They want to delete us again

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2005-09-01 08:21pm

Jason von Evil wrote:
Dalton wrote:
Pu-239 wrote:Well, for a possible undeletion vote in the future.
Why bother? Wikipedia is full of trolls, incompetent buffoons, useless pricks and jackass admins.
Like staring into a mirror, isn't it?

OOOH! ICE BURN! DAYUM! JVE FTW! Sheeeeeit!

Akaramu Shinja · Post by **Akaramu Shinja** » 2005-09-01 09:50pm

Jason von Evil wrote:Like staring into a mirror, isn't it?

I didn't have the balls to say it

Post by **Dalton** » 2005-09-01 09:51pm

Jason von Evil wrote:
Dalton wrote:
Pu-239 wrote:Well, for a possible undeletion vote in the future.
Why bother? Wikipedia is full of trolls, incompetent buffoons, useless pricks and jackass admins.
Like staring into a mirror, isn't it?

One of these days I'm just going to fucking bitchslap you.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2005-09-02 03:37am

Didn't take the trolls long to find my page. I've already had one asshole vandalizing the user page changing my comments into things they weren't. A friendly admin has been contacted and this IP is likely to be blocked from making further edits in my section.

Ubiquitous · Post by **Ubiquitous** » 2005-09-02 04:56am

I can only imagine the shit-fests that must have been behind articles such as IvP, creationism/evolution and the Iraq War considering the fuss surrounding our little article...

Zadius · Post by **Zadius** » 2005-09-02 06:42am

ALI_G wrote:I can only imagine the shit-fests that must have been behind articles such as IvP, creationism/evolution and the Iraq War considering the fuss surrounding our little article...

Definately, all you have to do is look at the talk pages of those articles to see what goes on there.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-09-02 10:46am

Haven't dared to look. The Civil War articles are bad enough.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2005-09-02 11:14am

ALI_G wrote:I can only imagine the shit-fests that must have been behind articles such as IvP, creationism/evolution and the Iraq War considering the fuss surrounding our little article...

I was rather active in creationism/evolution this spring, and those pages have actually turned out rather nicely, IMHO. NPOV is annoying, but when you can point to "99% of the scientific community says creation science isn't science", it's not too hard to bitchslap creationism while POV.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-09-02 11:27am

Long before this incident, I said that Wikipedia was worthless. I can only say that their conduct vindicates my earlier position completely. But I see no reason to get overly worked up about it; it's not as if the existence of a Wikipedia article (which is really just an opportunity for people to fight over what is being said about us) is necessary or even useful to the operation of this website.

Ubiquitous · Post by **Ubiquitous** » 2005-09-02 12:37pm

Darth Wong wrote:Long before this incident, I said that Wikipedia was worthless. I can only say that their conduct vindicates my earlier position completely. But I see no reason to get overly worked up about it; it's not as if the existence of a Wikipedia article (which is really just an opportunity for people to fight over what is being said about us) is necessary or even useful to the operation of this website.

I wouldn't say Wiki is useless! Far from it infact - it helped me with homework many times when I was back at school, and the baseball sections are very useful to a new fan such as myself. The history pages are also quite enjoyable and useful for quick background infomation.

Yes, wiki seems to be populated by some control freaks, but I would say that it is far from worthless and indeed is a very useful website.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-09-02 12:39pm

ALI_G wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Long before this incident, I said that Wikipedia was worthless. I can only say that their conduct vindicates my earlier position completely. But I see no reason to get overly worked up about it; it's not as if the existence of a Wikipedia article (which is really just an opportunity for people to fight over what is being said about us) is necessary or even useful to the operation of this website.
I wouldn't say Wiki is useless! Far from it infact - it helped me with homework many times when I was back at school, and the baseball sections are very useful to a new fan such as myself. The history pages are also quite enjoyable and useful for quick background infomation.

Yes, wiki seems to be populated by some control freaks, but I would say that it is far from worthless and indeed is a very useful website.

Get Encyclopedia Brittanica. It has actual editorial standards.

Ubiquitous · Post by **Ubiquitous** » 2005-09-02 12:49pm

Darth Wong wrote:
ALI_G wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Long before this incident, I said that Wikipedia was worthless. I can only say that their conduct vindicates my earlier position completely. But I see no reason to get overly worked up about it; it's not as if the existence of a Wikipedia article (which is really just an opportunity for people to fight over what is being said about us) is necessary or even useful to the operation of this website.
I wouldn't say Wiki is useless! Far from it infact - it helped me with homework many times when I was back at school, and the baseball sections are very useful to a new fan such as myself. The history pages are also quite enjoyable and useful for quick background infomation.

Yes, wiki seems to be populated by some control freaks, but I would say that it is far from worthless and indeed is a very useful website.
Get Encyclopedia Brittanica. It has actual editorial standards.

That would be very nice to have, but I cannot afford it. As a lowly student I have to go for a cost/benefit solution, and thus wikipedia is the king for me at least until I graduate [at which time I probably won't have much use for an encyclopedia in the first place as I enter the rat race

].

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2005-09-02 01:02pm

ALI_G wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Long before this incident, I said that Wikipedia was worthless. I can only say that their conduct vindicates my earlier position completely. But I see no reason to get overly worked up about it; it's not as if the existence of a Wikipedia article (which is really just an opportunity for people to fight over what is being said about us) is necessary or even useful to the operation of this website.
I wouldn't say Wiki is useless! Far from it infact - it helped me with homework many times when I was back at school, and the baseball sections are very useful to a new fan such as myself. The history pages are also quite enjoyable and useful for quick background infomation.

Yes, wiki seems to be populated by some control freaks, but I would say that it is far from worthless and indeed is a very useful website.

