Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Wikipedia Games

Old Man Murray Entry Deleted From Wikipedia 432

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the i-miss-you-omm dept.
shoptroll writes "In what can be best described as an unfortunate interpretation of the 'notability standards' at Wikipedia, Rock, Paper, Shotgun reports that the entry for Old Man Murray, once a mainstay of PC Gaming reviews and commentary, has been deleted. A sad day for gaming journalism everywhere." This is notable both because Old Man Murray was completely and totally awesome, but also because it was notable and influential on countless writers.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Old Man Murray Entry Deleted From Wikipedia

Comments Filter:
  • His removal is a wikid (wicked) act

  • Because despite the sources, it was deemed to consume too much hard drive space on the Wikipedia servers?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:27AM (#35369160)

      It was deleted by some halfwit called Ben Schumin who appears to have a grudge against OMM.

      He should be permanently removed from Wiki staff for being an absolute butt devastated ass of a manchild.

      Oh, also, Delete This Ben. Oh wait.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SchuminWeb

      • He should be permanently removed from Wiki staff for being an absolute butt devastated ass of a manchild.

        Hi. Welcome to Slashdot. Just to remind you and out other newer posters of a few house rules:

        1. Slashdot is not 4chan.
        2. Slashdot is not 4chan!
        3. No shirt, no shoes.
        • It most certainly isn't. Usually if you earn an insult like that on Slashdot and it gets modded up, it's because you've earned the title, unlike on 4chan.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 03, 2011 @12:40PM (#35370016)

        I have to be honest; at first when I read this reply, I was pretty convinced you were just another Wikipedia deletion whiner, bitching about how your all-time favoritest web site EVAR was deleted by some obviously incompetent and unfit-for-duty Wikipedia editor. I was just about ready to dismiss this entire thing as "bitch, bitch, bitch, nerd rage is hilarious".

        Then I actually read over the AfD for Old Man Murray, and it turns out you're absolutely right. This Schumin character IS a little bitch, isn't he*? I'm seeing citation after citation in that discussion, each following Wikipedia's standards for notability (in terms of video games and video game sites), and he's confidently and smugly ignoring each one just to push his agenda. Wow. There's reasons I stopped trying to edit Wikipedia a while back.

        *: Yes, you may cite this post as need be in future discussions, Wikipedia or not, as to the degree to which Ben Schumin is a little bitch.

        • by GameboyRMH (1153867) <gameboyrmhNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday March 03, 2011 @02:30PM (#35371238) Journal

          Well this was informative. Before reading this article and the comments, I had no idea who Ben Schumin was, or that he was a fat whiny anti-war inclusionist exclusionist precisionist lolcow who deleted wikipedia pages (against the will of the majority and in the face of evidence of notability which he requested, and then ignored when it was brought to him) referencing websites made by a person who once made fun of him.

          Now I know. And knowing is half the battle!

      • I found a rather informative article about Ben Schumin

        http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Ben_Schumin [encycloped...matica.com]

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by bunratty (545641)
      From what I can see [wikipedia.org], it didn't have sources. The references were to the Old Man Murray site itself, a primary source, and blogs, which are not reliable sources. Wikipedia articles should have references to reliable secondary sources. This is the notability [wikipedia.org] guideline. Wikipedia is meant to condense information written in reliable secondary sources, that is, edited books, periodicals and websites, about the topic of the article. If there were no secondary sources from which to condense information into a Wiki
      • by Sockatume (732728) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:32AM (#35369232)

        The review itself cited some good sources. Edge magazine, which is pushing 20 years old itself, has extolled the site's historical relevance. The bother is that the admin in question judged those arguments as unacceptable. It should do better at deletion review, assuming it's been passed there.

      • by Winckle (870180) <mark.winckle@co@uk> on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:36AM (#35369258) Homepage

        Deletion is supposed to be the last resort [wikipedia.org] No notices were put up to improve the article, no messages sent to a relevant wikiproject for volunteers to help out. Just Ben Schumin (a man a writer of OMM made fun off a decade ago) tying to pull a fast one. Schumin also removed references to Erik Wolpaw from several pages recently.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by bluefoxlucid (723572)
          So pop in #wikipedia and cite the slashdot, page, then note on the restored OMM article that it has been targeted by Ben Schumin due to funny comments at Schumin's expense, and that this caused an internet incident of mass public scale.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 03, 2011 @12:46PM (#35370096)

