Edit: what would be really cool is if I could leave a note on a page saying "hey, I visited this page and I'm looking to connect with other people interested in the Peruvian Foovius Barivius Moth"... ping me
Edit: what would be really cool is if I could leave a note on a page saying "hey, I visited this page and I'm looking to connect with other people interested in the Peruvian Foovius Barivius Moth"... ping me
Stop the destruction! End this dumb rule and make Wikipedia truly open to all.
Same game in a one language can be extremely notable and well known to everyone, while in other it'd get deleted without a trace.
Sometimes it feels like "racism" based on countries (countrism?)
I'd call it national chauvinism.
Generally not. There is a separate process called "oversight" [1] which behaves the way you're describing, but it can only be invoked by a very small number of privileged users, and is only used in extreme cases.
There's a place called Ksar Ouled Soltane [0] and I couldn't quite figure out if it was a film site or not. The locals assured me it was, but there were conflicting reports online. I saw that it was listed on Wikipedia, but when I went through the history, I saw that someone tried to remove it [1]. Unfortunately their removal was reverted and their source [2] wasn't considered good enough.
That said, I read their article and I'm much more inclined to believe them than the wikipedia editors.
It was the first time I ever encountered something like this in the wild.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ksar_Ouled_Soltane
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dbavandy
[2] https://galaxytours.com/research/ksar-ouled-soltane-debunkin...
One thing that always stood out to me was how till 2014 you could find many references on wikipedia to pre-2014 attempts from Crimea to secede from Ukraine.
"Crimea" (quoted, as it may refer to different groups/leaderships in Crimea) tried to split from Ukraine twice already during Soviet times.
But this whole thing got edited away in years across dozens of articles.
I think there's a significant nuance between the two narratives.
It is telling that he never responded to Davin Dbavandy question about why it is not a reliable source.
Her legal name had appeared in some public court filings, and some user had added it to her Wikipedia page with the reference.
Someone else (purportedly one of her co-stars) had requested removal.
A Wikipedia editor then got involved, and refused to budge from the position the original actress was notable enough to merit inclusion of her legal name.
Cue months of back-and-forth deletions and reversions.
Finally, I think a year later, someone quietly edited the legal name out and it stuck.
Sometimes people with a little power are the greatest assholes. Probably because they sought the little power.
I don't know about this case, but it seems entirely reasonable that to argue for including the name, or not.
Plenty of public personas have aliases they wish to be known by, but their Wikipedia article prominently notes their real name.
So by definition it's not exposing any information you can't find in other public sources.
Whether it's notable and something that should be included is another matter.
In any case, I'm saying that if you look at the articles for Madonna, Bono, Jenna Jameson, Marilyn Manson etc. you'll find their real name displayed prominently.
We can't form our own opinion in this case, as the GP is deliberately keeping the specific article in question hidden.
But in general this seems like a thing two editors could reasonably disagree about.
For the section in question, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY
Unfortunately, it seems so ossified that that work can only be done within Wikipedia (notable article, standards, etc).
A far more reasonable approach would have been to have CommonPedia... and then regularly pull qualifying information into Wikipedia.
This is called "The Web". You’re free to write whatever you want, it’s just not on Wikipedia.
> it's not like they're limited by the size of a bound encyclopedia.
No, but articles still require maintainance, so it’s false to say that just because this is "in the cloud" you can have an infinite number of articles.
Miloš Moth (Jan 3, 2023–May 17, 2023) was a Peruvian moth,
There's a feature to write a note and leave it on the page for others (with the extension installed) to see and maybe have luck someone contacting you.
> There's a feature to write a note and leave it on the page for others
Your site says that "nothing is stored." Does writing a note require everyone to be on the site at the same time? At first I thought it was sort of like the old "Dissenter" extension that added comments sections to every page, but the description seems to indicate a more live chat style.
Are you seriously suggesting that before the internet no one published or wrote about highly niche or uninteresting subjects? That you couldn't find mundane facts from history or nature written down somewhere?
> Edit: what would be really cool is if I could leave a note on a page saying "hey, I visited this page and I'm looking to connect with other people interested in the Peruvian Foovius Barivius Moth"... ping me
No, that wouldn't be cool at all. What we'd then have is a social network of people competing for some kind of points or popularity, or to prove who was the most expert or most interested in the subject. And we would see the quality of the articles degrade, and suddenly no one wants to work on the unpopular stuff. And people like you would be left wondering, "gee, why is it no one wants to write unpopular articles for this encyclopedia?"
Yes and no. I'm suggesting that before Wikipedia, no encyclopedia could have published an article about Jack Wade, Alaska, an incorporated community of probably < 100 people (I picked this place somewhat randomly off of google maps). If you put even one sentence about every town similar to that in an encyclopedia, you'd have an encyclopedia set that no one would be able to afford.
> What we'd then have is a social network of people competing for some kind of points or popularity, or to prove who was the most expert or most interested in the subject.
This really depends. For example, maybe I'm an American with a grandparent from Volosianka, Lviv Oblast, Ukraine (again, I picked this semi-randomly). Population is about 1500 today. There's probably a handful of people in the world who speak English and who have a particular interest in that town. Maybe my grandpa is from there and i'm looking to learn more about his life and i'd love to chat with someone else who knows more about the place. I think that there are a lot of articles on the long tail of wikipedia where there's probably only a few people in the world who care about the topic and if I'm one of them, I'd be interested in meeting with others. Obviously, there's plenty of topics where this isn't the case. I don't know how you'd implement this feature, because I don't think you want to turn wikipedia into a meeting room for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict [1]. But for these very very niche things, it could serve as an interesting meeting place.
[1] In other words, I am stating a problem here... not a solution
The moth would be described in the original scientific publication (from when it was first discovered) and then in books listing the Moths of Peru etc.
It also already exists, but in a better form. If you find something is interesting, write about it. Then to connect with others you can find others who have written or researched it and then write them a letter/email/message. They will likely not be an island and you can get connected to a group of people who are genuinely interested in a subject without the degenerative downsides of a social media platform.
The standards came much later.