I find it useful particularly for giving me information to continue research. Particularly for less controversial topics, it's really quite useful. The only things I've found that get edited over and over are either topics that really aren't necessary (such as ours) or things that are highly volatile, in which case it's not hard to find information elsewhere anyway.

Oh, and Mike? A set of the Britannica is roughly a month's wages for me (4.13 weeks, assuming I get full hours each week). Not exactly easily affordable.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-09-02 01:10pm

I would say that for the most part, 99% of Wikipedia is absolutely fine. It's only with "controversial" topics such as this do you see any pissing and moaning and editing attacks besides acts of random vandalism, which is more often than not caught within minutes or hours.

You don't see this kind of shit go in in the aticles for aluminum or Tess of the d'Ubervilles.

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2005-09-02 02:04pm

Also it tends to have a lot of information on esoteric subjects such as various science fiction, fantasy, anime and video game series that wouldnt appear in something like the britanica.

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2005-09-02 02:36pm

I would be wary with a lot of the information on Wikipedia, however, while most of it is fine you really shouldn't use it as a main source of information, but rather as a suplement. This even goes for the "No shit sherlock" pages, for example a whiles back I browsed Wikipedia, and found the Hannibal page saying he had lead the Visigoths over the alps.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2005-09-02 02:42pm

I don't use Wikipedia as a source of primary information for anything, but I find the place a fun read and it does have very nice collections of information on subjects you wouldn't find at very many places.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-09-02 03:37pm

I still wouldn't use Wikipedia as a research source, but I'm finding it fun to have at the articles. The whole "reach a consensus or shut up" mentality thing is getting repressive, though.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2005-09-02 04:08pm

I haven't been to Wikipedia in while, but I've liked it--although I've avoided editing nontechnical topics, thus bypassing the majority of such... spats.
This thread made me go back to being active there. Hmm, Kepler...

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-09-02 06:22pm

What's this? Kuroneko in OT?

Truly, these are the final days.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2005-09-02 06:43pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:What's this? Kuroneko in OT?

Truly, these are the final days.

PRAAIIIISE JEESUSS!! I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT!!

More seriously, the creationism v. evolution pages seem to have stabilized, so there's not much in the way of major editing to do over there. Ho-hum; now to find some other area of interest to engage myself to.

Zadius · Post by **Zadius** » 2005-09-02 09:14pm

Even for serious research Wikipedia can be a useful tool. As with anything you find on the internet you should check multiple sources to verify, but it's nevertheless a good jumping off point.

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2005-09-02 10:46pm

Rogue 9 wrote:I still wouldn't use Wikipedia as a research source, but I'm finding it fun to have at the articles. The whole "reach a consensus or shut up" mentality thing is getting repressive, though.

I know. I thought the NPOV idea is to represent everyone, which is, as a rule, OK (most topics in which there is significant dissent don't have such lopsided evidence ratio as Creationism vs Evolution after all). So we write the Creationist's views in and point out how much of a minority it is.

Now NPOV increasingly seems to mean "If you can't find a way to put facts diplomatically (NPOV), you can't put it at all."

Post by **Surlethe** » 2005-09-02 11:12pm

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:I still wouldn't use Wikipedia as a research source, but I'm finding it fun to have at the articles. The whole "reach a consensus or shut up" mentality thing is getting repressive, though.
I know. I thought the NPOV idea is to represent everyone, which is, as a rule, OK (most topics in which there is significant dissent don't have such lopsided evidence ratio as Creationism vs Evolution after all). So we write the Creationist's views in and point out how much of a minority it is.

Now NPOV increasingly seems to mean "If you can't find a way to put facts diplomatically (NPOV), you can't put it at all."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV wrote:Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly. This is the neutral point of view policy.

The policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. Instead it says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct. Crucially, a great merit of Wikipedia is that Wikipedians work together to make articles unbiased.

Writing unbiased text requires practice. Contributors who have mastered the art of NPOV are invited to help develop the neutrality tutorial.

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2005-09-02 11:38pm

I'm talking about said policy's practical implementation. Practical implementation is more important than what that rule says on paper.

The policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. Instead it says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct. Crucially, a great merit of Wikipedia is that Wikipedians work together to make articles unbiased.

Yeah, I read that theory. In practice, this policy in my experience is implemented by not allowing any controversial content.

Take the STvsSW page. Some time ago, I wrote some "travel advisories" about DarkStar's site. It went like this:

ST-v-SW.Net - A site by Robert Anderson, a controversial figure in the versus debate. This site uses different standards of evidence and canon criteria not usually accepted among more mainstream sites

The last, is of course true, not an opinion. I knew about the NPOV policy, so I didn't say DarkStar is a turd or even that he was wrong, just that he uses "different" standards of evidence that are non-standard. This is 100% true.

A Balancer came up and bitched about NPOV. Two posts later, the section became like this:

A website by Robert Anderson, considered by most to be the most comprehensive and detailed Pro-Trek website of the debate. Also features a blog about the VS debate. Note: Site generally uses Canon Purist viewpoint.

Most? That "most" didn't include Us, certainly. Controversial was the best that can be said about him - more than the best in fact. Balancer finally accepted the last sentence, but it is misleading. DarkStar actually is a hypocrite, so while he is ostensibly Canon Purist, he'd use other EU when he thinks they support him. Why the fuck does Balancer think I won't use "Canon Purist" the first time out if that's just what he is?

Of course, ultimately, even this was deleted. Now those dolts that would click on DarkStar's link won't even know he's using the wrong (or even non-standard) evidentiary standards (never mind the logic flaws in his argument).

That's NPOV for you.