Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Deletionism is also one of the major reasons that I only contribute to the Hackety Hack and Shoes articles on Wikipedia, and nothing else. (oh, and I fear the day when I have to try to prove Hackety Hack 'notable.' I'm pretty sure that it isn't by the letter of the law.)

They'd have more help if they didn't go around deleting things.




Same here. I'd be a lot more active in editing Wikipedia if it weren't for the f@#!#ng deletionists. But as long as those pikers are running around deleting stuff left and right, I feel very little motivation to get involved on a regular basis.


With the current model there needs to be some line because editors are a finite resource and people do occasionally deface articles etc. I would suggest having Wikipedia’s deleted articles end up on another website (using the same backend) which is then ignored by the editorial community to avoid annoying people.

PS: There are already plenty of other wiki's with different focus. There is little need for ex: naruto.wikia.com content on en.wikipedia.com.


The notability guidelines don't address this at all. If the article about AliceML got defaced, the people who obviously care about it would fix it.

And if nobody cares about the article, why does it matter if it's been defaced? And why not delete it once it's been defaced, rather than pre-emptively?


AliceML is an edge case where arguments can be made on both sides (I would have kept it). However the rule is more setup to avoid people adding their family tree and favorite recopies to Wikipedia etc resulting in 10 billion articles and no way to manage them. Overall I think it's a fairly loose standard ex:(Random article) gave me

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bookpeople_(distributor)
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Nash_(basketball)
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Holme_Larsen
I can see keeping the first and possibly the second, but why not delete the third?

PS: A different option might be to build a custom AI to validate things, but for now balancing Notable around the size of the community seems reasonable.


I see this as a UI problem, not a 'real' problem.


Heh, I see it as more of an organizational issue, but I suggested a UI solution. Wikipedia is a moderated wiki that seems un-moderated to most users. The Notability rules bother people, but they are really part of a larger tradeoff and scrapping them is risky.


One of the powerful features of wikipedia vs. topic specific wikis is the ability to spend literally hours bouncing around seemingly disconnected subjects, learning something new at each new node. You can start at Naruto and end up at African tribal weapons in a sequence of incredibly smooth segues that can consume literally hours of time. Almost everybody who does this describes the experience as "pleasant" or "amazing" and all come away having learned something.

A walled off wiki simply doesn't allow this type of holistic discovery. And in many cases, the boundaries between subjects can seem rather arbitrary and fuzzy. Where does Naruto end and Feudal Japan start?




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: