pouët.net

Go to bottom

Wikipedia Genocide

category: general [glöplog]
For the last few months I've been a huge proponent of Wikipedia. There wasn't a subject I could think of that didn't atleast have a "stub" (a one liner or two) that was atleast the start of something informative...

...Then I learned about a different side of Wikipedia. The "VfD" section, where power hungry goons decide what is worthy of being documented, and what must burn. I'm sure this was once intended to be a place to remove joke articles, but has since turned into an abusive tool of censorship.

Those of you unfamiliar with Wikipedia may disregard this, others may find the links below (and the comments) quite interesting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Remorse_1981
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/PabloDraw

and my favorite, of course...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Spinsane

Agree or disagree with whats happening, but atleast KNOW. Wikipedia will delete any article with a 2/3rds vote of approval.
added on the 2004-10-19 04:57:12 by radman1 radman1
adding yourself and your friends to wikipedia is somewhat meaningless and i find it obnoxious. perhaps adding groups and listing members instead would be an idea.
SCENERS UNITE.

Let's give them a piece of our mind =)
added on the 2004-10-19 07:55:04 by Nezbie Nezbie
i've always found it stupid and, well yes, obnoxious to add information on contemporary non-important people to wikipedia and such.
added on the 2004-10-19 07:55:36 by uncle-x uncle-x
and from this we can conclude that the underground shouldnt try to be documented. :)
added on the 2004-10-19 07:55:50 by psenough psenough
Hey Rad Man, it is a good thing to extend the wikipedia but please don't add every little thing. :)
Btw, "This is an encyclopedia, not a webguide" is the information you should remember when adding a new article the next time. ;)
When in history has an encyclopedia ever been the property of the people? The internet makes it possible.
"Thousands of other groups tried to be important, but in the end it was only iCE and ACiD." <- lol
added on the 2004-10-19 11:11:39 by xeNusion xeNusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_art

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FILE_ID.DIZ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoscene

It's not like they're voting to remove the demo scene or ANSI art from the wikipedia... They just want to get *your homepage* out of there. :-)
added on the 2004-10-19 11:28:49 by deetsay deetsay
btw, please update your pilgrimage advertising ;)
If I could thumb this thread down, I would. I'm all for deleting useless crap in wikipedia..
added on the 2004-10-19 12:48:58 by Preacher Preacher
stop crying about useless crap.
added on the 2004-10-19 12:56:53 by okkie okkie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RaD_Man
megalomaniac crap

adding yourself and your friends to wikipedia is somewhat meaningless and i find it obnoxious. perhaps adding groups and listing members instead would be an idea.
Agreed

i've always found it stupid and, well yes, obnoxious to add information on contemporary non-important people to wikipedia and such.
Agreed

If I could thumb this thread down, I would. I'm all for deleting useless crap in wikipedia..
Agreed
added on the 2004-10-19 13:10:31 by keops keops
rad man, you're really making yourself look awfully stupid now. wikipedia is supposed to be about stuff that matters.
added on the 2004-10-19 13:15:43 by skrebbel skrebbel
radman is a narcist, we knew that from the start.
added on the 2004-10-19 13:16:06 by okkie okkie
oh, and i couldn't agree more with taking these sites off wikipedia
added on the 2004-10-19 13:16:34 by okkie okkie
i think there's something missing on the wikipedia page here:
"Since 2004, Rad Man has refashioned himself as a pitiful moron, devored by his lust of recognizing, which led him to a terribly obscene hunt for fame through websites such as pouët or wikipedia."
added on the 2004-10-19 13:23:43 by stil stil
lol. in all seriousness, removing junk from wikipedia does not decrease the value of it as a meaningful resource at all, actually it improves signal to noise ratio.
added on the 2004-10-19 13:34:41 by randomi randomi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paniq - but this is not important right now.

Honestly, I don't know.
I mean, one might consider Rad Man as one of the leading individuals of the textmode/ASCII-scene - in that case, upholding correctness, he has the right to have a wikipedia entry. (After all he IS more known than an average Joe Artist.)
On the other hand, it still sounds a lot like vanity, and the article's relevance is a valid debate...

Fact is that in a huge community like Wikipedia, it's very hard to draw the line where information starts to become relevant.

I'm not going to vote here.
Just my two cents.
added on the 2004-10-19 13:50:05 by Gargaj Gargaj
putting yourself on wikipedia is nonsense, cause face it, you are not important!
added on the 2004-10-19 13:55:46 by okkie okkie
Gargaj: The german version of paniq's wp-text got deleted within days. We don't know, why this stands that long. On the other hand, there was a pupil with a lecture for school about paniq...
Maybe he is more important than whe thought. ;)
radman = wikipedofiel
added on the 2004-10-19 15:14:41 by havoc havoc
isn't this one of the reasons why people start their own niche-oriented wiki?

I mean, DAMN.
added on the 2004-10-19 15:26:44 by Shifter Shifter
everybody knows that you have to be dead to become really famous
added on the 2004-10-19 16:54:31 by loaderror loaderror

login

Go to top