          So, two uncontradicted facts: (a) Schumin has a personal history with the people behind the site whose page he deleted and (b) from his user page and web site, he doesn't appear to have any gaming knowledge whatsoever. Yet the rest of the Wikipedia clique ignore these facts when rushing in to defend his action. I first contributed to Wikipedia back in 2004, and I note my last contribution was over 9 months ago as I got increasingly exhausted with having to defending and revert the most inoccuous edits to topics I'm knowledgable on, from self-appointed admins who knew absolutely nothing about the topic at hand but simply had their own bugbears (in one case, an admitted interest in pederasty). Even Wales says 50% of all the edits are done by just 0.7% of the users; anyone claiming that such few people know so much stuff is deluded. The fact is, after a decade, it takes a particular type of personality to fit in with the Wikipedia mindset and not be actively repulsed by it.

          P.

      • by Jaysyn (203771) <jaysyn+slashdot@@@gmail...com> on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:42AM (#35369326) Homepage Journal

        Yes, because PCGamer, Kokatu, Wired & the UGO Network are completely irrelevant when it comes to the gaming community.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by C_amiga_fan (1960858)

        >>>What is unclear about the word "published"?

        What will Wikipedia "cite" when books/magazines stop being published, and only exist in the ephemeral world of the web? I guess all articles will have to be deleted from wikipedia..... or better yet, make a sane world that doesn't require sources to be published on dead trees/weeds/hemp.

        Also looking over the discussion it appears KEEP was the dominant vote tally, but somehow the page still got deleted. This is a bit like how Florida tallied votes

      • From what I can see, it didn't have sources. The references were to the Old Man Murray site itself, a primary source, and blogs, which are not reliable sources. Wikipedia articles should have references to reliable secondary sources. This is the notability guideline.

        Somewhere, a professional historian is weeping.

        • Finally (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @02:40PM (#35371344) Journal

          If real historians and assorted worked as these amateurs then we would be missing an awful lot of history. For instance Atlantis... only mentioned ONCE in history and it didn't cite sources, so BYE BYE Atlantis. A REAL historian simply notes the mention of Atlantis and that there is only one source with no references for it AND THAT IS IT.

          That is where Wikipedia fails utterly. Mentioning that something is NOT sourced IS ENOUGH. A full record INCLUDES personal remarks and unverified claim and that is perfectly valid AS LONG as you note this. Yes, some pruning can be needed in extreme cases but the anal retentive "citation needed" is making a joke out the site. A normal encyclopedia would have no trouble saying the Hindenburg was a disaster. Wikipedia requires a citation. So? Well, they NEVER then check that the citation is ACCURATE.

          So by Wikipedia and article claiming Nazi propoganda is correct would pass since there are PLENTY of sources to cite from. Just because you can cite from something does NOT make it fact.

          Wikipedia is an intresting experiment but ultimately shows why volunteer work and crowdsourcing just don't work for anything important. The type of person to volunteer all to often tends to filter down eventually to the completly incompetent power hungry assholes.

          Why do you think Gentoo is failing and Ubuntu is rising? Complete freedom is a bad way to get something done. And the Wikipedia editors are far to free.

      • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@@@gmail...com> on Thursday March 03, 2011 @03:39PM (#35372024) Journal

        Uhhh..WTF? Several games plug OMM directly in the game, such as the monitors in Postal2 or the developers hidden in Serious Sam which follow Sam when freed and call out "Old Man Murry!" Hell it is common knowledge that the reason you see a crate so early both in the original Half Life and Half Life 2 is because the developers tried to beat OMM's "Start To Crate" (which I still do to this day when playing FPS) and finally said "fuck it" and threw in a crate at the front to basically hang a lampshade on it.

        OMM seriously affected games of the late 90s/early 00s because OMM was THE review site because if you could get OMM on your side there was serious buzz to be had. I know I bought Serious Sam as soon as I could could and would have never heard of the game otherwise if it weren't for OMM. So yeah, I gotta call it as I see it, another case of delentionism which the Wiki has waaaay too much of as of late.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by FooAtWFU (699187)
      Debate 1 [wikipedia.org]. Debate 2. [wikipedia.org]

      Also: good lord, do we really need a Slashdot front page story every time Wikipedia does something suboptimal?

      Also 2: When an article is up for deletion and someone posts a link on some forum to get a bunch of fanboys to come in and flood the deletion debate (or any other debate), that's Generally Considered Lame and not really effective at building consensus. Slashdot too.

