02.19.05
I knew I’d end up in Wikipedia one day. Unbelievable. And they spelled my name wrong. And they called me “African American,” which I’m not. I’m an American. Well, since it’s “open source,” I suppose I can make changes I don’t like. Strange to show up there, though.
Unrelated Update (8:08 p.m.): If you’re not tired of looking at me yet, tomorrow and Monday I’ll post pictures I took with Matt Margolis, Kevin McCullough, Deroy Murdock, Mike S. Adams and others mentioned in this post.
Update II (2/20): Did I fail to mention that I don’t want to be in the Wikipedia? That’s important to know. I appreciate you guys voting to keep my entry, but I’d prefer it be removed.
76 Comments
It was only a matter of time. Congrats.
On a side note, I am confounded (and impressed) by your ability to look exactly the same in every photograph. I wish I could do that.
Comment by Punditish — 02.19.05 @ 6:33 pm
You disdain the term “African American”? What, next thing you’ll be denying Jesse his right to claim you among his skinstituency!
Comment by Kevin Gleeson — 02.19.05 @ 6:55 pm
Punditish, that’s because she’s mastered the photo-face.
Comment by Andy — 02.19.05 @ 6:55 pm
LaShawn: what do you think of people who say you’re “black”?
Comment by mj — 02.19.05 @ 7:10 pm
MJ - If my race has to be mentioned at all, I prefer the term “black.”
Comment by La Shawn — 02.19.05 @ 7:12 pm
Sorry–I meant to ask: what do you think when people say you’re “black”?
Comment by mj — 02.19.05 @ 7:15 pm
La Shawn. Wikipedia articles are editable by anyone. You can click the Edit this Page tab at the top of the article to modify it.
Comment by Richard — 02.19.05 @ 7:16 pm
Thanks for the quick response. In a perfect world, we’d have no labels.
Comment by mj — 02.19.05 @ 7:17 pm
WOW! Gettin’ closer and closer to the big time.
:Witty AND notorious? Congratulations!
Comment by Steven J. Kelso Sr. — 02.19.05 @ 7:19 pm
Sorry to delete the link, but it was skewing the format. - Admin
Comment by This DUer talking about you? — 02.19.05 @ 7:44 pm
LaShawn:
Congratulations for the courage, afterall dropping the hyphen, in this politically correct atmosphere, you know what will happen next, they will start calling you a “CONSERVATIVE”
Mark
Comment by Mark — 02.19.05 @ 7:58 pm
Well, it didn’t take long to update Wikipedia. You’re now just an “American conservative columnist and blogger”. Very good.
Comment by Andy — 02.19.05 @ 8:08 pm
All 4 of my grandparents were Polish-Americans (they grew up in Poland; came to America and became citizens). I’m lucky they got here and like you I’m just an American too.
Comment by Ken M. — 02.19.05 @ 8:59 pm
La Shawn,
Congrats on the Wikipedia entry. I’ve found Wikipedia to be a most reliable source for almost anything. The coolest thing is the ability for anyone to be able to edit all articles. Of course this also presents a problem, especially when it comes to political entries. I remember Kerry’s and Bush’s entries were both “locked” to prevent any defamation or craziness from going on. But, on the whole, I usually only edit entries of my favorite musicians or authors.
It might be a good idea for you to add your own info before some crazy liberal (like me…but NOT me!) goes in there and starts defacing your page.
Comment by Mike M. — 02.19.05 @ 10:27 pm
[sigh] Our little LaShawn has grown up. I hope she’ll remember all of us humble floks as her star continues to rise.
Comment by Mark Slater — 02.19.05 @ 11:26 pm
Looks like a great weekend, wish I was there!!
Kevin
Comment by Kevin — 02.20.05 @ 12:12 am
La Shawn ~
I went to fix your name, it really bugged me, and it’s already been taken care of. You’re also no longer African-American!! LOL.
Here’ the new link, it seems the redirect doesn’t work from the old page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Shawn_Barber
Congratulations (again!) you’ve had quite a week.
Comment by Janette — 02.20.05 @ 12:18 am
Yes! Yes! I’d love to see more pictures. It’s not as good as being there, of course but it’s a lot of fun to see.
