Skip

Delete / Keep / Merge
February 24, 2011 10:46 AM   Subscribe


 
The first deleted thread I moused-over was "List of Jewish Bankers." Then: "Contemporary persecution of non-Jews by Jews." Then, "List of interracial couples." Then, "Jewish Supremacism."

I'm sensing a recurring motif here....
posted by zarq at 10:52 AM on February 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Reddit noticed that too.
posted by Artw at 10:54 AM on February 24, 2011


Artw, thanks for linking to Reddit, if only because I discovered the Prime Number Shitting Bear.
posted by Fizz at 10:55 AM on February 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


[comment removed - please cite additional references I think count as references or choose a topic I'm actually interested in in the future --~~~~]
posted by flatluigi at 10:57 AM on February 24, 2011 [4 favorites]


That's a very nice bit of visualization; the curling mechanic in particular does it for me.
posted by cortex at 10:58 AM on February 24, 2011


the curling mechanic in particular does it for me

I used ta see him at da gym alla time. Could bench almost 300, too. Fixed my car lickety split and didn't charge me no damn arm and a leg.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:05 AM on February 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


My favorite thing found so far has to be in the Deletion Discussion for "Lolcat."

Keep If Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten. is a topic, so should this be. This is a legitimate, as well as popular Meme (roflcat.com). --ProteinTotal 04:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
posted by Mister Fabulous at 11:07 AM on February 24, 2011


That's a very nice bit of visualization; the curling mechanic in particular does it for me.

I'm partway wondering if it would be applicable to long mefi threads where there is a strong "for" and "against" element - of course that would be a much harder task as it would either require a human judgement of each posts character rather than simple parsing for a bolded "KEEP" or "DELETE".
posted by Artw at 11:09 AM on February 24, 2011


Can you really say ProteinTotal is wrong, Mister Fabulous?
posted by Artw at 11:10 AM on February 24, 2011


Textbook meaning-changing comma there in the caption — what they actually meant was surely "The 100 longest discussions on Wikipedia which resulted in deletion," not "The 100 longest discussions, which [all] resulted in deletion."
posted by RogerB at 11:15 AM on February 24, 2011


Reminds me of something Tufte would make. Very well done.
posted by The Devil Tesla at 11:22 AM on February 24, 2011


Notability is the core of Wikipedia's utility. The Internet allows for unlimited information at near zero cost, in an infinite sea of information, a persons "attention" to something becomes the limited resource, it is the currency of the realm. Wikipedia sets out to define what is worth paying attention to (with a long-term perspective), to curate the sea of information. Google does the same thing, except instead of manual curating it uses automatic algorithms. Facebook does the same except instead of notable information it deals with notable people. So if you want the next "big idea", figure out a new way to define what is notable on the Internet: information, people, __?__. Using manual, algorithmic, __?__ curation. Then profit.
posted by stbalbach at 11:30 AM on February 24, 2011 [4 favorites]


This research and visualization is really nice, but I'm also a big fan of the concept of the page: along with producing a research paper, produce a web-friendly, easily-understood page explaining that research for a general audience.
posted by dreamyshade at 11:32 AM on February 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Several of the deleted articles have since been restored, like Noemi Letizia, MyWikiBiz, Natasha Collins, etc. It seems like there's a distinct difference between topics that will never be notable and those which were merely not notable at the time of the AFD.
posted by theodolite at 11:35 AM on February 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


All Numbers Are Notable could make a very pleasant troll campaign against wikipedia. lol
posted by jeffburdges at 11:50 AM on February 24, 2011


Can you really say ProteinTotal is wrong, Mister Fabulous?

Nope, in full agreement with ProteinTotal's assessment.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 11:54 AM on February 24, 2011


What tools would one cite to quantify notability? Google adwords keyword tool?
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:39 PM on February 24, 2011


Well, Wikipedia has a lot of tools trying to quantify notability, but I'm not exactly sure that's what you're asking
posted by flatluigi at 1:56 PM on February 24, 2011


I was wondering if there were any objective standard that could be cited rather than subjective. After reading the notability guidelines, it sounds more like a judgment call.
posted by BrotherCaine at 2:07 PM on February 24, 2011


"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list" is the bit of the WP:N guidelines you're going to hear brought out most often. Basically nobody can demonstrate that there are independant sources to support the subject of an article then, assides from a very few special cases, the article is doomed.

Then come the arguments as to what is "significant coverage" and "a reliable source". There have been long and exhaustive arguments about this.
posted by Artw at 2:22 PM on February 24, 2011


a distinct difference between topics that will never be notable and those which were merely not notable at the time of the AFD

I was wondering if there were any objective standard

Generally I always found -- when I was active -- that simply producing third-party sources for an article would stop an AFD in its tracks. There are plenty of people who are willing to join an AFD and say "I assert that this is notable!" but not nearly as many who will actually go out there, find the references, and insert them into the article.

I always tried to view this as a measure of an article's worth to people. If you believe it should be saved, well, then, dammit, save it. I tried to do that when I could, but my time was and is limited.
posted by dhartung at 12:04 PM on February 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


You'd like the Article Rescue Squadron, which is pretty much all about just that.

Naturally it infuriates some folks, and it seems like you're much more likely to run into exhausting arguments about whether or not a source counts since they have been active.
posted by Artw at 2:11 PM on February 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Jesus Christ on a pogostick, this shamefull business with Old Man Murray sure serves as an example of Wikipedias bias towards deletion, the tendency of corrupt admins and long term editors to treat it as their own private playground, the horrid griefing deletionists indulgine in and a bunch of other reasons why Wikipedia cannot be trusted to look after itself without outside attention from time to time.
posted by Artw at 1:59 PM on March 4, 2011


« Older Stanley Kubrick Video Tribute   |   channel surf the music web. Or something Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post