What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
100 Comments
- wilwheaton, on 10/12/2007, -15/+66I believe that everyone will agree that it's important to keep Wikipedia free of pure vanity entries, and keep it relevant, but those aren't the stated goals of these jerks. It appears that the sole purpose of this campaign is to disrupt the people who are targeted, and for the trolls to get a lot of attention so they feel important. (Yes, I realize that submitting this to Digg could feed the trolls, but it's also a good way to call attention to their efforts and hopefully stop them before they overrun Wikipedia.)
I'm not familiar with the internal workings of the Wikipedia, but do they have a system in place to deal with spurious delete requests? Isn't it some sort of vandalism? It seems to me that that this sort of thing just wastes the time of the editors and admins at Wikipedia who should really be spending their time on actual vandalism and related issues, not playing whack-a-mole with a bunch of trolls who didn't get enough attention from the popular kids on the school yard. - wilwheaton, on 10/12/2007, -9/+37Well, after a bit of research (avoiding deadlines is fun, kids!) I've just discovered that there is a policy to deal with this precisely this sort of thing. The Deletion Policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy) says:
". . . (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally."
By that criteria, this whole thing is *****, and someone should put a stop to these trolls right now, before they can spread their crap to other entries. - bitt3n, on 10/12/2007, -12/+37how will future generations survive without knowing about these blogging legends.
- sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24If you're going to call someone a moron at least learn to spell "you're."
- tawker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Well, WIkipedia has lots of policies for dealing with deletions. What do you know, they're even nice and fair.
Speedy Deletes - obvious vanity pages
ProD - leaves a notice for 5 days, it goes otherwise if nobody contests
AfD, the big formal discussion process. IT IS NOT A VOTE. In short, people argue why and why not stuff should go. If (in the views of the closing person) there are better arguments to nuke it, it goes. Otherwise, it stays.
That's WP's deletion policy in 50 lines or less. - inmatarian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Wikipedia's deletion process is not a vote. One well described Keep vote can defeat 100 uninformed delete votes. Likewise, one well described Delete can knock out 100 keeps.
To keep this Wiki article, and the many others like it, from being deleted, the page has to be modified to list its reasons for being notable, and a Keep vote has to be registered that lists these notability claims. - DeathBorn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17If you don't like it, then go on the "Request for deletion" yourself and vote to keep the page.
- burke, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Eww.... Walaa? I think you meant "Voila".
Ugh. - diafel, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20Come on, does every blogger really need their own wikipedia entry?
- torsades, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Well it looks like it gets put to a vote, seems to have resulted in 10-5 for deleting it.
- BassCadet, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17Wil,
These "Wikipedia Trolls" probably are indeed just that, but that doesn't mean their goal isn't honorable.
The simple fact of the matter is that the great benefit of Wikipedia (an online, searchable encyclopedia) is diluted heavily when mounds of Internet minutiae is festooned upon it.
I don't care if Tony Pierce's name is the 3rd Tony that comes up in Google. I don't care if he is one of the legion of bloggers who came up with a new word (blook). I care that Wikipedia remains relevant to EVERYONE, not random pockets of Internet enthusiasts. - jaydj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I was against deleting theses until i took a look at Tony Pierce's actual entry. It looks like it really isn't that notable. Let's take the word blogging and replace it with knitting and see if it should still remain. Perhaps if he invented knitting... or created some new way to knit.
Should I have a wiki entry for the some of the work that I've done in IT consulting? - Apreche, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I don't know anything about these people and their campaign. I do know the rules of Wikipedia. If you are not notable to the general community, you are deleted. I've known a lot of podcasts and other groups who try to make Wikipedia entries about themselves, and then they act surprised when their articles are deleted. If you are just some blogger, even a big-time blogger, that doesn't warrant a Wikipedia entry. I'm a relatively heavy web user, and I barely know who these bloggers are. They definitely are not important enough to get Wikipedia entries.
If you want, you guys can try to make a separate Wiki. Some sort of Internet culture-opedia. That's what the Star Wars fans did. - Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12"I don't care if Tony Pierce's name is the 3rd Tony that comes up in Google. I don't care if he is one of the legion of bloggers who came up with a new word (blook). I care that Wikipedia remains relevant to EVERYONE, not random pockets of Internet enthusiasts."
