Hacker News Reader

Comment by true_blue | Hacker News Reader

The Wikipedia article listed on the website was deleted as "non-notable". Here's an archive of it though: https://web.archive.org/web/20170708075915/https://en.wikipe...

View on HN

Interestingly this one is still up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPodLinux

Which is the equivalent project (also on μCLinux) on an iPod.

I remember ...taking my sister's iPod something to install this and then to connect it to my PS3 in order to jailbreak it. My sister was not happy of course, I am not sure whether I was able to reset the iPod to its original state or not.

I interviewed the creator of μCLinux recently here:

https://riscvnews.com/posts/j-core-interview/

I don't believe in Hell, but if I did I would suspect it would have a special place for Wikipedia deletionists, somewhere near the people who never return their shopping carts.

I think Wikipedia deletionists would love to open up a circle of hell just for video games and related topics because it seems quite hard for a book to be considered notable on Wikipedia but hard for a game not to be. For instance only half of this author's books

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Lepore

are considered notable enough to have Wikipedia pages (and notably not the excellent https://www.amazon.com/If-Then-Simulmatics-Corporation-Inven... but maybe that is just my opinion as a computer nerd who works in the public opinion field... If you notice I try not to say things like "most people think that" because I don't want to be caught with my facts wrong.) but truly obscure games like

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Princess

seem to not have to fight for notability at all. (Personally I kinda like that one, but I'm a serious weeb and even I'll admit that it is terribly balanced and too grindy)

You should join the group with the very long name.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Wikipedians_W...

It's a problem that came up ~~a few years~~more than a decade ago with Kate Middleton's Wedding Dress which was deemed "not significant" initially, whereas every niche Linux distro has a page, which simply shows the demographics of the folks in charge of moderating Wikipedia: https://slate.com/technology/2012/07/kate-middleton-s-weddin...

I get the idea of "Let's keep Wikipedia for relevant things instead of a graveyard of everyone that wants to self-promote their meaningless project", but there is absolutely a real problem here.

Code of Princess is relevant because it's published by Atlus, but by that measure, any of Jill Lepore should be relevant enough. That said: Do you know if the books without pages were removed for non-relevance, or if it's simply a matter of "No one has created a proper Wikipedia Article for it yet?"

I think the strangest one is this game

https://krunker.io/

which has some stories in newspapers claiming it has serious player numbers but the people who make it have tried several times to make their own page for it which have been taken down because it was self-promotion. I’d imagine someone else could still make one but nobody has.

Myself I’d rather deal with nicer people so I try to slip real Ukiyo-e prints into Danbooru and also correct historical inaccuracies in the bio(s) of people that FGO characters were based on.

I don't think it's weird at all for there to be a Wikipedia page for every official release for a popular gaming system, even if the release itself is somewhat obscure. On the other hand, it makes sense that some author's books would only be found as a subitem on the author's page. I couldn't tell you offhand what the exact delineation there is, though.

How does it make sense? Can you put it into words? Because that does not make sense to me.

Given the price of bits these days a single bit flag with 'non notable' would suffice and then they could keep these and allow people to see 'full' or 'just notable'. That should satisfy all parties. Of course there is then also the cost of the bits of the articles themselves but that too would be manageable.

The problem with this idea is that it will just be abused for SEO spam junk, and you'll have to default to hiding all content with the 'non notable' bit from discovery by default lest the entire ecosystem get dragged down by the pollution. At this point, you might as well delete the content entirely, because it's just taking up space and not contributing to the experience for the vast majority of users.

I think there is a pretty easy to distinguish difference between 'SEO spam junk' and 'non notable' but if you're worried about that you could always have 'non notable' default to all outbound links to be 'nofollow'. For every problem there is a solution, if you want to solve it. I've seen and heard just about every excuse possible why particular things should be 'non notable' but not a single one that has stood up to scrutiny, it always seems to in the end boil down to 'because we say so'. Which is a pity because ultimately 'notability' is as much in the eye of the beholder as it is something objective and what is non-notable to one large group may well be notable to another. And if that first group is over-represented amongst the wikipedians then that's the end of that, no matter how important something really is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com