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 02.20.05 @ 1:16 am
THEY ARE TRYING TO DELETE YOU FROM WIKIPEDIA!
If you want to “save La Shawn” hop over there and vote…
Baron
Comment by Baron — 02.20.05 @ 1:32 am
Save La Shawn!!!
Upset about the success of conservatives in America, Wikipedians are launching an assault on La Shawn’s Wikipedia page, attempting to have it deleted…
Visit the page, mark your entry, fortify the armies (bad Risk reference), and SAVE LA SHAWN!!! …
Trackback by The Baron — 02.20.05 @ 1:46 am
To vote to save the Wikipedia entry for La Shawn, just go to her page and click on “A request has been made on Wikipedia for this article to be deleted ”
Then click on “edit” and add your comment.
Tips:
1)”keep” is a keyword.
2) Copy your comment before clicking on “Save”. If someone is editing at the same time, you will lose your comment and have to repost again.
Comment by Andy — 02.20.05 @ 2:08 am
PS, another reason for copying your text and perhaps a screenshot, someone keeps going in the vote section and deleted the “keep” votes.
After I got deleted twice, the latest exchange went like this
“**I get 252,000 google hits for “La Shawn Barber”, which seems awfully high. If she’s an established columnist she may well deserve an article (being a blogger gets nowhere with me, though). If someone can write a real article I may well vote to keep, but delete this puffery. -R. fiend 07:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
***R.Fiend, that’s a fair assesment of her popularity. However, since you are the “arbiter” of what gets nowhere with you, then maybe Wikipedia is a nowhere blog that doesn’t deserve its reputation as the go to spot to learn more about any topic or subject. IOWs, bloggers need not apply nor reference it. Could you please refer me to the section of the rules that states anon/sock puppets can’t vote? I voted once to keep La Sahwn, came back to find it deleted. Is that kosher to delete votes you don’t like? Andy“
Comment by Andy — 02.20.05 @ 2:41 am
Andy -
Without sounding like too much of a neophyte, how do you take screenshots?
Baron
Comment by Baron — 02.20.05 @ 2:49 am
Baron, on your keyboard, you should have a key “PrtSc/SysRq”, usually after F12 or in the top row above the 10-key numeric pad area.
PrtSc is a command to Print Screen, then you need to open a graphic application, M$’ Photo Editor will do (as will Paint, or even most programs that come with a scanner or digital camera), and from the menu, click on Edit | Paste As New Image. After that you can crop or do whatever and then save the image.
Comment by Andy — 02.20.05 @ 3:02 am
Another tip to would be voters/swarmers
When you make your entry, just copy / paste the below in italics as is:
”’Keep”’, I like this site. YOURNAME 08:11 , 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Where YOURNAME is your name/handle or take it out, if you wish to be anonymous.
Where the UTC time stamp is Eastern Standard time plus 5 hours, i.e. 08:11 UTC is 03:11 EST
Of course, don’t forget to put in the correct date.
Comment by Andy — 02.20.05 @ 3:11 am
Mike M.,
Sadly, the open the everyone nature of Wikipedia is what keeps me from using it very much. That is, since anyone with an agenda can attempt to hijack its contents, it is only good for learning the conventional wisdom of a subset of net’icens.
It’s a great place to start, but for me, never a place to begin and end any research.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 02.20.05 @ 8:22 am
Wuzzy,
I agree. I know some of the stuff entered is often done so with major biases…but it is rather fun to explore. I often find myself on there for hours just following links to other areas within the site.
Comment by Mike M. — 02.20.05 @ 8:50 am
Looks like they need to change the “W” to a “D.”
Comment by Jim Treacher — 02.20.05 @ 9:50 am
I dunno Treacher, that may change the demographic even more.
I remember years ago looking for a sporting goods store online, a chain called Dicks. I made the big mistake, at work, of just putting a dot com at the end…
You’d have thought an old had that predated Mosaic would have known better…
BTW, Andy, you ‘won’ 4th place in my caption contest from last week.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 02.20.05 @ 10:29 am
SCSI, thanks for the honor.
Comment by Andy — 02.20.05 @ 10:52 am
La Shawn, I’ve heard lots of “good” things about Wikipedia, but never went there except when following an occasional link. Having spent a little time there last night to create a bibliography section, I don’t blame you for not wanting/caring to be listed there.