      • by ElectricTurtle (1171201) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:43AM (#35369346)

        do we really need a Slashdot front page story every time Wikipedia does something suboptimal?

        Yes, without public pressure ego-tripping editors could do "suboptimal" AKA wrong things with impunity. Transparency is supposed to be Wikipedia's strength, and good decisions should have nothing to fear from public knowledge.

        Generally Considered Lame and not really effective at building consensus

        Which is a euphemism for "all the deletionists get butthurt when they can't hide from the public backlash".

        • by Winckle (870180) <mark.winckle@co@uk> on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:47AM (#35369386) Homepage

          I wish I could mod you up. They kept using the slang term "meatpuppets" which is apparently somebody who enters the discussion after being tipped off on it taking place. They might as well say outsider.

          • by shentino (1139071) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @01:17PM (#35370428)

            A meatpuppet isn't slang, it's jargon.

            The definition is anyone who is recruited by a person party to a dispute for the sole or primary purpose of attracting support. This would include stirring the pot at slashdot or any other popular website with a provocative link.

            Frowned upon because it turns a discussion into a dumb numbers game. It's basically the wikipedia version of a proxy fight.

            The reference to puppet, as in sockpuppet, is because someone who is buzzed into a discussion is deemed to be acting on behalf of the person who summoned him.

            • It's a not-thinly-veiled out of hand dismissal of anybody's opinion who wasn't involved before being informed by somebody else. How is somebody's opinion invalidated by not living and breathing Wiki? Oh that's right, that's the only way anybody can become an editor anymore. So anybody who voices an opinion from the "outside" is written off because that would be too much of a "dumb numbers game" like democracy. Fuck all those "other" opinions, long live Wiki-elites! Oligarchy forever!
            • by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary@nOSpam.yahoo.com> on Thursday March 03, 2011 @02:05PM (#35370962) Journal

              That the term exists is yet more proof that wikipedia is NOT open to all, that wikipedia admins have fostered an us versus them mentality, that wikipedians see wikipedia as a fortress of facts besieged by foreign devils, and that many if not most core wikipedia admins view wikipedia as their personal plaything. Wikipedia admins disgust me, they appear to be entirely composed of petty junior high school students who weren't smart enough to make the chess club or popular enough to get into the A/V club.

            • Except that, in most deletion debates, 'meatpuppet' means 'domain expert who created a Wikipedia account to give a professional opinion after an article in their field was marked for deletion'.
          • by aeroelastic (840614) <aeroelastic.gmail@com> on Thursday March 03, 2011 @02:20PM (#35371128)

            They kept using the slang term "meatpuppets" which is apparently somebody who enters the discussion after being tipped off on it taking place.

            How else would you go about entering a conversation that you did not start? How is that possibly a bad thing? Especially for a community based website!

  • Who? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by C_amiga_fan (1960858) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:19AM (#35369030)

    Never heard of OldmanMurray.com?

    I don't see any wiki articles about PSXnation.com or scifi.com either.

    • Re:Who? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by triazotan (1895064) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:23AM (#35369096)
      Never hearing about something is not a pro-deletion point. If it was, well, what would encyclopedia be for, anyway?
    • This is first time I ever heard about it.

      Have you ever heard of writer Jiri Kulhanek?

      Thought so...

    • by Moraelin (679338) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @12:30PM (#35369900) Journal

      But on the other hand, apparently dedicating a whole page to some Manga character or obscure comic book sidekick is, of course, relevant and worth the space, right?

      Random example include

      - Guts [wikipedia.org] from Berserk [wikipedia.org], who obviously deserves a page of his own. (Along with a couple of other characters that get their own pages.)

      - Brainy Smurf [wikipedia.org]

      - Penelope Pitstop [wikipedia.org], Muttley [wikipedia.org], and generally the whole cast of Wacky Races. Because, you know, it's not enough to know that there was a plot-less and story-less slapstick cartoon series that took the piss out of car racing, you need a whole page about each unidimensional character embodying a stereotype .

      - Dino [wikipedia.org] from the Flintstones, along with every single other character, because the fucking dog of a cartoon show not centered around said dog is notable enough to have its own page on Wikipedia

      - Pants Ant [wikipedia.org]. Really? Who the fuck is Pants Ant? Oh, right, it appeared in exactly 4 comic books nobody ever heard about, between 1998 and 2001, and didn't influence anything. Right, silly me, that must pass the notability standards.