Nobody cares that *you* don't care, that's the whole point. Hell, I don't care about bloggers either, but if you google "Tony Pierce" +blogger you get 315,000 hits. That's really the only argument that matters. - wilwheaton, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15I saw that. It's really a shame, because the reasons given for deleting it are completely unfounded and bogus. I saw one user suggest that deleting this entry (and the entire campaign, actually,) could violate the NPOV, so maybe the admins can step in and stop this transparent effort to eliminate pages one small group of well coordinated people don't like.
- ctishman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Oh, the organizer's a GNAA member. Surprise, surprise.
Honestly, I just don't understand why Wikipedia tolerates this at all. Being free and open is good.
A public park is open and free, but that doesn't mean the administrators have to tolerate the continued actions of a group whose sole stated purpose is to set fires in the woods. - garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15This isn't just any blogger...
- MeatBiProduct, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6When will i be able to buy a home edition of encylopedias with bloggers in them, i need it for my college thesis on how people waste time being attention whores over the internet.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10It's not the first, & it won't be the last wave of serial trolls in Wikipedia, sadly.
- vudicarus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6wikipedia isn't about fact or usefulness. It's about notability and verifiability. there's a lot of policy on that point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability . - fluffyturtle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Good riddance. I am so sick of bloggers, no one really gives a ***** about your blogs.
Wiki’s vanity policy should handle this without the help of trolls. Vanity is a synonym of blogger anyways so yeah, let Wiki handle it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4A blogopedia?
Having that much ego in one place could be dangerous. It could reach critical density, break the walls of reality, and create a brown hole. - batmang, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Does it really matter that they're on there? I mean Wikipedia has room for everything. Plus I go to Wikipedia for information on anything and anybody including stuff like podcasts and website creators.
- napkinback, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7The fact that the blogger in question voted for himself is reason enough to delete the entry. Good for these guys purging some chaff from Wikipedia; how many damn articles do we really need about n-list bloggers?
- Vergeh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Group of information addicts attacks other group of information addicts. Yes, this barely qualifies as news.
- HelloNavi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9This is just stupid. No one gives a ***** about some douche's blog. Wiki is for valuble information, not some dumb blogger's biography.
- vvvv, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9What does Tony Peirce need a Wikipedia page for? He already has a ***** blog. If he isn't getting enough attention let him buy a google ad or something.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Where that argument falls down is that wikipedia IS accepted by the general public. It is not accepted by a very, very, small subset of the population who have pet peeves with wikipedias contents.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I'm fairly important to my cats. Does that mean I warrant a wikipedia page?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, Bloggers are not worth wikipedia, but movies and tv-series are. Even though we have IMDB.
Bloggers only matter to bloggers.
Which would make them relevant to a very large part of the population of the western hemisphere, IF bloggers cared about OTHER bloggers than themselves. - fatesclwn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I am not sure i understand the point of deleting it. I mean... it is accurate right?
Who cares if it is even 100% useless information? It is still information, and that is what Wiki is all about. I honestly have no problem with everyone on the planet putting a little entry in Wiki about themselves.
Also, it obviously has a purpose. Otherwise no one would have thought to even look for it to mark for deletion... right? Maybe i am just some moron who knows nothing... in fact, no maybe about it. :P But this just seems stupid. Somewhere down the line, maybe someone will want to search through a list of utterly unknown bloggers. Maybe for a project of some sort, or maybe just for fun. Either way, i think they should be allowed to keep an entry. What does it hurt?
Not to mention, that the blogger in question actually IS some sort of big deal. - mtekk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7wilwheaton: one of the supporters of this movement has already attempted to have the article on the Siberian Language deleted. So I'd say they've already have that in mind for something like phase 4.
- darkzealot89, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6some one posted a great deletion mark ON his article!
{{db|Page is out to obviously have Articles regarding widely know bloggers Deleted and/or vandalized. Do not remove this delete key as according to the deletion policy this article is a "Page(s) created just to vandalize or disrupt". You are in violation of Wikipedia's Policy and ergo can be marked for deletion}}
make sure it stays up, since it appears his page is breaking policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Timecop/The_war_on_blogs - Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Going to the user page of the person putting up the vote...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Femmina
It's not exactly a secret operation anyway. :-p - mistercharlie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Re: the Freeway Blogger.
