I applaud the culture shift that has taken place on Wikipedia that has allowed [[Gay Nigger Association of America]] to be deleted due to verifiability concerns--after seventeen unsuccessful deletion nominations.
TD
Mind you half of those deletion requests were trolling...
But in any case, I never thought I would see the day.
Indeed, it is a great culture shift. Instead of biting onto that notability bit, we stood up for what's good: VERIFIABILITY! We are getting stricter in that field. That is most excellent.
On 11/28/06, Taco Deposit tacodeposit@gmail.com wrote:
I applaud the culture shift that has taken place on Wikipedia that has allowed [[Gay Nigger Association of America]] to be deleted due to verifiability concerns--after seventeen unsuccessful deletion nominations.
TD _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
TD wrote:
I applaud the culture shift that has taken place on Wikipedia that has allowed [[Gay Nigger Association of America]] to be deleted
And at the risk of sounding contentious, I must deplore it. It was the fifth or sixth deletion attempt that got me involved in Wikipedia in the first place. As I wrote in my very first contribution as a registered user, during the July 2005 deletion nomination,
...true story: this morning I was idly curious about GNAA, and was pleased to discover the Wikipedia article, so that I didn't have to favor GNAA's site with an undeserved hit. Trolls they certainly are, and sad it is that they've become "notable", but like it or not, they are, and the article is wholly appropriate.
And that's my opinion (or would be my opinion, if we still had the article) today.
Have there really been *twelve* more attempts? (The fact that it took that many has got to say something...)
A large amount of them were trolling attempts that were immediately closed, so it's not like there were actually 18 attempts at deleting the article. Many of them (in fact, I think most) were just by trolls to get a rise out of people.
On 11/28/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
TD wrote:
I applaud the culture shift that has taken place on Wikipedia that has allowed [[Gay Nigger Association of America]] to be deleted
And at the risk of sounding contentious, I must deplore it. It was the fifth or sixth deletion attempt that got me involved in Wikipedia in the first place. As I wrote in my very first contribution as a registered user, during the July 2005 deletion nomination,
...true story: this morning I was idly curious about GNAA, and was pleased to discover the Wikipedia article, so that I didn't have to favor GNAA's site with an undeserved hit. Trolls they certainly are, and sad it is that they've become "notable", but like it or not, they are, and the article is wholly appropriate.
And that's my opinion (or would be my opinion, if we still had the article) today.
Have there really been *twelve* more attempts? (The fact that it took that many has got to say something...) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Steve Summit wrote:
Have there really been *twelve* more attempts? (The fact that it took that many has got to say something...)
Most of them were speedy kept. For whatever reason, we speedy deleted this instance, which puts the whole operation in question.
This is when we start looking incredibly dumb as an organization when we delete articles about subjects that obviously exist, are obviously well know, and are actually verifiable, but because we can't bring ourselves to trust a source that isn't available in dead tree form somewhere, we won't have the article. Doesn't make a lot of sense.
-Jeff
From: "Jeff Raymond" jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:10:41 -0600 (CST)
Steve Summit wrote:
Have there really been *twelve* more attempts? (The fact that it took that many has got to say something...)
Most of them were speedy kept. For whatever reason, we speedy deleted this instance, which puts the whole operation in question.
This is when we start looking incredibly dumb as an organization when we delete articles about subjects that obviously exist, are obviously well know, and are actually verifiable, but because we can't bring ourselves to trust a source that isn't available in dead tree form somewhere, we won't have the article. Doesn't make a lot of sense.
-Jeff
I think it looks pretty good that we have a standard that we don't accept original research, even if said research can be easily done online. That standard makes us more professional and more worthy or trust and respect.
The question isn't whether "dead tree" sources exist, but whether *any non-trivial coverage* in *any independent source* exists. It turns out it doesn't, in this case; at least nobody was able to pony it up. There are certainly articles that are well sourced without any dead trees being involved; this wasn't one of them.
Tony/GTBacchus
_________________________________________________________________ Get the latest Windows Live Messenger 8.1 Beta version. Join now. http://ideas.live.com
Tony Jacobs wrote:
I think it looks pretty good that we have a standard that we don't accept original research, even if said research can be easily done online. That standard makes us more professional and more worthy or trust and respect.
No one's saying that we should accept original research. However, to act as if there's nothing verifiable or reliable about GNAA reeks of short-sightedness. Until we start accepting that *some* self-published and blog-like sources are actually reliable when it comes to covering certain things (like web memes or independent bands), we're going to look incredibly naive.
The question isn't whether "dead tree" sources exist, but whether *any non-trivial coverage* in *any independent source* exists. It turns out it doesn't, in this case; at least nobody was able to pony it up. There are certainly articles that are well sourced without any dead trees being involved; this wasn't one of them.
Was there non-trivial coverage in independent sources? Yes. Was there any in something that Wikipedia thinks is "reliable" or "verifiable?" No. The problem is Wikipedia's situation with the latter, and it goes far, far beyond silly troll organizations.
-Jeff
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Jeff Raymond wrote:
This is when we start looking incredibly dumb as an organization when we delete articles about subjects that obviously exist, are obviously well know, and are actually verifiable, but because we can't bring ourselves to trust a source that isn't available in dead tree form somewhere, we won't have the article. Doesn't make a lot of sense.
