From: "Erik Moeller" eloquence@gmail.com
I think the discussion about pages like Eon8 has been hampered by the perception that a page, once kept, will reside in Wikipedia forever.
<snip>
We need novel thinking, because we are dealing with novel problems. Internet subcultures would like their every fart to be documented for eternity. Are we going to do that? Of course not. But I don't see anything wrong in principle with including ephemeral information in an ephemeral manner.
Interesting but quixotic. No, I _really_ mean it _is_ interesting, and I'm trying to let the idea soak in to figure out what it means or ought to mean or implies... but the idea that a Wikipedia page is forever is very deeply ingrained.
In the first AfD on Eon8, one user commented:
"Wait until the countdown reaches zero, then either Keep if it is not a hoax, or Delete if it is. Will (message me!) 09:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)"
But how did this user vote after the countdown reached zero and the site was revealed to be a hoax?
*Keep Will (message me!) 09:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC) **Any specific reason?--Andeh 09:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
P. S. Am I the only one bemused by the number of people who seemed to think a teaser campaign was something novel?
One user commented "This website was a signifgant event of the internet. It was the first of its kind: a website that absolutely no one but the creator knew what it was."
No, I am NOT old enough to remember the ad campaign that began with billboards saying "The camels are coming..." and eventually disclosed that "Camel Cigarettes Are Here!"
And I am certainly not old enough to remember the business venture floated in the early 1700s with the prospectus "A company for carrying on an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is."
On 7/6/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
Interesting but quixotic. No, I _really_ mean it _is_ interesting, and I'm trying to let the idea soak in to figure out what it means or ought to mean or implies... but the idea that a Wikipedia page is forever is very deeply ingrained.
Let me be absolutely clear: I think the website was frankly idiotic, and it's mostly the SomethingAwful crowd of easily befuddled teens that cared about it. Nevertheless, it created a stir among thousands of people within a very short amount of time. Given how the Internet works, these brief mass phenomena are likely going to become more common, and will often lead to an influx of newbies on Wikipedia as well.
I have yet to see a convincing argument why it would be a bad idea to let the befuddled teens have their article (carefully vetted for verifiability and OR) for a few weeks, and to delete it when it's clear that the phenomenon has not transcended their subcultural sphere.
Erik
On Jul 6, 2006, at 4:34 AM, Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
but the idea that a Wikipedia page is forever is very deeply ingrained.
So was my idea that you should never throw a book away. That idea has diminished in power as unsalable books have vastly increased in number. We don't need to keep stuff around that no one is interested in anymore.
Fred
Last time I checked a Wikipedia IS forever.
On 7/6/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
On Jul 6, 2006, at 4:34 AM, Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
but the idea that a Wikipedia page is forever is very deeply ingrained.
So was my idea that you should never throw a book away. That idea has diminished in power as unsalable books have vastly increased in number. We don't need to keep stuff around that no one is interested in anymore.
Fred _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/7/06, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
Last time I checked a Wikipedia IS forever.
Was this pre or post oversight?