Voting for Article of the weak - poll ends March 7, 2006 Options

This is an extension of the post on the old forum here: http://wikipediareview.proboards78.com/ind...read=1140789471

It looks like this could be a good thing to do, and add some interest and a bit of fun, while still criticising Wikipedia. As I suggested, we could nominate (we will have a maximum of 20 nominations now) one week and then vote the next week.

There's only 4 options, so its just a matter of which of these 4 you think is the worst. If you think that a separate article is worse than any of these, then nominate it for the next poll. And give some reasons too if you can.

This poll will run for about a week, and then we'll see. Whether Wikipedians decide to clean up the articles in the meantime may influence voting, so make sure also to check out histories to see just how bad the article was beforehand too.

Oh and the poll options aren't clickable links, so here you go:

• Khmer Rouge ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge )
• Port Arthur massacre ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre )
• Clique ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clique )
• Vietnam War ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War )

I nominate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salad_Fingers_theories as the most craptalicious article on Wikipedia that survived AfD.

Oh we can put that on the next poll.

I hope that we get some votes on this.

There's only 4 options, so its just a matter of which of these 4 you think is the worst. If you think that a separate article is worse than any of these, then nominate it for the next poll. And give some reasons too if you can.

What happened with that poll comparing your article on the Port Arthur massacre and Wikipedia's article? I missed the result of that.

I nominate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salad_Fingers_theories as the most craptalicious article on Wikipedia that survived AfD.

I agree. I'm disappointed my AFD nomination of it failed.

Once this is up and running in full flight, we will consider extra bits. So long as we have enough space and we are not forking out huge amounts of excess, I can't see why we can't have a wiki. However, wasn't that what Wikimediasucks was meant to be for? But yes, we can do that. At some stage, we will probably do a poll as to which of:

User pages for all or lots of members
Group blog
Wiki

We will be having e-mail addresses at minimum for all of the administrators, and I think a second one should be for me and Selina (so we get 2) since we have server access. I would have abuse@wikipediareview.com since its my butt on the line if we do or say anything that is libellous etc, and Selina can have admin@wikipediareview.com since she is the site administrator (i.e. she can change the code for the forum etc). Selina can grant that to others as well, but the issue of password sharing might make this impractical. On top of those 2, we'd have blissyu2@wikipediareview.com, qwerty@wikipediareview.com, bluaardvark@wikipediareview.com, lir@wikipediareview.com, msk@wikipediareview.com (or any other names you so desire) and I guess we can give up others if we have enough free e-mails, I don't know. Do we get 30 e-mail addresses? I'm not sure how many we get. But I think it'd be nice, at least for admins, to get an e-mail address. Then it'd be handy if writing for advertising to people or something official sounding, or something like that. Of course, you could use the e-mail address for anything you like, so long as its nothing illegal.

As for the poll, there was no poll on comparing the wikinfo port arthur massacre article with the wikipedia one, but feel free to make a poll.

qwerty: give me a link to download a good wiki (mediawiki? something else? I dunno) and instructions and I'll put one up at wikipediareview.com/wiki / wiki.wikipediareview.com

Should we use Mediawiki? That's what Wikipedia uses. Wouldn't that be something of a conflict of interest? I don't know. Or it might be perfect.

I think we should discuss this a bit more first, Selina, so that we make the right choice.

nonsense article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_mathematics

Should we use Mediawiki? That's what Wikipedia uses. Wouldn't that be something of a conflict of interest? I don't know. Or it might be perfect.

I think we should discuss this a bit more first, Selina, so that we make the right choice.

It's a tough call, really. From the poll on the proboards forum, it seems that most people prefer MediaWiki. (Of course, most of the voters were wikipedia admins). MediaWiki has it's strong points - I am exceptionally fond of the link format. CamelCase, although it works, can be a bit clunky sometimes.

Thanks Ownage. I will add those 2 to the next poll.

Okay, we need at least 10 votes for this poll to be meaningful. So I am going to wait until we get 10 votes, if we don't get that many by 7 March. People have to have a bit more interest in this. I would have thought that people would have been more enthusiastic in such a topic.

Can some people vote on this? Otherwise I will likely do a new poll with these 4 plus the 2 new nominations. The off topic responses in this thread don't help.

I am very disappointed in the voting for this, or lack thereof, as I thought that this could be a good concept. Its been a week, but with only 3 votes this is a pathetic response, and I guess that we have to say that people who visit this board really have no interest in having such a concept. Or if they do, then they'd like it done some other way.

I don't know what to do with it now, quite frankly. Run another poll with these 4 plus some more options? I don't know really. I thought that this would have been a good opportunity to really be able to show some valid criticism in the form of article criticism, in a constructive way. But perhaps I was wrong.

You need to have the option "none of the above", for people who think they're all equally bad, or that none of them are bad.

You need to have the option "none of the above", for people who think they're all equally bad, or that none of them are bad.

Great idea, I added the options.

The last option shouldn't really say "Thebainer" though, as there might be some other people who think that.

Anyway, I thought about it, and stuff it, if people don't vote, bad luck.

We'll give a week and then start a fresh voting thread for article of the weak.

The last option shouldn't really say "Thebainer" though, as there might be some other people who think that.

Well yah, in theory, its not like its a vote before the United States Congress though -- anyways, its really hard to argue which Wikipedia article is the 'worst'... they are all kinda dodgy. I used to think that Wikipedia could, over time, achieve some high degree of quality -- but that was when I believed that Wikipedia was going to embrace discussion and democracy. Instead, it now seems that articles are tending to stagnate at a certain point, after which significant revision becomes very difficult because of all the feudal warlords who lay claim to the current version. Perhaps the process is still trudging forwards, which means eventually the articles will be fairly decent; nevertheless, Jimbo's incompetent leadership has greatly hindered progress.