This sounds like a classic example of stretching the wrong rule because the right rule doesn't exist. It happens a lot in the real legal system, and usually causes more problems than it solves because once you've stretched a rule to cover the case, that becomes a precedent to interpret the rule in that manner forever. (See: Commerce Clause.)
WP:RS is already broken, especially when it comes to not allowing web and other self-published sources for non-academic subjects. If you want to delete the GNAA article, I suggest either using Ignore All Rules to delete it, or coming up with a new rule. I suggest a rule something like "A Wikipedia article may be deleted if merely creating and publicizing a neutral article advances the goal of the article's subject." (Of course a full version of the rule would have to be worded more carefully so you don't delete articles about Wikipedia itself.)
From: Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:26:59 -0800 (PST)
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Jeff Raymond wrote:
This is when we start looking incredibly dumb as an organization when we delete articles about subjects that obviously exist, are obviously well know, and are actually verifiable, but because we can't bring ourselves
to
trust a source that isn't available in dead tree form somewhere, we
won't
have the article. Doesn't make a lot of sense.
This sounds like a classic example of stretching the wrong rule because the right rule doesn't exist. It happens a lot in the real legal system, and usually causes more problems than it solves because once you've stretched a rule to cover the case, that becomes a precedent to interpret the rule in that manner forever. (See: Commerce Clause.)
WP:RS is already broken, especially when it comes to not allowing web and other self-published sources for non-academic subjects. If you want to delete the GNAA article, I suggest either using Ignore All Rules to delete it, or coming up with a new rule. I suggest a rule something like "A Wikipedia article may be deleted if merely creating and publicizing a neutral article advances the goal of the article's subject." (Of course a full version of the rule would have to be worded more carefully so you don't delete articles about Wikipedia itself.)
Any organization that benefits from publicity is advanced by having a Wikipedia article; such a "rule" sounds dangerous, even if carefully worded.
Your contention, that a rule is being stretched here, only really makes sense if one has already accepted your second contention, that WP:RS is broken. I think I understand that perspective, but I tend to adopt a different one. I don't see WP:RS (and WP:V) as broken, so much as defining our scope. I guess if one thinks the floor should be three feet lower, the current floor would seem broken, but I like the height it's at now. There are other sources for information that doesn't meet our inclusion standards - Wikipedia isn't trying to be all sources, nor should it.
I guess the floor metaphor is oversimple. It's more like our floor is multi-level, and people are arguing over whether there are holes in it that should be filled in, or whether those holes *are* the floor. I say fill 'em in and let the underground be documented by those who document the underground; they exist.
Tony/GTBacchus
_________________________________________________________________ View Athletes Collections with Live Search http://sportmaps.live.com/index.html?source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=MGA...
I suggest "Delete anything that makes you uncomfortable."
On 11/28/06, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Jeff Raymond wrote:
This is when we start looking incredibly dumb as an organization when we delete articles about subjects that obviously exist, are obviously well know, and are actually verifiable, but because we can't bring ourselves
to
trust a source that isn't available in dead tree form somewhere, we
won't
have the article. Doesn't make a lot of sense.
This sounds like a classic example of stretching the wrong rule because the right rule doesn't exist. It happens a lot in the real legal system, and usually causes more problems than it solves because once you've stretched a rule to cover the case, that becomes a precedent to interpret the rule in that manner forever. (See: Commerce Clause.)
WP:RS is already broken, especially when it comes to not allowing web and other self-published sources for non-academic subjects. If you want to delete the GNAA article, I suggest either using Ignore All Rules to delete it, or coming up with a new rule. I suggest a rule something like "A Wikipedia article may be deleted if merely creating and publicizing a neutral article advances the goal of the article's subject." (Of course a full version of the rule would have to be worded more carefully so you don't delete articles about Wikipedia itself.)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/28/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I suggest "Delete anything that makes you uncomfortable."
We are not going to delete [[Copyright]].
The Cunctator wrote:
I suggest "Delete anything that makes you uncomfortable."
While Cunctator and I probably see eye-to-eye on the matter of inclusionism versus deletionism, I think that this response doesn't really take into account the serious reasons why people did want this article gone, reasons that had nothing to do with being uncomfortable with the subject matter.
The problem is that this article had no legitimate sources, not even close, and after a long period of time, no one was able to come up with any, since there really are not any. There is no way to write a proper article because there is no way to find out the truth in a way that is reliable.
There is a curious sort of backlash in many cases when the subject matter *is* a bit uncomfortable. If this was some obscure blog of the same general stature, it would have been deleted without a peep. But because we are sooooo terrified that we might actually delete something for the wrong reason, we end up keeping stuff for the wrong reason.
"This group is offensive and stupid and juvenile" is not a good reason to delete anything, I agree 100%.
But, it is also not a good reason to keep anything.
It's all about whether we can write a proper article with reliable third party sources and no original research.
--Jimbo
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006, Jimmy Wales wrote:
The problem is that this article had no legitimate sources, not even close
The Scotsman article is a legitimate source. LastMeasure and LMOS are GNAA-branded products that are referenced in other places on Wikipedia (except that someone apparently decided that because there should be no GNAA article, there should also be no article mentioning the GNAA and seems to be removing the references; an article about shock sites that does not mention LastMeasure is laughable). Maybe there were other legitimate sources, or content that can be sourced, but the article and its talk pages are now gone, and we have to trust your word on this?
and after a long period of time, no one was able to come up with any, since there really are not any.
