Re:RIP Fravia
by huhtenberg on Monday May 04, 2009 @05:37PM
(#593129)
> Seriously, Wikipedia?
Yeah, that's a modern Wikipedia for you. Hardly a surprise, really.
The only thing that's strictly notable according to their policies is a Pokemon. With a list of Starwars planets coming next. I used to contribute a lot for more than two years, but then left after a wave of morons overtook reasonable editors and started purging articles left and right just for the sake of complying with the Policies. I have stopped donating too. /rant
I can understand they logic behind this article being put up for AfD. It was written poorly, in POV style. It did do a poor job of establishing what was notable about Fravia (you'd have to know something about his particular reversing subculture to know why any of the claims in the article were interesting).
And finally --- and most importantly --- the article did lack independent sources establishing notability. Independent sourcing is not optional on Wikipedia.
I don't think this is a place where the system failed.
Re:RIP Fravia
by huhtenberg on Monday May 04, 2009 @05:42PM
(#593135)
Poorly sourced article tagged for POV bias is better than no article. Especially considering how much effort it takes to resurrect the article once it's deleted.
Re:RIP Fravia
by tptacek on Monday May 04, 2009 @06:05PM
(#593176)
That argument is a slippery slope towards asserting there should be no quality control on Wikipedia; any debatable WP article could be defended by saying "tag it and hope for sourcing".
What people keep forgetting in these arguments is that WP isn't pronouncing a final judgement on the topic; they're judging the article itself. If you believe sourcing could be found for a topic, and a better article could be written, go write it. There's a zillion "proven" articles in WP that need maintaining; why argue about the ones people can't bother to bring up to some minimal standard of quality?
http://www.2113.ch/phplab/mbs.php3/mb001?num=1241367858&...
Yeah, that's a modern Wikipedia for you. Hardly a surprise, really.
The only thing that's strictly notable according to their policies is a Pokemon. With a list of Starwars planets coming next. I used to contribute a lot for more than two years, but then left after a wave of morons overtook reasonable editors and started purging articles left and right just for the sake of complying with the Policies. I have stopped donating too. /rant
The discussion that led to this is here: http://bit.ly/10rqEV.
I can understand they logic behind this article being put up for AfD. It was written poorly, in POV style. It did do a poor job of establishing what was notable about Fravia (you'd have to know something about his particular reversing subculture to know why any of the claims in the article were interesting).
And finally --- and most importantly --- the article did lack independent sources establishing notability. Independent sourcing is not optional on Wikipedia.
I don't think this is a place where the system failed.
What people keep forgetting in these arguments is that WP isn't pronouncing a final judgement on the topic; they're judging the article itself. If you believe sourcing could be found for a topic, and a better article could be written, go write it. There's a zillion "proven" articles in WP that need maintaining; why argue about the ones people can't bother to bring up to some minimal standard of quality?
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:mAp2zxYhBnoJ:en.wikipedi...