      - Minsc [wikipedia.org] from Baldur's Gate. A character only appearing in a secondary role in a computer game, and memorable only by being batshit crazy and talking to his "miniature giant space hamster" and asking him for advice. And he's not even the only one. There are pages upon pages about every single fucking character ever used in a D&D Forgotten Realms setting [wikipedia.org]. (And Greyhawk [wikipedia.org], and Ravenloft [wikipedia.org], and so on...)

      - Bayonetta [wikipedia.org], the character of one action game, obviously deserving her own page separate from that of the game itself. And for that matter Tifa [wikipedia.org] from FF7, and Aeris [wikipedia.org] of "why the fuck can't I use a Phoenix Down NOW?" fame, i.e., a character which didn't even make it past the first CD in FF7, etc. And such fighting game characters as Sophitia [wikipedia.org] from Soul Calibur, or Kitana [wikipedia.org] and Mileena [wikipedia.org] from Mortal Kombat, who, you know, didn't actually have more of a role than generic combatant and drool fodder for geeks even in the movie. And generally every single female character that some editor whacked off to. Because, you know, a character that even the game makers couldn't be arsed to give more than the mandatory half-arsed description or a personality, is something that I need a whole page in an encyclopaedia for.

      Etc. etc. etc.

      I'm sorry, but if _those_ make the cut as notable enough to have their own page, then so does OMM. Note that I'm not even saying to delete those too. But the circle-jerk gang at Wiki needs to choose one or the other, really.

  • Never heard of it (Score:4, Insightful)

    by some_guy_88 (1306769) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:20AM (#35369062) Homepage

    I've never heard of Old Man Murray but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. This all got argued about last time over obscure programming languages but, why are we deleting history? Are we running out of disk space? I think not.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gandhi_2 (1108023)

      Agreed.

      Imagine an encyclopedia that only contained information you already knew.

  • Articles only stay on Wikipedia if they are deemed notable.

    What makes an article or its contents notable? Well, that's the opinion of the Administrators.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Sockatume (732728)

      Actually it's the opinion of the concensus of contributors who bother to contribute to deletion discussions. Which is just such a small group, in numbers and experience. The key to solving this is appreciating that Wikipedia is not a machine where you put in good information and get out the encyclopedia you want to see, it's about actually dealing with human beings on a large-scale collaborative project which has differences of opinion. Wikipedia needs more internal bickering, not snide remarks on the outsi

      • Re:Notability (Score:5, Informative)

        by canajin56 (660655) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:54AM (#35369468)
        Actually, outsiders are hated and despised. If any of the wiki admins finds out that YOU have been encouraging people to contribute, expect a lifetime ban.
      • by surgen (1145449)

        Wikipedia needs more internal bickering, not snide remarks on the outside.

        It should be aware of and listen to the snide remarks and then go be introspective about it. The snide remarks are coming from people who don't have the time on their hands to deal with all the luggage that comes with being a even somewhat-involved editor.

        Really Wikipedia needs to establish once and for all who its target audience it. The masses or the just the assholes who want to play admin and then proceed to listen to desires of its target audience.

        But its easier to point the passerby at the establish

      • by IICV (652597)

        Wikipedia needs more internal bickering, not snide remarks on the outside. You, you reading this, are the potential source of that bickering.

        Okay, let's test this hypothesis.

        Let's say I hear about Old Man Murray getting deleted from Wikipedia for not being notable. I feel incensed, because this is absolutely fucking retarded - that's like deleting the entry on the Encyclopedia Britannica, since nobody ever cites it as a source.

        So I go, log in to my rarely-used Wiki account or just create a new one outright,

        • Re:Notability (Score:4, Insightful)

          by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary@nOSpam.yahoo.com> on Thursday March 03, 2011 @02:14PM (#35371058) Journal

          Great. So I say fuck you Wikipedia, and my chances of ever editing an article go down even further.

          And wikipedia admins rejoice. They don't want any more opinions diluting their own. The more reasonable people they can chase away, the better, from their point of view. If wikipedia really were open to all, they would not be that important. They would not have as much control. No, wikipedia admins, for the most part, do not want to share their toy with you.

      • by crath (80215)

        Whoever rated Sockatume's comment as "Insightful" has never attempted to contribute to WP. Those of us who have contributed and been slapped down know that Sockatume's comment is off base.

