Comments on: Wikipedia: easy come, easy go http://ryanblock.com/2007/02/wikipedia-easy-come-easy-go/ Editor and technology critic in the midst of founding a new web startup: gdgt. Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:44:30 -0800 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: jerry vadr http://ryanblock.com/2007/02/wikipedia-easy-come-easy-go/#comment-19186 jerry vadr Mon, 05 Mar 2007 08:36:36 +0000 http://www.ryanblock.com/archive/2007/02/wikipedia-easy-come-easy-go/#comment-19186 wikipedia (and all wiki sites) are crap anyway. Anyone can edit them, usualy with rumors and false infomration, the admins don’t know whats true or not, they want ‘citations’, yet, the ‘citations needed’ stays for weeks while it’s index on search engines, and people find the false info and believe it. People replce pictures with porn, that aren’t removed for at least 7 days or someone happens to remove it, which by then, some little kid already had a good look at it. btw.. if an 'admin' doesn't agree with what you put in an artcile, ven if it's sourced and cited, they will remove it and protect the page, simply because they can, and they know more than actual facts (so they think) The admins, and majority of edittors are rude, obnoxious morons who think they know everything there is to know, and I’ve proven more than a dozen of them wrong in arguements over the music biz. and articles about the artists (as I work in the industry with the artists). anyone who considers wikpedia reliable neds their head examined closely by a professional. as for the linking back.. what does it matter if they put a nofollow in it or not? someone will always come along and remove the link jsut because they dont like it there, or it’s competition for their own link anyway. If you want to visit the pages your link is on to put it back every 10 minutes, that’s your choice, I have better things to do (and my sites, which I have several official and non-official celebrity homepages and fan clubs) rank higher than wikipedia, and I block all links to wiki sites wikipedia (and all wiki sites) are crap anyway. Anyone can edit them, usualy with rumors and false infomration, the admins don’t know whats true or not, they want ‘citations’, yet, the ‘citations needed’ stays for weeks while it’s index on search engines, and people find the false info and believe it.
People replce pictures with porn, that aren’t removed for at least 7 days or someone happens to remove it, which by then, some little kid already had a good look at it.

btw.. if an ‘admin’ doesn’t agree with what you put in an artcile, ven if it’s sourced and cited, they will remove it and protect the page, simply because they can, and they know more than actual facts (so they think)
The admins, and majority of edittors are rude, obnoxious morons who think they know everything there is to know, and I’ve proven more than a dozen of them wrong in arguements over the music biz. and articles about the artists (as I work in the industry with the artists).
anyone who considers wikpedia reliable neds their head examined closely by a professional.
as for the linking back.. what does it matter if they put a nofollow in it or not? someone will always come along and remove the link jsut because they dont like it there, or it’s competition for their own link anyway. If you want to visit the pages your link is on to put it back every 10 minutes, that’s your choice, I have better things to do (and my sites, which I have several official and non-official celebrity homepages and fan clubs) rank higher than wikipedia, and I block all links to wiki sites

]]> By: Victor http://ryanblock.com/2007/02/wikipedia-easy-come-easy-go/#comment-15562 Victor Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:18:12 +0000 http://www.ryanblock.com/archive/2007/02/wikipedia-easy-come-easy-go/#comment-15562 Perhaps it was cleared to make room for a hyperspace bypass? Or they just can't pick up the tab anymore ;-) Perhaps it was cleared to make room for a hyperspace bypass? Or they just can’t pick up the tab anymore ;-)

]]> By: A.W. http://ryanblock.com/2007/02/wikipedia-easy-come-easy-go/#comment-15322 A.W. Fri, 09 Feb 2007 23:21:01 +0000 http://www.ryanblock.com/archive/2007/02/wikipedia-easy-come-easy-go/#comment-15322 Just so you know -- Wikipedia's guidelines covering only "notable" subjects are motivated by practical concerns. As an all-volunteer effort, they find it easy to recruit people to maintain articles on subjects of reasonable interest to a large number of people. Articles on things that will recieve a very small number of hits are a liability, because of the whole open-editing system. The fewer editors there are watching over an article, the more likely it is that mistakes and outright vandalism will collect there without being spotted, which in the case of biographies of living people could conceivably expose Wikipedia to legal troubles. The number of articles they have to maintain is huge already; it would be unreasonable if they started adding articles on any topic proposed without any sort of system of review. It's not a server space issue, or a censorship issue, it's just a pratical rule to prevent the whole wiki-system from collapsing under its own weight. Just so you know — Wikipedia’s guidelines covering only “notable” subjects are motivated by practical concerns. As an all-volunteer effort, they find it easy to recruit people to maintain articles on subjects of reasonable interest to a large number of people. Articles on things that will recieve a very small number of hits are a liability, because of the whole open-editing system. The fewer editors there are watching over an article, the more likely it is that mistakes and outright vandalism will collect there without being spotted, which in the case of biographies of living people could conceivably expose Wikipedia to legal troubles. The number of articles they have to maintain is huge already; it would be unreasonable if they started adding articles on any topic proposed without any sort of system of review. It’s not a server space issue, or a censorship issue, it’s just a pratical rule to prevent the whole wiki-system from collapsing under its own weight.