Did you write this in a hurry, or are you really unquestionably claiming that? I'd be happy to know what knowledge base you were accessing.
From: Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:04:15 -0500
TD wrote:
I applaud the culture shift that has taken place on Wikipedia that has allowed [[Gay Nigger Association of America]] to be deleted
And at the risk of sounding contentious, I must deplore it. It was the fifth or sixth deletion attempt that got me involved in Wikipedia in the first place. As I wrote in my very first contribution as a registered user, during the July 2005 deletion nomination,
...true story: this morning I was idly curious about GNAA, and was pleased to discover the Wikipedia article, so that I didn't have to favor GNAA's site with an undeserved hit. Trolls they certainly are, and sad it is that they've become "notable", but like it or not, they are, and the article is wholly appropriate.
And that's my opinion (or would be my opinion, if we still had the article) today.
What definition of "notable" are you using? The only definition of that word that matters at Wikipedia is: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself." That's not true of GNAA, ergo they're not "notable", which simply means that it's impossible to write a properly verifiable article about them. We don't want to keep an unverfiable article around, no matter how much "consensus" may hoot and holler for it, so we delete it.
People who want to know about GNAA can still look them up at ED, which has no problem covering topics that we eschew.
Tony/GTBacchus
_________________________________________________________________ All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial! http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://clk...
Tony wrote:
Steve Summit wrote:
...As I wrote in my very first contribution as a registered user, during the July 2005 deletion nomination, ...true story: this morning I was idly curious about GNAA, and was pleased to discover the Wikipedia article, so that I didn't have to favor GNAA's site with an undeserved hit. Trolls they certainly are, and sad it is that they've become "notable", but like it or not, they are, and the article is wholly appropriate.
What definition of "notable" are you using? The only definition of that word that matters at Wikipedia is...
It's not so much what definition I am using, but rather, which one I *was* using in that discussion, last year. It was clearly different from the definition (as you say, the only definition) that matters today.
I do not want to re-open the deletion debate on this mailing list. Skimming the votes (and unless there was some vote-stacking), they look pretty convincing, in their way. I am not trying to dispute the result; I am merely lamenting it.
The point of my first-person account, in that discussion last year, was an empirical one: all speculation and armchair philosophy (about what Wikipedia "ought" to contain) aside, I was a reader who had come to Wikipedia looking for an answer, and was pleased to have found it. I saluted, then, the courage that allowed Wikipedia to supply that answer, contentious and unpopular though it may have been. On this point, I fear the project is the less, for lacking such courage today.
From: Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:46:29 -0500
Tony wrote:
Steve Summit wrote:
...As I wrote in my very first contribution as a registered user, during the July 2005 deletion nomination, ...true story: this morning I was idly curious about GNAA, and was pleased to discover the Wikipedia article, so that I didn't have to favor GNAA's site with an undeserved hit. Trolls they certainly are, and sad it is that they've become "notable", but like it or not, they are, and the article is wholly appropriate.
What definition of "notable" are you using? The only definition of that word that matters at Wikipedia is...
It's not so much what definition I am using, but rather, which one I *was* using in that discussion, last year. It was clearly different from the definition (as you say, the only definition) that matters today.
I do not want to re-open the deletion debate on this mailing list. Skimming the votes (and unless there was some vote-stacking), they look pretty convincing, in their way. I am not trying to dispute the result; I am merely lamenting it.
The point of my first-person account, in that discussion last year, was an empirical one: all speculation and armchair philosophy (about what Wikipedia "ought" to contain) aside, I was a reader who had come to Wikipedia looking for an answer, and was pleased to have found it. I saluted, then, the courage that allowed Wikipedia to supply that answer, contentious and unpopular though it may have been. On this point, I fear the project is the less, for lacking such courage today.
I didn't mean to come across quite so stridently there, Steve. I've been knee deep in discussions over at the notability guideline; some of that may have spilled your way. Sorry about that. I don't want to re-open the AfD discussion either.
I will offer my thought in response to your closing point: I'm glad the project has the courage to assert our commitment to high standards of sourcing. I'd rather we have a well-sourced article for eveything for which that's possible, and remain silent on topics for which sourcing isn't possible.
If we keep the bar high, it will encourage other wikis to provide good coverage of topics we pass over. That's not a bad thing. Wikipedia can do better by finding its niche and doing what it does well than by trying to be all things to all people.
Tony/GTB
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Shopping has everything on your holiday list. Get expert picks by style, age, and price. Try it! http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctId=8000,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata=200601&am...
On 11/28/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
What definition of "notable" are you using? The only definition of that word that matters at Wikipedia is: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself." That's not true of GNAA, ergo they're not "notable", which simply means that it's impossible to write a properly verifiable article about them. We don't want to keep an unverfiable article around, no matter how much "consensus" may hoot and holler for it, so we delete it.
People who want to know about GNAA can still look them up at ED, which has no problem covering topics that we eschew.
The problem with this trend is that it relegates certain aspects of internet culture which tend not to get press coverage into the dustbin.
As much as I hate GNAA and everyone involved in it, it IS notable among the realm of internet troll activities.
If we have the (harmless, real, but equally badly documented) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt.fan.warlord entry....
Really, the *entire* article was unverifiable? That is very hard to believe. Why were those sources called into question if it wasn't the dead tree thing cited in an earlier email?
