[WikiEN-l] the GNAA thing

[Keith Old]

Craig,

Yes, I am very concerned about the attacks on blogs on Wikipedia given that
the blogs under attack are clearly notable having received coverage in the
mainstream media and with high levels

I am working on updating WP:WEB to cover blogs. Hopefully, I will have draft
criteria in place. Like it or not, blogs are becoming increasingly important
in the media and we should ensure that we have decent coverage. If it is
inspired by a two-bit organisation like GNAA that makes it even worse.

I would welcome your input on the criteria and the information about the
specific articles they have nominated. Members of the push would also be
welcome.

Regards


Keith Old

On 11/17/05, Craig Schiller <craigbear at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Okay, clearly I need to be more specific.
>
> Am I the only one who's bothered that there's a concerted disruption
> campaign going on by a self-admitted bunch of trolls to remove blog
> articles, *not* on the grounds of whether they're notable or not, but
> on "blogs must be deleted on principle just for being blogs" grounds?
>
> Am I the only one who's bothered that now that I've taken to flagging
> GNAA sockpuppets on some of them, the GNAA sockpuppets are in turn
> flagging *real* votes as sockpuppets?
>
> Am I the only one who's bothered that the whole thing impairs the
> possibility of determining what the real consensus of legitimate users
> *is*?
>
> Am I the only one who actually finds the idea of letting the GNAA
> disrupt Wikipedia for fun to be a *fundamentally* problematic thing
> *regardless* of the merits or lack thereof of the articles?
>
> I'm not saying we should keep all blog articles; I'm saying that
> what's going on isn't providing a legitimate consensus on the
> notability or non-notability of any of the blogs under debate. There's
> even one AFD on their hit list which has been voted on *exclusively*
> by GNAA socks; not a single legitimate user has even said a *word*.
> What if it's then closed by an admin who doesn't know what's going on?
> Will that somehow be considered a genuine consensus on the article's
> non-notability?
>
> The only consensus it's establishing that Wikipedia permits trolls to
> *dictate* Wikipedia content -- and I find it *exceedingly* hard to
> believe that I'm the only person who thinks that's not a consensus we
> should be encouraging.
>
> Craig
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>