]]> By: Chris Grant http://ryanblock.com/2007/02/wikipedia-easy-come-easy-go/#comment-14979 Chris Grant Wed, 07 Feb 2007 23:54:25 +0000 http://www.ryanblock.com/archive/2007/02/wikipedia-easy-come-easy-go/#comment-14979 It's BAAaaa-aaccckkkk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Block It’s BAAaaa-aaccckkkk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Block

]]> By: cyrusfarivar.com » Blog Archive » Well, they’ve finally done it http://ryanblock.com/2007/02/wikipedia-easy-come-easy-go/#comment-14889 cyrusfarivar.com » Blog Archive » Well, they’ve finally done it Wed, 07 Feb 2007 07:38:37 +0000 http://www.ryanblock.com/archive/2007/02/wikipedia-easy-come-easy-go/#comment-14889 [...] Ryan Block suffered the same fate recently as [...] [...] Ryan Block suffered the same fate recently as [...]

]]> By: Eliot http://ryanblock.com/2007/02/wikipedia-easy-come-easy-go/#comment-14722 Eliot Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:21:37 +0000 http://www.ryanblock.com/archive/2007/02/wikipedia-easy-come-easy-go/#comment-14722 Crud. I can't remember your cat's name and now they've removed one of the few places I could have found it. Crud. I can’t remember your cat’s name and now they’ve removed one of the few places I could have found it.

]]> By: Ryan Block http://ryanblock.com/2007/02/wikipedia-easy-come-easy-go/#comment-14714 Ryan Block Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:14:51 +0000 http://www.ryanblock.com/archive/2007/02/wikipedia-easy-come-easy-go/#comment-14714 Yeah, I'm not sure why they take that kind of stuff down either. I understand that they might consider it like a bush that needs pruning, but it's not like that page was new, irrelevant, or useless. (Ok, maybe it was a little useless.) Still, I don't really care all that much, I've got no ego about this stuff. It's certainly not like there was anything much listed there that wasn't just lifted from my about page (http://www.ryanblock.com/about/). Yeah, I’m not sure why they take that kind of stuff down either. I understand that they might consider it like a bush that needs pruning, but it’s not like that page was new, irrelevant, or useless. (Ok, maybe it was a little useless.) Still, I don’t really care all that much, I’ve got no ego about this stuff. It’s certainly not like there was anything much listed there that wasn’t just lifted from my about page (http://www.ryanblock.com/about/).

]]> By: Davis Freeberg http://ryanblock.com/2007/02/wikipedia-easy-come-easy-go/#comment-14712 Davis Freeberg Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:06:25 +0000 http://www.ryanblock.com/archive/2007/02/wikipedia-easy-come-easy-go/#comment-14712 I like Wikipedia, but crap like this makes me not want to ever contribute to the site. Frankly, I don't see the harm of letting people add more information about themselves or in tracking entries that might not be considered "notable." The more information the site contains, the better it will be in my book. The WikiNazi's might not think you are notable enough to deserve an entry, but even if just one or two people wanted to learn more about you, then I think it would be justifiable for them to maintain the page. I just don't see the downside of letting them keep your page up. I like Wikipedia, but crap like this makes me not want to ever contribute to the site. Frankly, I don’t see the harm of letting people add more information about themselves or in tracking entries that might not be considered “notable.” The more information the site contains, the better it will be in my book. The WikiNazi’s might not think you are notable enough to deserve an entry, but even if just one or two people wanted to learn more about you, then I think it would be justifiable for them to maintain the page. I just don’t see the downside of letting them keep your page up.

]]>