        More correctly: an organization (even WP) is a reflection of its leadership. Given the dictatorial way that the small core group of wiki-deletionists take unilateral action despite facts to the contrary is probably a reflection of the WP executive team's behaviors.

      • Re:Notability (Score:5, Interesting)

        The key to solving this is appreciating that Wikipedia is not a machine where you put in good information and get out the encyclopedia you want to see, it's about actually dealing with human beings on a large-scale collaborative project which has differences of opinion.

        In fact, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia at all. Wikipedia is in fact a game, specifically its an MMORPG--[NSFW] [encycloped...matica.com].

        This isn't just the opinion of the internet diplomacy bridage of encyclopedia dramatica. It's also shared by the former editor of Encyclopedia Britannica [britannica.com]. He also gave this opinion more explicitly in a documentary about the influence of the web, which I can't find at the moment.

        So Wikipedia is essentially a game. For the players, the stakes are not exactly high. Ultimately nobody cares how much "WP:EXP" they ammass, or how high they rise on the "WP:SCALE".

        But for the rest of the world, the stakes are currently enormous. The reality is that Wikipedia is becoming the world's foremost gateway to knowladge. The end result of these players, their petty squabbles, cliques, and infighting, are the pages which the majority of the world is being directed to when it seeks information and learning. Needless to say, this is a disaster.

        The dreadful fallout from so much politics and melodrama leaves pages that are essentially babbling and incoherant. I've ranted about this before [slashdot.org], so I'm not going to repeat myself here, except to say that in my opinion, the Wikipedia pages on mathematics are actively damaging the future of mathematics, probably turning many budding mathematicians off the subject before they discover anything about it. Wikipedia shows mathematics in its worst possible light, because no mathematician is allowed near those pages. As an expert, I know this is true of mathematics, but I suspect it's the same for many other subjects.

        Our discussion here are of no avail. Ultimately the only solution to the Wikipedia Question will be to remove it from the control of Jimbo et al and place it in the hands of an international, cross institutional, academic body. People who could actually run a depository of knowladge, instead of playing games with it.

  • by Hawkins (219795) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:21AM (#35369084)

    Eric Wolpaw and Chet Faliszek have worked in the gaming industry, and the site itself is referenced in numerous interviews, articles, quotations, and even in games. All valid reasons for a Wikipedia entry, I'd think.

    • Eric Wolpaw and Chet Faliszek have worked in the gaming industry, and the site itself is referenced in numerous interviews, articles, quotations, and even in games. All valid reasons for a Wikipedia entry, I'd think.

      For reference, they both work for Valve now, and worked on things like Half-Life 2, Portal 1/2, and Left 4 Dead 1/2.

      (For the people who hadn't heard of them)

    • I see your well-reasoned argument and raise you one fat, pissed-off sperglord with power.

    • by cgenman (325138)

      I work in the industry. Nearly everyone I know who has been in this industry for 5 years or more are familiar with Old Man Murray. They remain legendary because of the Time-To-Crate metric is still at least thought of by everyone in the industry. But they're historically significant because of their unique style of vitriolic humor, which was widely read and widely followed at the time.

      OMM was as significant in its day as Zero Punctuation is today. If Belinda Carlisle deserves a wikipedia entry for being

  • Moderation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Joe U (443617) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:23AM (#35369098) Homepage Journal

    Wikipedia needs a better moderation system.

    Articles that are not verified or not notable can go into a second tier where they have to be searched for by specifically requesting second tier access.

    As it stands now, I've seen articles deleted because their sources have started falling off the net. This makes Wikipedia one of the absolute worst encyclopedias for anything outside of standard historic events.

    • by Sockatume (732728)

      A "shadow-wikipedia" isn't a good solution. It's about a notch below just putting up a specific wiki for the subject in question. Which solves the issue of having a project you want to work on, but it doesn't make Wikipedia any better. I think the answer is to have a better deletion appeals and article recovery system. Right now an article that's on the brink of falling into the deletion hole is a lot easier to fix than an article which has gone into the hole. It's like an event horizon. The way it should w

    • Re:Moderation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by williamhb (758070) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:47AM (#35369380) Journal

      Wikipedia needs a better moderation system. Articles that are not verified or not notable can go into a second tier where they have to be searched for by specifically requesting second tier access.

      Why is anything (any established article) being deleted from Wikipedia? Is the world suddenly running out of bits? Is Jimmy Wales really so hard up for storage that individual text pages will make a difference? It's not as if they have to print and bind books with it like a traditional encyclopaedia.