They're not looking to simply remove his blog, but the entire entry for "Roadway blogging" of which the Freeway blogger is just one external link. Seems foolish to delete, as this is a unique phenomenon, and worthy of an entry. - knowprose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wow. My first Digg comment.
Yeah, my Wikipedia (Taran Rampersad) has been up for deletion twice. I'm a veteran. And no one has actually updated the entry... and... guess what... I can't... *sigh*
I know other people who weren't as fortunate. A minority of them did seem to be superbly overdone, and I said nothing. Others I saw as simply unknown to the Wikipedia editors and made some comment - such as Bonnie Bracey, whose work in education isn't widely publicized as Scoble, but whose work I think is more important than Scoble (and no offence, Wil, but you too).
The Wikipedia policy on deletion is in desperate need of some work, but I don't have the time to dedicate to it and I'm not too high up in the Wikipedia pecking order.
There's a lot wrong with the process. There are good people who use the process properly, and there are people who abuse the process. Sort of like regular academia, only on the internet you're allowed to be a real jerk. ;-) - justconnor, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8once again a bunch of immature guys trying to ruin a good website... good thing wikipedia has such a dedicated group of users to keep stuff running smoothly.
it'll blow over. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6What if somebody wants to FIND OUT who they are?
- Coronagold, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2(note to self: next book project about BloggerCon San Diego '07)
"How To Bypass MainStreamMedia And Still Become Famous In Your Own Mind". - atomskninja, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Wartyboskfapped:
Wikipedians don't care about people wanting to find information, they only care if an article can be verified. Hence, the article on the GNAA itself was deleted. Remember, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." :P - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10Regardless of whether you like what the are doing or not, you HAVE to agree that these people have NO business having entries on Wikipedia! You all DO realize that 99.99999999% of the peoepl in this world have absolutely NO idea who any of the three people mentioned are, and furthermore, they don't CARE!
Honestly...if you think that bloggers matter to the world, you REALLY need to leave the world. - mr.hostility, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I can't live without my children having knowledge of Guy Kawasaki's mad blogging skills!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5The purpose of Wikipedia is providing information on topics to people who are unfamiliar with them.
The question is, are those articles on the bloggers or any other of the other controversial topics being read by the bloggers themselves and their fans or people who are interested in learning who these people are they've just heard about.
I'm inclined to say that the latter is pretty damn unlikely.
There is a line, somewhere, that we wont be able to get everyone to agree on. On one side of that line are things that are worthy of wikipedia articles on the other side, things that aren't. Bloggers probably aren't.
What these "trolls" primary purpose is for another discussion. - Chasuk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4BassCadet wrote:
"I don't care if Tony Pierce's name is the 3rd Tony that comes up in Google. I don't care if he is one of the legion of bloggers who came up with a new word (blook). I care that Wikipedia remains relevant to EVERYONE, not random pockets of Internet enthusiasts."
Wikipedia cannot remain relevant to EVERYONE unless it also caters to random pockets of Internet enthusiasts. By definition, excluding these random pockets of Internet enthusiasts means that Wikipedia would remain relevant to the MAJORITY, and not EVERYONE. - engtech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"s this the same group responsible for the deletion of Genmay?"
Looking into it more, I'm wouldn't be surprised if they targeted bloggers purely for the attention and as a response to getting their own page deleted off of wikipedia. - GregoryRider, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Its probably worth mentioning that this person, Timecop, is the leader of a group called the "Gay ***** Association of America" and that their article was recently deleted from Wikipedia as well, for being unverifiable. It took Wikipedia users 18 tries before one administrator finally decided to "delete and salt" the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America_%2818th_nomination%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_28/Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America
Read the discussions above, you might find the arguments rather interesting as similar ones are applied to these blog-related articles as well. - vudicarus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6speaking of immature trolls, the infamous Gay ***** Association of America's wiki page was recently voted for deletion. This was the 18th time it's been up for deletion .The one primary reason for its deletion is that facts could not be verified from a non-trivial, independent source. Here's the deletion review page of GNAA which I found interesting to peruse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_28/Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Children should been seen but not heard.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 103 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is