Mgm
From: "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 22:55:16 +0100
Really, the *entire* article was unverifiable? That is very hard to believe. Why were those sources called into question if it wasn't the dead tree thing cited in an earlier email?
Mgm
Well, most of them weren't independent sources, being links to gnaa.us and gnaauk.co.uk.
Of those that were independent, they fell into three classes: some made only a passing mention of GNAA, some were articles where GNAA was only mentioned in the message board responses at the bottom, and those that were actually *about* GNAA were blogs (there were one or two of those). We use plenty of internet sources (not the least of which is IMDb, and I've seen plenty of citations to online mags like Salon and Slate), but blogs have been deemed below the threshhold.
Tony/GTBacchus
_________________________________________________________________ All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial! http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://clk...
On 11/28/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
Of those that were independent, they fell into three classes: some made only a passing mention of GNAA, some were articles where GNAA was only mentioned in the message board responses at the bottom, and those that were actually *about* GNAA were blogs (there were one or two of those). We use plenty of internet sources (not the least of which is IMDb, and I've seen plenty of citations to online mags like Salon and Slate), but blogs have been deemed below the threshhold.
Which is ridiculous, because blogs are a medium, not a particular source. Banning all blogs as sources is absurd. A much better policy, one which respects the reader rather than treating him like a child, is to source the articles properly. If the source is a blog, the reader can supply his judgment in how much credence to give the source. Similarly with say, the New York Times, CNN, or the Washington Times, or Pravda.
Sourcing guidelines may need revision, especially for the future increase in online news sources. In such case, however, a blog is only as reliable as its author with regard to the subject for which it used as source. The blogs in question for this article, while perhaps reliable on political theory or television, were not reliable with regard to GNAA. It is pretty likely, actually, that they got their information from Wikipedia either directly or through the conduit of other websites. They have no expertise in Internet troll groups.
On 11/28/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/28/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
Of those that were independent, they fell into three classes: some made only a passing mention of GNAA, some were articles where GNAA was only mentioned in the message board responses at the bottom, and those that were
actually
*about* GNAA were blogs (there were one or two of those). We use plenty of internet sources (not the least of which is IMDb, and I've seen plenty
of
citations to online mags like Salon and Slate), but blogs have been
deemed
below the threshhold.
Which is ridiculous, because blogs are a medium, not a particular source. Banning all blogs as sources is absurd. A much better policy, one which respects the reader rather than treating him like a child, is to source the articles properly. If the source is a blog, the reader can supply his judgment in how much credence to give the source. Similarly with say, the New York Times, CNN, or the Washington Times, or Pravda. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:54:05 -0500, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
If the source is a blog, the reader can supply his judgment in how much credence to give the source
But if the *only* sources are blogs we clearly have a problem.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/29/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:54:05 -0500, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
If the source is a blog, the reader can supply his judgment in how much credence to give the source
But if the *only* sources are blogs we clearly have a problem.
Why?
On 11/29/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/29/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:54:05 -0500, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
If the source is a blog, the reader can supply his judgment in how much credence to give the source
But if the *only* sources are blogs we clearly have a problem.
Why?
Doesn't the "No Original Research" policy say that sources need to be "reliable" sources? I think a blog would be fine, if the author was generally acknowledged to be a reliable reporter on the subject matter. Of course, under such a rule we might have to leave out certain popular newspapers as sources considering their track record of getting things wrong.
Anthony
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:01:31 -0500, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
But if the *only* sources are blogs we clearly have a problem.
Why?
Anything not covered by even one reliable source off "teh Internets" is a problem, I think. Wikipedia is not Google.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/29/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:01:31 -0500, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
But if the *only* sources are blogs we clearly have a problem.
Why?
Anything not covered by even one reliable source off "teh Internets" is a problem, I think. Wikipedia is not Google.
Guy (JzG)
This would apply to [[Wookiepedia]], maybe?
What about sections? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia#Main_Page_holidays is most likely not covered by any reliable third party sources at all, let alone ones off the Internet. That section I'd advocate dropping, actually, while [[Wookiepedia]] I'd probably advocate keeping.
Anthony
On Nov 29, 2006, at 18:48, Anthony wrote: <snip />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia#Main_Page_holidays is most likely not covered by any reliable third party sources at all, let alone ones off the Internet. That section I'd advocate dropping
<snip />
Anthony
That section was removed (as superfluous and "not verifiable") when I rewrote the article, although regretfully because the information isn't kept in any one place elsewhere. It is however easily verified by checking http://uncyclopedia.org/index.php? title=Main_Page&action=history (a perfectly valid source and 100% accurate, a higher accuracy rate than any (most) third party), but that'd never fly with the RS whores (please excuse my French). Anyhow, it's been readded, and I'd predict future attempts to remove it will be similarly reverted and I personally don't think the drama is worth it.
--Keitei
Removing it is good with the reasons you gave. We don't need lists of in-jokes. There's still quite a few on [[4chan]], but luckily we've directed a lot of traffic to external sites that, er, specialize in that.