      At the very least, it should be pretty simple to measure notability by access statistics. But that begs the question that if nobody is accessing it, it isn't even costing you in bandwidth to hang onto it, so you might as well not delete it even then.

      • Re:Moderation (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 03, 2011 @12:43PM (#35370052)
        Perhaps it is because most 'irrelevant' information often ends up on wikia, which is advertisement sponsored wiki hosting service, and which belongs to Wales.
      • I think it's less a question of data overload on the servers, and more information overload on the users.

      • by wamatt (782485) *

        Why is anything (any established article) being deleted from Wikipedia? Is the world suddenly running out of bits? Is Jimmy Wales really so hard up for storage that individual text pages will make a difference? It's not as if they have to print and bind books with it like a traditional encyclopaedia.

        At the very least, it should be pretty simple to measure notability by access statistics. But that begs the question that if nobody is accessing it, it isn't even costing you in bandwidth to hang onto it, so you might as well not delete it even then.

        100%. They could really make it into a feature. For example have a prominent widget at the top of the page that shows it's "Notability Rank" . Yes it would be gamed by spammers. Yes you would need an antispam system too that can handle DDOS style attacks that fake an increase in notability. However, while it may be a challenge, it is still a solvable solution.

        Deleting stuff just doesn't make sense. Worse still, while there seems to be consensus across the net on this point, it's just flagrantly ignored, by

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tom (822)

      This makes Wikipedia one of the absolute worst encyclopedias for anything outside of standard historic events.

      and porn stars, manga characters and Star Trek episodes. Don't forget about the really important stuff, will you?

    • by surgen (1145449)

      I've felt for a while this is how deletions should be handled. A stub that says that it was deleted, a link to the deletion discussion, a caution that its probably a bad article, a link to an archived version of the article and a link that brings the article back.

      All the other articles have their histories available to non-admins, even historical versions of deleted articles should exist for the masses.

    • by Meneth (872868)
      Word. In lieu of that, it would be nice to at least be able to see the old revisions. They save them, you know, even if an article is marked "Deleted".
    • Re:Moderation (Score:4, Interesting)

      by parlancex (1322105) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @01:29PM (#35370550)
      I've seen this happen first hand to useful and pertinent information on existing articles.

      I authored a patch for a (notable?) SNES game a few years back called Seiken Densetsu 3 that allowed it to be played as 3 player. Many years before that a patch was created to play the game in english. The existing wikipedia article already had a story description as well as character descriptions and things of that nature, as well as information describing the english patch.

      Shortly after I released my patch someone (not even me!) added information about it to the wikipedia article for the game, just a short sentence or two with citations linking a notable ROM hacking website with more information. A few weeks later the information was deleted for not being notable. Afterwards in google searches related to my patch I saw lots of forum posts with confused people trying to determine whether or not a patch existed, some saying the information was on Wikipedia, others saying they couldn't find it there.
  • by Winckle (870180) <mark.winckle@co@uk> on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:24AM (#35369114) Homepage

    The deletion of OMM was instigated by Ben Schumin, a sad man who still holds a grudge against Erik Wolpaw, a writer at OMM, now working for Valve as a writer for games such as Portal. The fact that some sad sack like him can point at an article and say "this should be deleted" and the circle jerk of deletionist admins ignore the salient points made by users and experts of games journalism such as Kieron Gillen, delete the article and then pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

    Barnstars all-round you deletionist creeps, keep ruining Wikipedia one kangaroo-court AfD at a time.

    • by trifish (826353) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:59AM (#35369534)

      You know what should make your scratch your head? The problem you have just described at the same time happens to be the very essence and fundamental principle of Wikipedia. That anyone, including stupid morons, trolls with hidden agenda (competitors), and outright psychopaths can edit it any and every second, repeatedly and infinitely.

      It follows that Wikipedia is, and has inherently been from the very beginning, a fundamentally flawed experiment. Thanks god Google is starting to realize this and is moving the Wikipedia result to SERPS position #5, while the first 4 links point to the authoritative or official site (if one exists).

