Post by blissyu2 on Jul 12, 2008 1:55:48 GMT -5
It looks like Wikipedia hates cruft. If you look through their recent AFD "debates" (no longer considered to be votes etc, even though you still say Keep or Delete), they have a whole bundle of things being deleted because they are fan-based.
Let's see:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9-13, 14-17, 18, 19, 20-26, 27.
That is a total of 27 "cruft" articles nominated for deletion in a single day. That is out of a total of 77 AFDs that day, or around about 1/3 of all AFDs.
So what does this tell us?
It tells us that people who use Wikipedia like to write a lot of "cruft", from mentioning tours that musicians have gone on through to various characters in cartoon shows, computer games or tabletop roleplaying games, it is what Wikipedia does.
Furthermore, it is what Wikipedia does best!
But at the same time, Wikipedia hates that that is what they do best! They want to instead be known for making legitimate, real, articles.
Like perhaps their "fantastic" article on the Port Arthur massacre: here.
An article so bad that they can't even get the dates right, insisting it was 28th April 1996 only, in spite of then saying in their reciprocal article on the alleged killer Martin Bryant saying that it lasted for 2 days. Indeed, to add further confusion, in their article on Australian mass murders at the head it says "Several massacres occurred in Australia leading up to firearms licensing laws in 1996 after the Port Arthur massacre, one of the deadliest lone wolf massacres in history. Most major gun massacres in Australia occurred before 1996." and yet there is no mention of this fact elsewhere!
Lone wolf, according to Wikipedia, is an act of terrorism designed with a specific aim.
So the Port Arthur massacre is:
1) A single day random mass murder committed by 1 person
2) A 2-day spree killing
3) A lone wolf terrorism act
Well, which is it?
I would personally describe it as terrorism, and lone wolf fits it quite well. However, it was a 3-day murder spree.
To make matters worse, of the people that have contributed to the article over the past 6 years, over 50% have added essentially the same material - that Martin Bryant didn't do it. The result of all of that addition, aside from multiple bans, wipes from the talk pages and so forth, is that they have a tiny sub section that mentions claims NOT MADE BY A SINGLE PERSON TRYING TO EDIT THE PAGE, then rubbished them all off as nonsense!
Yes, this is what Wikipedia is trying to aim for. Making highly controversial articles appear fine, pushing one viewpoint which is actually a false one above anything else.
And all the while getting rid of the stuff that they are good at - their cruft.
But of course if Wikipedia were to keep their cruft, they wouldn't be taken seriously. They'd be useful, but they wouldn't be any good at using for assignments.
So truth changing is more important to them than writing accurate articles about cruft.
Poor, poor Wikipedia. How much more wrong can you get something?
Let's see:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9-13, 14-17, 18, 19, 20-26, 27.
That is a total of 27 "cruft" articles nominated for deletion in a single day. That is out of a total of 77 AFDs that day, or around about 1/3 of all AFDs.
So what does this tell us?
It tells us that people who use Wikipedia like to write a lot of "cruft", from mentioning tours that musicians have gone on through to various characters in cartoon shows, computer games or tabletop roleplaying games, it is what Wikipedia does.
Furthermore, it is what Wikipedia does best!
But at the same time, Wikipedia hates that that is what they do best! They want to instead be known for making legitimate, real, articles.
Like perhaps their "fantastic" article on the Port Arthur massacre: here.
An article so bad that they can't even get the dates right, insisting it was 28th April 1996 only, in spite of then saying in their reciprocal article on the alleged killer Martin Bryant saying that it lasted for 2 days. Indeed, to add further confusion, in their article on Australian mass murders at the head it says "Several massacres occurred in Australia leading up to firearms licensing laws in 1996 after the Port Arthur massacre, one of the deadliest lone wolf massacres in history. Most major gun massacres in Australia occurred before 1996." and yet there is no mention of this fact elsewhere!
Lone wolf, according to Wikipedia, is an act of terrorism designed with a specific aim.
So the Port Arthur massacre is:
1) A single day random mass murder committed by 1 person
2) A 2-day spree killing
3) A lone wolf terrorism act
Well, which is it?
I would personally describe it as terrorism, and lone wolf fits it quite well. However, it was a 3-day murder spree.
To make matters worse, of the people that have contributed to the article over the past 6 years, over 50% have added essentially the same material - that Martin Bryant didn't do it. The result of all of that addition, aside from multiple bans, wipes from the talk pages and so forth, is that they have a tiny sub section that mentions claims NOT MADE BY A SINGLE PERSON TRYING TO EDIT THE PAGE, then rubbished them all off as nonsense!
Yes, this is what Wikipedia is trying to aim for. Making highly controversial articles appear fine, pushing one viewpoint which is actually a false one above anything else.
And all the while getting rid of the stuff that they are good at - their cruft.
But of course if Wikipedia were to keep their cruft, they wouldn't be taken seriously. They'd be useful, but they wouldn't be any good at using for assignments.
So truth changing is more important to them than writing accurate articles about cruft.
Poor, poor Wikipedia. How much more wrong can you get something?