Ryan
On 11/29/06, niht-hræfn nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 29, 2006, at 18:48, Anthony wrote:
<snip /> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia#Main_Page_holidays is most > likely not covered by any reliable third party sources at all, let > alone ones off the Internet. That section I'd advocate dropping <snip /> > Anthony
That section was removed (as superfluous and "not verifiable") when I rewrote the article, although regretfully because the information isn't kept in any one place elsewhere. It is however easily verified by checking http://uncyclopedia.org/index.php? title=Main_Page&action=history (a perfectly valid source and 100% accurate, a higher accuracy rate than any (most) third party), but that'd never fly with the RS whores (please excuse my French). Anyhow, it's been readded, and I'd predict future attempts to remove it will be similarly reverted and I personally don't think the drama is worth it.
--Keitei _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ryan Wetherell wrote:
Removing it is good with the reasons you gave. We don't need lists of in-jokes. There's still quite a few on [[4chan]], but luckily we've directed a lot of traffic to external sites that, er, specialize in that.
I'd rather read about 4chan memes on Wikipedia than on who-knows-what external site like ED, kthx.
I would, too, but a lot of them can't be sourced (fleeting nature of imageboard content, etc., etc.).
--Ryan
On 11/29/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Ryan Wetherell wrote:
Removing it is good with the reasons you gave. We don't need lists of in-jokes. There's still quite a few on [[4chan]], but luckily we've directed a lot of traffic to external sites that, er, specialize in that.
I'd rather read about 4chan memes on Wikipedia than on who-knows-what external site like ED, kthx.
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006, Tony Jacobs wrote:
Well, most of them weren't independent sources, being links to gnaa.us and gnaauk.co.uk.
Of those that were independent, they fell into three classes: some made only a passing mention of GNAA, some were articles where GNAA was only mentioned in the message board responses at the bottom, and those that were actually *about* GNAA were blogs (there were one or two of those).
This is not true and makes me wonder how many people making those claims really have read the article.
On 11/29/06, Sam Hocevar sam@zoy.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006, Tony Jacobs wrote:
Well, most of them weren't independent sources, being links to gnaa.us and gnaauk.co.uk.
Of those that were independent, they fell into three classes: some made only a passing mention of GNAA, some were articles where GNAA was only mentioned in the message board responses at the bottom, and those that were actually *about* GNAA were blogs (there were one or two of those).
This is not true and makes me wonder how many people making those claims really have read the article.
OK, I just looked at the version from 26 September 2006 (which is on the Citizendium pilot wiki). The description given above of the sources seems accurate. Can you point us to which source doesn't fit that description.
Reading the article, if all of it is true then the organization does seem notable to me, and it seems to me there *must* be some reliable third party sources out there. That said, I don't know of any, so I have to agree with the deletion with the understanding that a valid deletion doesn't preclude someone writing a good article from reliable third party sources in the future.
Anthony
On 11/28/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/28/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
What definition of "notable" are you using? The only definition of that word that matters at Wikipedia is: "A topic is notable if it has been
the
subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself." That's not true of GNAA, ergo
they're
not "notable", which simply means that it's impossible to write a
properly
verifiable article about them. We don't want to keep an unverfiable article around, no matter how much "consensus" may hoot and holler for it, so we delete it.
People who want to know about GNAA can still look them up at ED, which
has
no problem covering topics that we eschew.
The problem with this trend is that it relegates certain aspects of internet culture which tend not to get press coverage into the dustbin.
As much as I hate GNAA and everyone involved in it, it IS notable among the realm of internet troll activities.
If we have the (harmless, real, but equally badly documented) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt.fan.warlord entry....
The issue of valuing paper over non-paper sources, and the problems this provides for internet topics (not to mention lots of other popular culture issues) has been discussed a number of times. I have seen people remove links on the grounds that they are blogs...when it happened to be a "blog" hosted by the book's publisher (Oxford University Press), in which the author of the book was interviewed by the publisher's blogger.
There are reasons to put higher value on some sources than on others, but seriously, one needs to use a modicum of common sense. Of course on the GNAA issue, what bothers me more is the fact that an article that survived 17 AfDs (or however many there really were) is closed after 2 days as a delete, based, it would appear, on WP:RS rather than WP:V
This is a discussion about wikipedia, however, and not wikinews. There are some subjects that an encyclopedia can not and should not touch because there is simply no real research on the subjects yet.
Some number of years from now we'll know if the GNAA was actually notable from the serious research done on the subject. This same research, if it exists, will enable us to write a proper article on the subject.
There are millions of subjects which do have solid backing research for us to write about so surely there can be no argument that we'll run out of things to do unless we abandon verifyability... And likewise there are plenty of great sources for rumor and opinion on the internet which aren't wikipedia, so if we do not write about X our readers will not be starved for information about X. (And if they are, that's a sign that you're missing a great oppurtunity to open your own, possibily wiki based, site on the matter)
Wikipedia is not and should not be an attempt to replace the entire internet. We already have the entire internet and with no solid demands on verifilibility, neutrality, or copyright non-encoumberance we often find its utility limited... And without criteria for inclusion, we often do find it hard to find the good content on the internet amid a sea of spam and garbage... Google search has a brilant multibillion dollar company behind it trying to make sure its search results are good, and now adays they often fail.
Although some of our articles to use print sources that don't exist on the internet.. It's far more common that our articles entirely contain material which could be found elsewhere on the internet. Why is it that pepople still find Wikipedia useful then? Because of all the things Wikipedia is not, at lest as much as because of all the things Wikipedia is.
