Funnily enough, Linux may be one of the few projects in the "alternatives" column that _is_ viable :)
203 karma · joined March 20, 2022
I'm not sure what the policy solution is. Some suggestions are given on the linked page, but it's a continuing issue.
Deletion decisions are made by editors, not admins. See, for example, the decision referenced by the author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
> It takes hours to create a new article and seconds to delete it.
I think the "seconds to delete it" process you're describing is PROD[1], which is for "non-controversial" deletions and there's no appeals process—it can be added back with no justification at any time if any editor disagrees with the deletion. The full deletion process that takes time to appeal is "Articles for Deletion,"[2] through which articles are deleted only through 7 days of consensus-building. This is the process "Bruce Faulconer" went through.
I know it's confusing, and often really frustrating. I'd encourage you to try contesting your PROD deletion if you're willing to give it another try, because it really will bring the article back instantly. It can be difficult for new editors, but users of this forum are a bit better than the average person at source editing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
Wikipedia's guideline for the notability of voice actors is:[1]
> 1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or
> 2. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
This can be difficult to define. I'd suggest you instead follow the guideline of notability for people generally, which is:[2]
> A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
I'm always sorry to hear about someone that has gotten frustrated editing Wikipedia. Even though I'd discourage it as a conflict of interest, editors have successfully created articles for friends by simply citing reliable secondary sources that cover them. I'd suggest you give it another try if such sources exist and reach out in the Teahouse[3] if you need help.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
It's a hard problem. Volunteer editors are spread thinly over millions of articles, some of which (like "Bruce Faulconer") are about living people that are really important to get right.[1] The project has settled on the guideline of _notability_, meaning that articles are kept only if they have significant coverage in reliable sources.[2] Proving a negative is not really possible, but it works okay most of the time.
It's worth thinking about alternate policies you could set up.[3] You could decide deletion based on whether a figure were "known and beloved all over the world," as the author suggests, which is difficult to define. You could could keep everything,[4] which some alternate Wikis have tried. You get unmaintained pages and probably libel.
Gioia criticizes the barrier to contribution, which is also a difficult balance to reach. Some processes are just inherently complex and involve reaching consensus among hundreds of people. Others could be simplified, but every hour spent discussing and implementing improvements is an hour taken from improving the content.
The policies are under constant discussion and change,[5] and no one thinks we've reached the perfect balance between these constraints. See, for example, this month's headline case at the Arbitration Committee around deletion.[6]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_livin...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_i...
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy...
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests...
One interesting subtlety unnoticed on the L.A. Crosswalk site:
> The design of the lines and gaps should avoid the wheel paths if possible [...]
And, to editorialize: news orgs, your favorite political blogs, and even Twitter will have better commentary than HN.
Edit: for example, the joking sibling comment.
P.S., from the guidelines:
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
edit: and an official response https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31170881
The author does position themselves against algorithmic sanitization generally.
> #2 Chrome Alternative: Iridium
Unfortunately releasing a browser only three times a year [1] is not enough to stay ahead of the Chromium 0day market. The honestly security-conscious should stick with browsers that have security teams large enough to patch them.
I hope I don't sound like a spook when I say: there's been no splash because there's no (public) substance. Having read the 70-page PCLOB report [2], I can summarize it as:
- the CIA has EO 12333 authority to perform bulk surveillance
- they use it to [redacted], including financial transactions
- they have a [redacted] internal process to review its use which potentially has some gaps and vagueness
Sens. Wyden and Heinrich probably have more shocking secret info too. But yeah, I'd expect people to not react to these vague disclosures the same way they did 2013's detailed leaks.
[1] https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HainesBurns_Wyden...
[2] https://www.cia.gov/static/63f697addbbd30a4d64432ff28bbc6d6/...