Why settle for 2nd hand information when one can go to the source. Like one of the wikipedist commented, there was over 252 thousand hits on Google for your name.
So who cares if a bunch of widdle adolescent anarchists want to deny your noteworthiness. All that matters is if you’re noteworthy with God.
Comment by Andy — 02.20.05 @ 11:00 am
‘Update II (2/20): Did I fail to mention that I don’t want to be in the Wikipedia? That’s important to know. I appreciate you guys voting to keep my entry, but I’d prefer it be removed.’
Still trying to say you’re not a public figure?
Comment by actus — 02.20.05 @ 11:20 am
Just checked out the delete page. That’s quite a bit of fuss. I didn’t bother to vote. You can vote if you’re not a member but it doesn’t count. Very democratic.
Anyway I’ve never been a fan of Wikipedia. Too many of their entries show some serious bias (left or right) and now that I’ve seen more on the internals of how it woeks I’m even less impressed.
La Shawn will be getting enough positive feedback from legitimate sources, she doesn’t have to worry about a wiki.
Comment by Janette — 02.20.05 @ 11:33 am
Oy! What a revelation to finally see someone say “I’m an American!” Rather than say “I’m an African American.”
Loved your blog so much, I added your blog address to my blog site. Same goes for Baldilocks. And here, in my world, the deaf and hard of hearing world, I have to contend with people who declare in the same aggrieved sentence “I’m a Deaf American.” For those who are culturally deaf or, in this case, militantly deaf who abhor hearing people’s intrusion, so to speak, are sometimes get a bit rabid. They can bite.
Will I get on Wikipedia? And have them call me as a Deaf American? I’m not…just a proud American, Semper Fi and all that.
Comment by Mike McConnell — 02.20.05 @ 11:34 am
The problem I have with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. This makes it more of an opinion forum than an encyclopedia if you ask me.
By the way, LaShawn: I had your old Blogspot site in my blogroll (which I just got around to updating night before last). When I clicked on it I found it contained one lone post saying “I really liked the movie Edward Scissorhands!” Looks like someone’s been messing with Blogspot again.
Comment by Andrea Harris — 02.20.05 @ 11:42 am
Just to let you know…I’m not that “Mike M.” I’m this “Mike McConnell.” And for the record, I don’t want to be on Wikipedia, either. What was the programmer thinking in the first place?
Comment by Mike McConnell — 02.20.05 @ 12:00 pm
Mike McConnell,
Read your blog the other day. Interesting perspective for one blessed to get implants that work.
I understand totally where you’re coming from in that some in the Deaf community have been totally moonbatic for a good generation now — to the detriment of Deaf education and advancement as a whole.
Keep on bloggin’
Comment by Andy — 02.20.05 @ 1:04 pm
Descending upon Wikipedia and accusing us of having a political agenda in a routine deletion discussion will accomplish nothing. Wikipedia is not part of the “liberal media elite” and Barber’s politics are irrelevant to us. What matters is how famous, noteworthy, and notable Barber is. Presenting evidence to that effect will sway people to vote to keep the article. Yelling at them, general rudeness, and unfounded accusations of bias accomplish nothing.
Comment by Gamaliel — 02.20.05 @ 1:52 pm
Andy: PS, another reason for copying your text and perhaps a screenshot, someone keeps going in the vote section and deleted the “keep†votes.
:
…Could you please refer me to the section of the rules that states anon/sock puppets can’t vote? I voted once to keep La Sahwn, came back to find it deleted. Is that kosher to delete votes you don’t like?
Easier than messing around with screenshots is to go to the Page History, and click on the version that interests you–or the “last” link, which shows the difference between that and the previous version. Then save the URL, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/… .
When someone vandalizes a page, the easiest way to fix it is to go to the last version before the vandalism, click Edit This Page, ignore the “You are editing an out-of-date version” warning, write something like “revert” in the Edit Summary box, and save it. Presto–the objectionable changes are gone.
I don’t know offhand what the rule about annonymous people not voting says, but it seems reasonable. Real Life elections have such rules, requiring would-be voters to be registered. The intent is to prevent voter fraud by stuffing the ballot box. Registering as a user costs nothing and requires no personal information.