On 11/28/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/28/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
What definition of "notable" are you using? The only definition of that word that matters at Wikipedia is: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself." That's not true of GNAA, ergo they're not "notable", which simply means that it's impossible to write a properly verifiable article about them. We don't want to keep an unverfiable article around, no matter how much "consensus" may hoot and holler for it, so we delete it.
People who want to know about GNAA can still look them up at ED, which has no problem covering topics that we eschew.
The problem with this trend is that it relegates certain aspects of internet culture which tend not to get press coverage into the dustbin.
As much as I hate GNAA and everyone involved in it, it IS notable among the realm of internet troll activities.
If we have the (harmless, real, but equally badly documented) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt.fan.warlord entry....
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/28/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
This is a discussion about wikipedia, however, and not wikinews. There are some subjects that an encyclopedia can not and should not touch because there is simply no real research on the subjects yet.
We are not applying that standard to any number of popular culture subjects, for which there exists no serious research on the particular aspect of popular culture. There is research into popular culture as a whole, and there are for example literary and sociological journals dedicated to serious review of aspects of popular culture in many different media (one distant electronic aquaintence has a masters degree in the literary review of science fiction, to somewhat oversimplify).
But the vast majority of popular culture items have not been subjected to independent research and are not documentable other than the particular item of culture itself.
We have nearly *all* that documented, right now.
Is GNAA less notable than (example pulled via short random walk) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kanto_Gym_Leaders#Blaine ?
Wikipedia isn't consistent.. We shouldn't let the fact the thousands of things are done wrong be an excuse for doing things incorrectly.
We accept open submission so if we allow the existance of examples in wikipedia to drive our standards we will, in effect, have no standards. I'm sure that would make some people, people editing for their own self-interests, happy but it would not be good.
Thankfully this point is already obvious to most...
On 11/28/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/28/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
This is a discussion about wikipedia, however, and not wikinews. There are some subjects that an encyclopedia can not and should not touch because there is simply no real research on the subjects yet.
We are not applying that standard to any number of popular culture subjects, for which there exists no serious research on the particular aspect of popular culture. There is research into popular culture as a whole, and there are for example literary and sociological journals dedicated to serious review of aspects of popular culture in many different media (one distant electronic aquaintence has a masters degree in the literary review of science fiction, to somewhat oversimplify).
But the vast majority of popular culture items have not been subjected to independent research and are not documentable other than the particular item of culture itself.
We have nearly *all* that documented, right now.
Is GNAA less notable than (example pulled via short random walk) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kanto_Gym_Leaders#Blaine ?
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Wikipedia isn't consistent.. We shouldn't let the fact the thousands of things are done wrong be an excuse for doing things incorrectly.
You are presupposing that counterexamples are inherently examples of things "done wrong." The problem is that this is far from obvious in many cases. One can't dismiss the issue so easily.
We accept open submission so if we allow the existance of examples in wikipedia to drive our standards we will, in effect, have no standards. I'm sure that would make some people, people editing for their own self-interests, happy but it would not be good.
Hey now, assume good faith. It's not just people who are editing "for their own self-interests" that prefer as inclusive a set of standards as possible under our policies.
Because we can never know if something done in wikipedia is done right or done wrong on the on the basis of it being 'done', you are not at all excused from arguing your position from first principles... Just as you would be with no examples to support you.
So while examples can be useful for clarities sake, they often cause confusion about your argument... And as such they should be avoided.
In any case no specific examples were cited here, rather it was asserted that something was being done wrong on the basis of there being many counter examples. I was only pointing out that that particular method of argument isn't likely to be too useful.
We've seen arguments in this thread that GNAA ought to have been kept which are worth consideration, but "there are lots of examples in pop culture" just isn't one of them.
On 11/29/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Wikipedia isn't consistent.. We shouldn't let the fact the thousands of things are done wrong be an excuse for doing things incorrectly.
You are presupposing that counterexamples are inherently examples of things "done wrong." The problem is that this is far from obvious in many cases. One can't dismiss the issue so easily.
We accept open submission so if we allow the existance of examples in wikipedia to drive our standards we will, in effect, have no standards. I'm sure that would make some people, people editing for their own self-interests, happy but it would not be good.
Hey now, assume good faith. It's not just people who are editing "for their own self-interests" that prefer as inclusive a set of standards as possible under our policies.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Wikipedia isn't consistent.. We shouldn't let the fact the thousands of things are done wrong be an excuse for doing things incorrectly.
That some are done wrong is a characterization that may not be relevant. What may be wrong for one subject area need not be wrong for another subject area.
We accept open submission so if we allow the existance of examples in wikipedia to drive our standards we will, in effect, have no standards. I'm sure that would make some people, people editing for their own self-interests, happy but it would not be good.
Except for very clear POV pushers. whether some person is editing for his "own self-interest" cannot usually be determined from the examination of one article; it is a function of his work viewed as a whole.
Thankfully this point is already obvious to most...
Obvious to you does no imply obvious to most.
Ec
On 11/28/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/28/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
This is a discussion about wikipedia, however, and not wikinews. There are some subjects that an encyclopedia can not and should not touch because there is simply no real research on the subjects yet.
We are not applying that standard to any number of popular culture subjects, for which there exists no serious research on the particular aspect of popular culture. There is research into popular culture as a whole, and there are for example literary and sociological journals dedicated to serious review of aspects of popular culture in many different media (one distant electronic aquaintence has a masters degree in the literary review of science fiction, to somewhat oversimplify).
