884
It's interesting to see the general levels of disgust and how few
current editors there are in comparison to former, and read the
dislike of WP:N.
As usual, one has to sift the arguments. Why aren't blogs included under
RS? That would be because they are generally unreliable? Why does a
snowboarding slalom event not have its own article? That would be
because no one has started one, I guess. Why does someone who left in
2006 still bring it up? Elephant's memory for grudges, I suppose.
4 years is hardly extraordinary. What events would someone who left
because of something in 2006 cite other than it? 'Oh, I left in 2006
and haven't contributed since, but an excellent example of what I mean
was the deletion discussion for [[foo]] in 2008; of course, I don't
know anything about it since I wasn't contributing as I said, but you
see what I mean.'
Oh yes, and what Carcharoth said about FLOSS history
needing the
secondary sources: if "they" don't write the history, it isn't just WP
coverage that suffers, but the whole documentation, especially if the
primary sources are emails, perishable web pages, and suchlike.
Charles
So basically, 'if you guys choose to use modern media like wikis and
blogs, and not dead tree formats, then don't cry about your articles
being deleted - it's all *your* fault! Cut your hair, you damn
hippies!'
--
gwern