Decius wrote:
Someone finally made a Wikipedia article about MemeStreams. If you're bored, give it an edit...

Cool. :)

The last article I edited was for Outerz0ne, and soon after, it was deleted because it apparently did not meet the "General Notability Guideline." I don't want to jinx Memestreams, so I'll refrain from touching it. ;)

Stefanie wrote:
The last article I edited was for Outerz0ne, and soon after, it was deleted because it apparently did not meet the "General Notability Guideline." I don't want to jinx Memestreams, so I'll refrain from touching it. ;)

Heh. I think the General Notability Guideline is ruining wikipedia. Why would you want to remove information? Part of the value of having this open encyclopedia is that you can cover niche subjects that only small groups of people care about. The cost associated with doing so is negligible in comparison to the value.

Decius wrote:
Heh. I think the General Notability Guideline is ruining wikipedia. Why would you want to remove information? Part of the value of having this open encyclopedia is that you can cover niche subjects that only small groups of people care about. The cost associated with doing so is negligible in comparison to the value.

That's what I was thinking, but the Wikistar Chamber had other ideas.

Decius wrote:

Stefanie wrote:
The last article I edited was for Outerz0ne, and soon after, it was deleted because it apparently did not meet the "General Notability Guideline." I don't want to jinx Memestreams, so I'll refrain from touching it. ;)

Heh. I think the General Notability Guideline is ruining wikipedia. Why would you want to remove information? Part of the value of having this open encyclopedia is that you can cover niche subjects that only small groups of people care about. The cost associated with doing so is negligible in comparison to the value.

I think Wikipedia is ruining itself with loads of petty and unnecessary rules to empower editors who aren't talented enough to be real editors. Wikipedia takes itself too seriously and its community is generally more concerned with bureaucratic measures than being a robust democratic source of information. I can understand that there is a push to be exacting as possible, but i think sometimes they delete pertinent information because of biases and such reasoning. Hosing info because some asshole doesnt like how it's sectioned is stupid. They also spend too much time developing reputation systems for people rather than reputation systems for how true people think a piece of information is. Wikipedia is bloated.

I think Wikipedia is ruining itself with loads of petty and unnecessary rules to empower editors who aren't talented enough to be real editors. Wikipedia takes itself too seriously and its community is generally more concerned with bureaucratic measures than being a robust democratic source of information. I can understand that there is a push to be exacting as possible, but i think sometimes they delete pertinent information because of biases and such reasoning. Hosing info because some asshole doesnt like how it's sectioned is stupid. They also spend too much time developing reputation systems for people rather than reputation systems for how true people think a piece of information is. Wikipedia is bloated.

Much of this appears to be a reaction to the criticism of Wikipedia not being a resource worthy of usage in an academic environment. The Wikipedia community appears to be reacting to it by trying to make Wikipedia that kind of resource, but I think by taking that approach they are removing the unique utility Wikipedia provides.