Forums / General Discussion / Wikipedia deletionist philosop...

Wikipedia deletionist philosophy

Matt Westwood · 4 replies

Wikipedia deletionist philosophy
Matt Westwood
12 years ago
Oct 24, 2011 - 6:40am
There's a recent-ish trend on Wikipedia to delete articles on subjects which are not "notable", according to some nebulous definition (but which is supposed to mean "verifiable by secondary sources). Unfortunately this means that several albums whose details have been confirmed and verified (and indeed sourced) from Wikipedia articles may no longer have that resource in future.

A case in point is "Changes" by Catapilla (currently in the queue) - it got deleted sometime in the last 24 hours. It probably won't be the first. There are "editors" out there whose only delight is deleting stuff.

So beware, folks - if you feel strongly enough, then get an account in Wikipedia and join in the arguments to "keep".
···
misterpomp
12 years ago
Oct 27, 2011 - 9:00pm
I put up Catapilla on wikipedia. It was shortly thereafter that I realised what a bunch of *****s they are on wikipedia...
···
Matt Westwood
12 years ago
Oct 28, 2011 - 4:34pm
Wow - hey, it's back! Sanity has clearly been re-evaluated ...
···
misterpomp
12 years ago
Oct 28, 2011 - 4:41pm
After much heated debate. You've got a load of self-appointed little Hitlers on there trying to / deleting stuff they know bugger all about just because they can. For all that I have sometimes made my points too pointedly on here; I hope I've never been like that to any of the contributors. If I have, I apologise because it was not intended - I have complete respect for the research and work everyone does on here (apart from my own occasionally ludicrously sloppy entries!).
···
Matt Westwood
12 years ago
Oct 29, 2011 - 7:46am
I pwned one the other week. He tried to get "List of notable (or important) works in mathematics" deleted because he personally could not find a 2ndary source saying "This is the list of important publications in the field of mathematics:" and then having had several such pointed out to him, said "Well that's no good, they all say different things, so establishing the definitive list of which works *are* important comes under the category of original research. And anyway, they don't count because I haven't read them." I told him that every one of his postings made him look even stupider. He took that comment straight to the admins to try and get me blocked from Wikipedia, and they laughed him out of town. Very satisfying.
© BandToBand.com
Mapping the Rock 'N Roll genome since 2005