The New Anti-Inclusionism, Who cares? Options

[Somey]

Y'know, we haven't discussed it all that much here so far, but right now there's actually a huge brouhaha going on at WP over a major upsurge in deletionism, particularly as pertains to articles about commercial entities. Those good ol' inclusionist crusaders at Wikitruth are giving it a fair amount of coverage:

http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=...mercial_Failure

http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Improv%27s_War

There was also the "Fleshlight" controversy on the mailing list, in which several WP'ers were unhappy about Danny Wool deleting an article about a sex toy for strange men in a somewhat "out of process" fashion (i.e., he simply deleted it, apparently because he was fed up with an edit war that was going on between the company that makes them and one of their distributors, the latter of whom wanted to add some external linkspam directed toward their website, or some such nonsense).

It's a little convoluted, but the thread there was started by SPUI, here:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien...ber/055021.html

And here's Danny's somewhat frustrated, I daresay even angry, retort:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien...ber/055148.html

I have to say, I'm inclined to agree with Danny on this one. Wikipedia is a massively huge website run by a tiny number of paid people, and it's probably inevitable that this sort of thing would happen.

But for some incredibly weird reason, they don't seem to be putting 2+2 together to realize that articles about companies and products are just as easily vandalized, and therefore just as prone to angry reactions from the subjects/victims, as biographies of living, breathing human beings. So now they're on a WP:OFFICE-sponsored burnination crusade against "companycruft," while privacy-invading crap articles about Joe Nobody, who started some lame-ass website somewhere, continue to grow in number. Why is that?

Is it simply because companies have more money than individual private citizens, and can afford better lawyers?

They also seem to be interested in deleting a lot of articles about conspiracy theories these days too, for some reason. I guess the supporters of the theories are being "disruptive" or "trolling", but it's too bad, really. Those articles are not only fun to read, they're really sort of useful in a quasi-historical sense, in that they might serve to give future generations an idea of what was going on among the "fringe" types, back in the day.

Oh well.

[Placeholder]

/

This post has been edited by Joey: Sun 15th October 2006, 9:17pm

[Daniel Brandt]

SlimVirgin quoting Jimmy, who must be quoting God because nothing else makes any sense:

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.

Linuxbeak quoting Raul654:

[Oct 11 2006 10:11:18] <Linuxbeak> <CableModem> So, what is Wikimania about anyway?
[Oct 11 2006 10:11:18] <Linuxbeak> <Raul654> Cablemodem - it's like bukkake for geeks

From T.S.Eliot, "The Hollow Men":

Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow

For Thine is the Kingdom

Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow

Life is very long

Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent
Falls the Shadow

For Thine is the Kingdom
For Thine is
Life is
For Thine is the

This is the way Wikipedia ends
This is the way Wikipedia ends
This is the way Wikipedia ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

[guy]

Good thing this isn't Wikipedia - Daniel Brandt would get a roasting for breach of copyright.

[Somey]

Good thing this isn't Wikipedia - Daniel Brandt would get a roasting for breach of copyright.

What's the standard expiry limitation on copyright in the UK? I thought it was 75 years, like it is in the US... Even so, "The Hollow Men" was published in 1924, so as long as he doesn't set foot on British soil, he's probably safe.

Still, if I were Daniel, I'd be sure to go in heavily armed...

[guy]

What's the standard expiry limitation on copyright in the UK? I thought it was 75 years, like it is in the US... Even so, "The Hollow Men" was published in 1924, so as long as he doesn't set foot on British soil, he's probably safe.

Still, if I were Daniel, I'd be sure to go in heavily armed...

From the date of death, not the date of publication (except for posthumous publications).

[Placeholder]

/

This post has been edited by Joey: Sun 15th October 2006, 9:17pm

[everyking]

Whoever the Wikitruth people are, they're absurdly hypocritical for trying to take an inclusionist position on things; they flayed me in their little insult article about me for being an inclusionist. I don't think they have real opinions; they're just lame comedians and/or trolls.

This post has been edited by everyking: Sun 15th October 2006, 6:00am

[JohnA]

We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia
for their own memes. This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy. We must put a stop to this now.

- Brad Patrick, Wikilawyer

No shit, Sherlock!

- John A

[Somey]

Whoever the Wikitruth people are, they're absurdly hypocritical for trying to take an inclusionist position on things; they flayed me in their little insult article about me for being an inclusionist. I don't think they have real opinions; they're just lame comedians and/or trolls.

All the more reason to believe one or more of the Wikitruthers are people you've pissed off in some way, and they're singling you out because of some personal grudge or other! Of course, they'll probably just characterize that statement as "whining about rogue admins." I suppose it is, in a way...

They should really delete that article though, at least temporarily, given that you're not an admin at the moment. After all, they deleted the one on Kelly Martin, and you're at least as nice as she is, right?

I'm also curious as to why they haven't done one on User:Cyde yet. He's featured prominently in this article, but that's about it. Maybe they're just having trouble working through the immense wealth of material to choose from.

[Somey]

Ask nicely, and you shall receive!

http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=...&page=Everyking

Well, that was very decent of them, I must say. Guys, I know I've probably said a nasty thing or two about you in the past (and I still think I'm funnier), but you've got a good sense of fairness, and I for one appreciate that. Admittedly, that does contradict some of what I wrote in the post above this one, to some extent... Oh well! Just don't ask me to delete all the SlimVirgin stuff here, though - we'd lose at least half of the content on the site.

Carry on!