Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 5:47 AM
Mon Nov 30
13 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/23/09
(Seriously!)
11/23/09
The problem is this. Every time some high school English teacher rambles on about how Wikipedia is the spawn of the devil, Jimbo Wales orders his minions to crack down on notability. Every time Steven Colbert jokes about how "the lightsaber article is longer than the printing press article," Jimbo Wales orders a crackdown. Every time some middle schooler hides the word "penis" in an article for a few months and the media picks up on it, Jimbo Wales orders a crackdown.
Wales has been trying desperately the last few years to get Wikipedia accepted as one of the big boys in academic research. Just look at their new Orwellian fundraising drive advertising campaign--"WIKIPEDIA FOREVER! Wikipedia has always been there for you! We know everything! Give us money!" It's stupid, and the vast majority of the community opposed it. But he trucked right on and did it anyway, because he cares more about getting Wikipedia's name in the history books than actually making the site useful.
A year or two ago, Wikipedia underwent the "Webcomic Wars." Almost every webcomic article, from Ctrl+Alt+Del to xkcd was up for deletion on crappy notability loopholes. The real reason was because these webcomic articles were sometimes longer than articles about "real" comics, and we can't have that, can we? In the end, it showed just how hard Wales and his cronies are trying to make Wikipedia the online version of Britannica instead of the useful compendium of niche knowledge we've come to know it as.
At the end of the day, everyone--you, me, and that high school English teacher--uses Wikipedia. So why is Wales worried about what Colbert is joking about on his show? Who cares? People want the site to stay the way it once was instead of turning into the crap this article describes.
11/23/09
re: [en.wikipedia.org]
11/24/09
It's worth noting your article was deleted two years ago and maybe circumstances have changed since then. Wikipedia's current web content notability guidelines are here: [en.wikipedia.org])
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/24/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
What was Wikipedia's great strength has been virtually outlawed by Wales. It's no longer "the crowd of interested people," it's "our crowd." And what's particularly self-destructive about this is that as the online world becomes more populated, the percentage of malevolent trolls actually decreases, so it's safer now to be open than it ever has been in the past.
11/23/09
I coded a word game called [www.wordsandwich.com] and put it online about four years ago, and as it gained popularity, someone made a very generous Wiki page about it, explaining the rules and giving a little backstory. When I was alerted to this, I chimed in and added a few things -- then suddenly, this prick takes it down citing "No claim of notability"
See for yourself:
[en.wikipedia.org]
Ever since then, anytime I see some bullshit entry about some asshole famewhore's bullshit, or a whole page about someone that appeared once on a reality show, I am reminded that Wiki's standards of notability are objective to what nazi editor comes across said content and anoints it worthy or unworthy.
I'm not saying my shit is Bejewelled, but my game is played about 6000 times per week and is mentioned in a list of word games under Wiki's page on .. word games! Yet, a more detailed description of the game is somehow not allowed?
Mike Rosoft, [en.wikipedia.org] , proud member of the "Counter-Vandalism Unit" has deemed my shit unworthy!
Am I wrong in thinking this is one of those 350 pound dudes with the thick beards that sit around all day and talk relentless shit in IRC chatrooms and deletes Wiki pages to avenge the bullying he received in highschool?
11/23/09
11/23/09
There's no guarantee that someone still won't take it down, but your chances of keeping it go up the more references you have. (Ironically, I don't think they value online references nearly as highly.)
11/23/09
11/23/09
Meanwhile every single Transformer toy has 10,000 words of history devoted to it.
It's not like an 'un-notable' entry costs anybody any paper.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
I no longer used Wiki as a reference before reading a manuscript or taking a meeting. If the entry concerns a particular living author, then one lonely loser with an opinion will cut and censor anything that doesn't agree with his own "artistic vision."
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
10/09/09
.
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/10/09
And don't kid yourself; she'd still hit it, if she thought it would do her any good. But now she's working for the Torygraph, which is developing quite a line in publishing barely-literate essays by Ex-Mistresses of the Lesser Gods.