Comment by Bill Woods — 02.20.05 @ 2:19 pm
I find it slightly amusing that an effort was made to delete LaShawn yet C list actress, “commedienne”, liberal ‘pundit’ Janeane Garofalo has a glowing entry.
Comment by Rob — 02.20.05 @ 2:22 pm
I find it slightly amusing that the effort to remove Ms Barber’s name from Wikipedia is being denounced as a liberal vendetta when it was Ms Barber herself at the beginning of the post who expressed the wish that she not be included in Wikipedia’s pages.
For what it’s worth, I think her name and a factual neutral entry about her needs to be there because she’s a public persona. How sad that even something as trivial as an encyclopedia entry can become politicized on the internet.
Comment by Bucky Rea — 02.20.05 @ 2:56 pm
Bill Woods, thanks for the info.
After poking around, I rather think Wiki as the first of its kind will go the way of Alta Vista or some other has been.
The major flaw with Wiki is that it’s subjective rather than objective. Either the geek gatekeepers will reform or they’ll get eaten for breakfast by the next “Google”.
Comment by Andy — 02.20.05 @ 3:01 pm
Bucky, the delete effort started way before La Shawn expressed her wish. The initiator made no bones about being a communist and was rather condescending.
Like I said, it’s all subjective. Although the “graveyard shift” started it, seems like other, more mature, wikipediaists tended to be constructive critics rather than dismissive, even taking the goons to task.
Comment by Andy — 02.20.05 @ 3:07 pm
At the top of the Votes for Deletion page, it states: “Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith.” In a case like this one they will almost certainly be discounted, because traditionally votes originating from a “call to arms” like the one posted here are almost always tossed out.
Comment by Gamaliel — 02.20.05 @ 3:23 pm
I came to California in 1936.
Am I a Missourian American,
or a Missourian Californian?
Or just another old fart?
Comment by Walter E. Wallis — 02.20.05 @ 3:51 pm
If the Wikipedia “community” votes to delete La Shawn, it will only serve to discredit Wikipedia. Let ‘em delete.
Comment by Scott Ferguson — 02.20.05 @ 4:10 pm
Scott,
As Andy points out above, the people saying they don’t want Ms Barber included are “widdle adolescent anarchists” easily outvoted by the grown ups who keep up on things Wiki. Your perception that there’s a wiki “community” out there voting “to delete La Shawn” is ill-informed (I’m being nice and not saying “delusional”, so be nice to me.)
Comment by Bucky Rea — 02.20.05 @ 4:51 pm
You should see Negroponte’s Wikipedia gathering commentaries seen here:
“When President Bush announced Negroponte’s appointment to the UN shortly after coming to office, it was met with scattered protest. Some critics asserted that the administration intentionally arranged the deportation from the United States of several former Honduran death squad members who could have provided damaging testimony against Negroponte in his Senate confirmation hearings.
One of the deportees was General Luis Alonso Discua, founder of Battalion 3-16. In the preceding month, the U.S. government had revoked the visa of Discua, who was Honduras’s Deputy Ambassador to the UN. After returning to Honduras, Discua stated that, in 1983, he had been brought to the United States to spend two months organizing Battalion 3-16. [2]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Negroponte
Nothing but negative comments about Negroponte. Seems to be the Democrats’ latest new tool of choice to go after Republicans.
I’m sure more will be added to further discredit Negroponte’s February 17, 2005 naming as Director of National Intelligence.
Wickedpedia is more like it.
La Shawn…you getting this? Hmm…better blog this one myself.
Just did…!
http://kokonutpundits.blogspot.com/2005/02/wikipedia-how-about-wickedpedia.html
Thanks La Shawn!
Comment by Mike McConnell — 02.20.05 @ 5:12 pm
Did you see that ’some’ are trying to get you expunged for pigmentation apostasy?
Comment by DANEgerus — 02.20.05 @ 5:38 pm
I tried to insert myself into Wikipedia, and it was deleted twice. OK, it was a bit of a satire on the Instapundit entry therein, but I get the feeling that even if I cleaned it up some pesky nerd would come along and delete it.