      • by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary@nOSpam.yahoo.com> on Thursday March 03, 2011 @01:32PM (#35370594) Journal

        It wasn't doomed from the beginning. It was doomed by it's cultural choices. Generally, there are more decent people in the world than douchebags. But the douchebags tend to be louder. Still, it takes a special set of circumstances to let the douchebags dominate. Usually this involves a critical mass of douchebags at high levels poisoning the culture of institution. The douchebags think everyone is out to get them, because everyone IS out to get them, because they are douchebags. And so the douchebags take great pains to alienate every non-douchebag they see, by engaging in petty slap fights, which douchebags enjoy but normal people despise. In the end, the institution in question devolves into a bunch of whiny self important douchebags running about screeching at each other and just pinching and slapping anyone they can get their doughy, clammy little hands on. These are people to whom a petty argument represents the most rewarding social interaction they are likely to have that day.

  • Welcome to Wikipedia (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Seumas (6865) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:25AM (#35369122)

    I used to contribute a fair amount to Wikipedia to get my brain going in the morning. I quit doing so a couple years ago, because the whole infighting and "notability" crap was ridiculous. Every single character from a book, movie, cartoon, video game, anime (pokemon, etc) gets a many-paged detailed entry while real people quickly get the brush because someone gets a thorn in their ass over something. And those "somethings" are hard to pin down. Some entries surprisingly don't exist, while others (someone with a podcast you've never heard of or who is supposedly some self-described social media expert, etc) gets an entry. That idiot from "Hot For Words" even has a wikipedia entry.

    I won't be surprised if a lot of things get deleted in the next few years, because a bunch of people who are twelve years old today will, in the future, say "I've never heard of this Commodore thing, it must be totally made up. Or at least not notable enough, or I'd have heard of it! DELETED!"

    Of course, I don't know how you'd solve the problem, either. It's not a solution to just say absolutely everything can be a wikipedia article. Every self-promoting jackhole is going to create their own entry, then and the quality of each article itself will drop. On the other hand, how much attention can really be given to the countless deletions that are proposed? Especially since, while some deletions occur with no discussion and immediately, others drag on indefinitely and are knock-down drag-out events. It's not a solution, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to raise the bar for deletions, at least. It should be a lot harder to delete something that isn't obvious spam or vandalism than it is to create it.

    There's also DeletionPedia [dbatley.com], though I can't really tell what the current status of the site is.

    • by Sockatume (732728)

      I think you should go back through - they've become very good at culling crap about anime and the like as a secondarly consequence of the push for citations. (Primary sources are devalued. It's hard to have an article about a Pokemon where the only discussion of it is the game it appears in.) However "X is less notable than Y, and X is still there!" is not a persuasive argument for keeping Y or deleting X. The whole issue has to be addressed.

      • by ultranova (717540) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @12:12PM (#35369698)

        I think you should go back through - they've become very good at culling crap about anime and the like as a secondarly consequence of the push for citations.

        So... does this make Wikipedia a better source for anime-related things? Does it make it a better source for non- anime-related things? Or does it simply make it worse?

        The only thing made better by deleting information are page summaries.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 03, 2011 @01:09PM (#35370342)

      You're right. I quit bothering with Wikipedia, because it wasn't worth the hassle. Who wants to volunteer for an abusive relationship? Not me.

      The last article I wrote was on the man who designed the Mars Lander airbag system. It was initially rejected because an editor said it was "original material" (I know the man and his family personally, and worked with him for five years or so) and had "insufficient references" (I only had a few links) and, bizarrely, because the gentleman in question was "insufficiently notable for Wikipedia".

      So I rewrote the article with links to a couple dozen of the man's patents, cites from several books on aerospace history, a list of notable achievements he's had in the space biz, and links to his community activist and public service accomplishments. It was again deleted, on grounds that "it reads like hero worship". The funny part is, I don't even really like the guy! I just thought he ought to be in Wikipedia... but apparently not.

  • by TheDarkMaster (1292526) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:25AM (#35369130)
    I wrote some time ago that Wikipedia should allow any content that could be interesting / informative to someone, after all she did not have the space limitation of a physical encyclopedia. I honestly can not understand why something has to be "remarkable" to be included in Wikipedia, especially when the criteria of "outstanding" is usualy being cited in news sites and the like that are not always have ethical criteria to decide what he saw or not "remarkable." or public interest.
  • Notability rating (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Twinbee (767046) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:28AM (#35369172) Homepage

    Probably the best solution to this deletist/keepist nonsense is to rate articles according to their noteworthiness. This rating can either be derived according to how many other articles link in, or according to human judgement. Using this system, lower ranked articles will be naturally found far less, but at least they're there if you dig. It'd work like pagerank to a degree.

