Wiki police
I love Wikipedia. Really. Not only as a legitimate research tool, but also as a form of edu-tainment. A simple perusal of the most mundane topic can lead to hours spent visiting page after page. Maybe I’m just peculiar that way… in addition to all the other ways I’m peculiar.
What I don’t like are some of the editors that seem to have this authority complex. On more than one occasion, I’ve run across these Barney Fife’s threatening to get their bullet out in response to the most trivial things.
My first encounter was in response to an edit I made to Griffin’s wikipedia entry. I had listed the number of employees at 100 assuming an approximate was sufficient. That was immediately reverted by a former employee as he knew there was no way Griffin could have that many employees. The actual number was 94 at the time, so I left it. Whatever. Oh, I see that Griffin’s logo has been deleted now also.
Anyway, yesterday I noticed that Proxi’s entry had been tagged with a deletion proposal. This on account that the article gives no indication of notability or verifiability. You see, I added Proxi after one of my wikipedia browsing sessions having noted that LaunchBar, Butler and of course Quicksilver all had entries so I figured why not. Though I’m the author I tried to leave out any bias and simply provide a short description and information on the current version, etc. I also included links to those applications that I mentioned above. I thought it might be handy for anyone poking around wikipedia looking for Mac OS X automation / launcher sofwtare.
Unclear on exactly what constitutes “notability”, I contacted the person responsible for the proposed deletion seeking clarification and citing Butler, LaunchBar, and Quicksilver as similar articles and rather than a helpful response, I was directed to the articles mentioned in the delete template. You know, the ones that were unclear to me. Not only that, but he thanked me for pointing out those other articles and tagged not only LaunchBar, but Quicksilver for deletion as well! (Sorry about that guys) Clearly this person is not acquainted with Mac software. I can almost understand the decision to delete Proxi, but Quicksilver? Are you serious?
At this point, I’m not sure what I’m going to do about Proxi’s entry, if anything. But it makes me wonder. Of what benefit is it to the users of wikipedia to remove articles just because they don’t live up to someone’s subjective view of notability? Proxi has a small but loyal group of users. I suppose it’s notable to them. I’m sure there are thousands of articles that meet the same criteria. There are guidelines for wikipedia articles, but sometimes I get the impression that the enforcement isn’t much different than this:
What I don’t like are some of the editors that seem to have this authority complex.
Clearly you don’t work with editors on a daily basis. ;-p
Proxi has a small but loyal group of users. I suppose it’s notable to them. I’m sure there are thousands of articles that meet the same criteria.
I’m not so sure. I mean, unless people want to know how tall Proxi is in real life, whether or not Proxi is gay and if it was or was not ethical for Proxi to wage a war of aggression then it just may not meet the (unstated) mission of Wikipedia to offer mass-consumption answers crafted by the masses.
Of course, I might suggest that Someone out there (i.e. not me, thanks) craft a Griffin Wiki for Griffin software or a Mac Wiki for Mac software. The whole point of Wikis is to be a mass-edited niche-focused answer repository.
If WikiPedia boots you, you can still accomplish the same thing elsewhere without the Fifes.
Oh…THAT Proxi Wiki that someone was too borked to read the other day.
Yeah.
I’m not sure I agree with the assumption that Wikipedia is only intended to supply answers to questions that thousands of people are looking for. If that were the case then only broad categories need be defined with perhaps links to sub wikis containing specifics. Entries such as Peroxidase, Kayla Kleevage, or Brainfuck (there goes my G rating) would have no place on Wikipedia and would suffer for it. Would you include Hemoglobin but not Peroxidase? What makes Kayla Kleevage more notable than Jenna Jameson? (don’t answer that). Should Brainfuck occupy the same space as C? Of course there is room for all of this information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and I’d like the information contained within to be, well encyclopedic. The primary concern of wikipedia should be the truth and not whether or not a particular article is worthy enough to occupy a few bytes in a database somewhere. Granted this post was in regards to my own software and so I have an emotional attachment, but I wonder how many other wikipedia searches I’ve done that may have omitted information I would have found useful because someone decided that information wasn’t notable enough.
Hey, don’t shoot me, I’m only the piano player.
I’ve been kinda in this anti-Wikipedia grudge mode for a bit now, because they started out all “come one come all” and then morphed into this very oligarchic thing masquerading as a populist information source.
Speaking of trying to cram big things into smaller and smaller packages, something tells me that Kayla Kleevage is going to be Hanna Herniated Disc before too much longer. Ow.
Hey, don’t shoot me, I’m only the piano player.
It seemed you were implying that this oligarchy (notable word) was acceptable. Still, I didn’t mean to appear to have gone after my bullet.
It seemed you were implying that this oligarchy (notable word) was acceptable.
Note to Kat: Do not write comments when you are sick.
No. I don’t think the New Wikipedia Oligarchy is a good thing. At all.
It is, however, seeming to be more and more of The Way Things Are over there.
Still, I didn’t mean to appear to have gone after my bullet.
You didn’t. I just have Elton John on the brain today. In fact, I think this is the second time I’ve referenced that album. Time for a hammerblow to the cranium…