But the vast majority of popular culture items have not been subjected to independent research and are not documentable other than the particular item of culture itself.
We have nearly *all* that documented, right now.
On 11/29/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Is GNAA less notable than (example pulled via short random walk) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kanto_Gym_Leaders#Blaine ?
With the number of those games sold there are cities that are less notable than Kanto Gym Leaders
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:28:49 -0800, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
the vast majority of popular culture items have not been subjected to independent research and are not documentable other than the particular item of culture itself.
I quite agree. And this is, for me, a major problem, in that it sends all the wrong messages about original research.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/29/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:28:49 -0800, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
the vast majority of popular culture items have not been subjected to independent research and are not documentable other than the particular
item
of culture itself.
I quite agree. And this is, for me, a major problem, in that it sends all the wrong messages about original research.
In particular to the editors working on those articles.
I was wondering if it would be a positive step to strongly encourage the popular culture articles to move towards at least citing the (potentially unreliable) primary pop culture source for various factoids (for example, "Character did X" <ref episode XYZ>). Whether we treat those topics as having any reliable sources or not (by normal WP standards), referencing the primary source extensively would set a good example.
George Herbert wrote:
On 11/29/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:28:49 -0800, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
the vast majority of popular culture items have not been subjected to independent research and are not documentable other than the particular
item
of culture itself.
I quite agree. And this is, for me, a major problem, in that it sends all the wrong messages about original research.
In particular to the editors working on those articles.
I was wondering if it would be a positive step to strongly encourage the popular culture articles to move towards at least citing the (potentially unreliable) primary pop culture source for various factoids (for example, "Character did X" <ref episode XYZ>). Whether we treat those topics as having any reliable sources or not (by normal WP standards), referencing the primary source extensively would set a good example.
We've started doing this at the comic project, but it is taking us time to get there. We have a cite issue template. As you say, it's the first step on introducing a lot of editors to the concepts of sourcing, original research and point of view. We can say, okay, The Hulk lost his shoe laces, can you tell us in which issue this happened? You can, great, now, can you tell us why that's important? You can, that's great, now, can you tell us if you've seen anyone else say that? You can, that's great, now, we need to work out if this snippet is relevant at all to the coverage Wikipedia aims for, being a reference work aimed at a general audience. Why do you think a general audience would be interested? They wouldn't? Well, have you met the Marvel Wikia?
I actually went through a process similar to this some weeks back, in order to get a claim rather relevant to [[The Melancholy of Suzumiya Haruhi]] cited as far as the episode in which the claim was made. It wasn't the most pleasant thing to have to go , but it seems to work well enough.
Ryan
On 11/29/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On 11/29/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:28:49 -0800, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
the vast majority of popular culture items have not been subjected to independent research and are not documentable other than the particular
item
of culture itself.
I quite agree. And this is, for me, a major problem, in that it sends all the wrong messages about original research.
In particular to the editors working on those articles.
I was wondering if it would be a positive step to strongly encourage the popular culture articles to move towards at least citing the (potentially unreliable) primary pop culture source for various factoids (for example, "Character did X" <ref episode XYZ>). Whether we treat those topics as having any reliable sources or not (by normal WP standards), referencing the primary source extensively would set a good example.
We've started doing this at the comic project, but it is taking us time to get there. We have a cite issue template. As you say, it's the first step on introducing a lot of editors to the concepts of sourcing, original research and point of view. We can say, okay, The Hulk lost his shoe laces, can you tell us in which issue this happened? You can, great, now, can you tell us why that's important? You can, that's great, now, can you tell us if you've seen anyone else say that? You can, that's great, now, we need to work out if this snippet is relevant at all to the coverage Wikipedia aims for, being a reference work aimed at a general audience. Why do you think a general audience would be interested? They wouldn't? Well, have you met the Marvel Wikia?
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.19/556 - Release Date: 28/11/06
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
There are some subjects that an encyclopedia can not and should not touch because there is simply no real research on the subjects yet.
It may be a definitions thing, but I think an encyclopedia can contain original research and/or rely on non-"reliable" sources and still be an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not such an encyclopedia, and for good reason, but it's not a totally invalid thing to want to do in general.
I support its deletion, but it's true that [[GNAA]] was useful to people even though it wasn't verifiable, and even though they could get the same info from other places on the Web. A lot of people find Wikipedia articles useful even when they're not supported by sources. "Encyclopedic" style -- you know, concise, formal tone, lack of opinionated waffling etc -- is an efficient way of getting across the raw facts, and we're usually fairly accurate and neutral (at least when measured against the wider Web).
Should Wikipedia accept original research or use less-than-ideal sources in cases where there is little or no existing literature? Nope: the reader would have no way to establish whether they could trust an article's contents. It might work if you had those articles controlled by verifiable experts, but again, Wikipedia's not that encyclopedia.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
On 11/30/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I support its deletion, but it's true that [[GNAA]] was useful to people even though it wasn't verifiable, and even though they could get the same info from other places on the Web. A lot of people find Wikipedia articles useful even when they're not supported by sources. "Encyclopedic" style -- you know, concise, formal tone, lack of opinionated waffling etc -- is an efficient way of getting across the raw facts, and we're usually fairly accurate and neutral (at least when measured against the wider Web).
Should Wikipedia accept original research or use less-than-ideal sources in cases where there is little or no existing literature? Nope: the reader would have no way to establish whether they could trust an article's contents. It might work if you had those articles controlled by verifiable experts, but again, Wikipedia's not that encyclopedia.
I feel that if I go to Wikipedia to look up something relatively notable, and Wikipedia's response is "We don't have an article on that", then Wikipedia has failed me. If Wikipedia's response is "GNAA's website is X, and we couldn't verify any information beyond that, but here are some blogs", then it has performed much better.
Steve
George Herbert wrote:
On 11/28/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
What definition of "notable" are you using? The only definition of that word that matters at Wikipedia is: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself." That's not true of GNAA, ergo they're not "notable", which simply means that it's impossible to write a properly verifiable article about them. We don't want to keep an unverfiable article around, no matter how much "consensus" may hoot and holler for it, so we delete it.
People who want to know about GNAA can still look them up at ED, which has no problem covering topics that we eschew.
The problem with this trend is that it relegates certain aspects of internet culture which tend not to get press coverage into the dustbin.
As much as I hate GNAA and everyone involved in it, it IS notable among the realm of internet troll activities.
If we have the (harmless, real, but equally badly documented) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt.fan.warlord entry....
(Offline at the moment, so I can't read the article) - Was Warlord from MIT?
On 11/28/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On 11/28/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
What definition of "notable" are you using? The only definition of
that
word that matters at Wikipedia is: "A topic is notable if it has been
the
subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself." That's not true of GNAA, ergo
they're
not "notable", which simply means that it's impossible to write a
properly
verifiable article about them. We don't want to keep an unverfiable article around, no matter how much "consensus" may hoot and holler for it, so
we
delete it.
People who want to know about GNAA can still look them up at ED, which
has
no problem covering topics that we eschew.
The problem with this trend is that it relegates certain aspects of
internet
culture which tend not to get press coverage into the dustbin.
As much as I hate GNAA and everyone involved in it, it IS notable among
the
realm of internet troll activities.
If we have the (harmless, real, but equally badly documented) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt.fan.warlord entry....
(Offline at the moment, so I can't read the article) - Was Warlord from MIT?
I don't know where he went to school, but "Warlord of the West" was Dan Kline at (somethingorother).trw.com in the 1991 timeframe.
The newsgroup came out of UC Berkeley. It was locally newgrouped by as far as I recall uncredited parties (probably Shannon Appel or one of the local BIFFsters), spread to other nearby commercial and educational institutions, and then if I recall right I sent the first global newgroup for it on a dare in early 1991, though I never was closely involved with the group.
George Herbert wrote:
On 11/28/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
<snip>
If we have the (harmless, real, but equally badly documented) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt.fan.warlord entry....
(Offline at the moment, so I can't read the article) - Was Warlord from MIT?
I don't know where he went to school, but "Warlord of the West" was Dan Kline at (somethingorother).trw.com in the 1991 timeframe.
Ok, now that I've read the article, I'm thinking of someone completely different :)
Seems like a pretty pathetic deletion to me.
On 11/28/06, Taco Deposit tacodeposit@gmail.com wrote:
I applaud the culture shift that has taken place on Wikipedia that has allowed [[Gay Nigger Association of America]] to be deleted due to verifiability concerns--after seventeen unsuccessful deletion nominations.
TD _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Taco Deposit wrote:
I applaud the culture shift that has taken place on Wikipedia that has allowed [[Gay Nigger Association of America]] to be deleted due to verifiability concerns--after seventeen unsuccessful deletion nominations.
So can we now try getting it undeleted over and over and over again until we eventually succeed?
Tuesday, November 28, 2006, 10:45:22 PM, Taco wrote:
I applaud the culture shift that has taken place on Wikipedia that has allowed [[Gay Nigger Association of America]] to be deleted due to verifiability concerns--after seventeen unsuccessful deletion nominations.
BTW, if we started this, maybe we should delete 90% of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Webcomics and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Websites
Most of those articles cannot be verified from reliable sources.
Anyone else amused that the GNAA doesn't even have to be here to troll the mailing list? Their article (and the vagrancies of Wikipedia policy) is doing it for them.
-Humblefool
I was pretty sure that would happen if and when the article was deleted.
--Ryan
On 11/28/06, David Ashby humble.fool@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone else amused that the GNAA doesn't even have to be here to troll the mailing list? Their article (and the vagrancies of Wikipedia policy) is doing it for them.
-Humblefool _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Ashby wrote:
Anyone else amused that the GNAA doesn't even have to be here to troll the mailing list? Their article (and the vagrancies of Wikipedia policy) is doing it for them.
"Vagrancies"? :-) Are you sure you don't mean "vagaries"?
Ec Restricting himself to language comments about apparent malapropisms.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:25:43 +0200, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
if we started this, maybe we should delete 90% of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Webcomics and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Websites
I'm on it...
:o)
Guy (JzG)
On Wednesday 29 November 2006 01:25, Bogdan Giusca wrote:
Tuesday, November 28, 2006, 10:45:22 PM, Taco wrote:
I applaud the culture shift that has taken place on Wikipedia that has allowed [[Gay Nigger Association of America]] to be deleted due to verifiability concerns--after seventeen unsuccessful deletion nominations.
BTW, if we started this, maybe we should delete 90% of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Webcomics and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Websites
Most of those articles cannot be verified from reliable sources.
Don't give the deletionist vandals any ideas...