    Keeping or deleting is otherwise a false dichotomy. There isn't a magical line that makes an article suddenly not important any more. There are however shades of grey.

  • Feh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Quiet_Desperation (858215) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:29AM (#35369188)

    One of the neat things about Wikipedia early on was that you could find entries on obscure people or places or things. That was one of the charming things about it. No matter how peripheral an item or event, there was someone, somewhere who could write an article about it.

  • Bias in Wikipedia (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    This is why I quit writing for wikipedia. I would spend hours writing and posting reference links only to be told my references weren't good enough.

    I've had "editors" tell me Foxnews was biased and not a good citation, and then two months later tell me CNN was biased and not a good citation. Wikipedia is the most unreliable source of information on the internet IMHO.

    I've also had articles and updates deleted because the citation website had removed the content or completely shut down.

  • Google Cache (Score:4, Informative)

    by Roary (1027566) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:42AM (#35369338) Homepage

    For those who may be wondering what Old Man Murray is:

    Wikipedia Google Cache [googleusercontent.com]

    Oh the irony

  • by Y-Crate (540566) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @01:47PM (#35370772)

    The following is why I spend less and less time in Wikipedia.

    Editors must:

    1) Delete any and all photos. Does it have a fair use rationale? Not good enough! Was the copyright owned by f-ing Nazi Germany, so presumably nobody is going to sue Wikipedia over it? (yes, I've seen this) Not good enough! But there are exceptions (see #5)
    2) Delete any article that doesn't interest them.
    3) Add non-sequitor references to a song written by their garage band that nobody's heard of to the end of articles under "In Other Media".
    4) Add the following categories to every article that is "notable" enough to survive:
              - In Animé
              - In Manga
              - In Graphic Novels
              - In Western Animation
    5) Note if said article could function as an excuse for posting cell phone pictures of their genitals. (ewww... just stop with this, please)
    6) Realize that if it comes down to choosing between a professionally-shot photo in the public domain and a cell phone picture of someone's shoulder taken with a Nokia cell phone from 2002 - they must go with the latter. Always. If someone else posts a higher-quality photo they must sit at their computer and revert the edit incessantly until the person posting the better photo gives up.

  • An exercise in form (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wild_quinine (998562) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @02:44PM (#35371390) Homepage
    I really like this story, there's a lot going on.

    Firstly, I won't be donating to Wikipedia again. This is not because I'm an OMM fanboy taking my bat home in a huff, although I am also that. But actually, it's because this story has made me look into Wikipedia more, and apparently this shit is rife. I guess I should have known that, but I'd always been scared to check because I still had some faith in one human endeavour and was happy to let things stay that way, until I felt some pressing need to know otherwise. Well, game over on that front. Back to total misanthropy for me.

    Secondly, it's actually quite an interesting read because the Schumin guy who nominated for deletion, is evidently really, really, pathetic. And not in a kind of sad and disappointing, move along cowboy way, but actually to a degree that's almost gripping. This article highlights an almost iconic exemplar of the form of pathetic, to the degree that it's actually compelling.

    To whit, and as best as I can tell from summaries, a man who is mocked - for being pathetic no less - by a popular gaming culture website waits a DECADE for revenge, whilst the world moves on around him, and the revengee behind the site goes on to pen dialogue for a video game that many people rightly consider one of the genuinely enduring classics of the new age.

    This 'revenge', and I use the term loosely, is a heartfelt, but misguided attempt to remove all evidence of revengee's classic projects from Wikipedia, which is petty to an alarming degree, but also absorbingly impotent. Seriously, I would be amazed if anyone involved in the original site gave one flying fuck, because they're probably too busy banging hookers on their jetskies right now. On a lake of money.

    And after literally waiting until he thought this site had decayed into irrelevancy and finallly making his move, he discovers that half the internet still cares, the whole thing goes Barbara Streisand, and we just get to see what a massive, unerring loser at the peak of his skills really looks like.

    And, damn, I've enjoyed the ride... but that's sadly all it is. Because tomorrow, said loser will have lost his momentary connection to relevancy. And OMM will still have rocked my world.

  • by TVmisGuided (151197) <`alan.jump' `at' `gmail.com'> on Thursday March 03, 2011 @07:05PM (#35374600) Homepage
    The article's been restored. Looks like the Deletion Review process did what it was supposed to do.

"Just think of a computer as hardware you can program." -- Nigel de la Tierre

Working...