OTOH, I added links to a few other entries, including one or two links to my blog, and they’ve been there for a month or two without being deleted. I also get almost no traffic off those links, so either people don’t care or those are obscure parts of the “encyclopedia.”
Comment by The Lonewacko Blog — 02.20.05 @ 6:19 pm
Congrats on the entry, LaShawn, I guess. It shows you rate in the big scheme if you get an entry. I agree with you about being in it, though. I don’t want to be in it either. My latest post says so, on my own blog.
My own opinion of Wikipedia as any sort of authoritative source is pretty low. Leave me out of it, and alone.
Comment by Lockjaw the Ogre — 02.20.05 @ 6:28 pm
I’m calling it “Wickedpedia” in my blogsite. Seems to be a firestorm brewing over Barber’s stay or ouster in Wikipedia’s “voting” process…ooooh, how democratic. Now, there’s a blogsite called “La Shawn Barber, Exposed” I’ve uncovered. Anonymous commenters are claiming this Wickedpedia thing is bigger than Rush Limbaugh in getting her ousted. Lotsa lucks to these folks.
Yep, leftist looney bins everywhere who’d like nothing better than to follow Howard Dean around.
Comment by Mike McConnell — 02.20.05 @ 6:33 pm
LA SHAWN, THERE YOU GO AGAIN!!!
Always generating a firestorm in your trailblazing. Why do you always have to leave moonbats fit to be tied and foaming at the mouth?
Comment by Andy — 02.20.05 @ 6:52 pm
Mike - Unfortunately, the “Exposed” site has existed for a while. I blogged about it a few months ago.
Comment by La Shawn — 02.20.05 @ 6:56 pm
Bucky Rae,
actually, the more I look at Wickedpedia, the more it looks like a microcosm of the democratic party. The grand noble experiment in objectivity is being hijacked by the subjective partisans who appear to hate “ads” and “vanity”.
Dare I say that the ones brandishing the “purity” stick are exercising a bit of vanity in weeding out the “non-notables”?
I guess we’ll see who wins the battle of Keep or Delete in a few days. Bwaahaha
Comment by Andy — 02.20.05 @ 7:02 pm
La Shawn,
Noted. It’s new to me. What’s not new is the moonbatiness in its current state of affairs among Liberals. Spring time is coming up soon…need to weed the undesirables.
Comment by Mike McConnell — 02.20.05 @ 7:12 pm
LOL, ya gotta love this gem;
“Delete. Her radical and wrong-headed opinions don’t deserve this kind of endorsement from us! We must not let her have even 5k of space on our glorious servers of the revolucion; we must not give her an outlet for her reactionary words! Vote for social justice, vote for deletion! Vanu 18:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(channeling Mork)
As you wish comrade, Vanu-Vanu.
Comment by Andy — 02.20.05 @ 7:58 pm
La Shawn, thanks for the blog comment on my blog. However, I wouldn’t exactly know how to contact regarding the deletion of your Wickedpedia page. Hmmm….did some quick checking….unfortunately seems like Jimmy Wales is the owner and has this comment:
Jimmy Wales - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jimmy Wales created this site and other Wiki products. He ownz your soul, along with Gates and Wal*Mart. You have been warned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales
Sounds like no such luck in getting him to recant on your behalf?
Comment by Mike McConnell — 02.20.05 @ 7:58 pm
One of the really whack things going on at that Wiki deletion vote page is that the bozo who started the whole kerfuffle, then went on to claim with a straight keyboard that he had absolutely no idea that LaShawn Barber was black or female.
Seems to me you’ve got to visit a blog at least once to get an opinion about it and seems to me that a picture in the upper left corner is worth a thousand words.
He’s been called on this a couple of times but can’t quite seem to get around to addressing the question.
Comment by Vanderleun — 02.20.05 @ 8:52 pm
LOL,
Up until just a little while ago, it’s been a two way discussion between Wickedpediaist and LSB supporters, however, seems like the liberals-who-hate-lashawn have caught wind and are coming in to vote Delete, however, they’re being tracked by the footwear sniffers
=============
# Delete. I don’t care if this La Shawn Barber discovered a cure for cancer. She has done nothing noteworthy at this time that makes her stand out from an average blogger. TimeH 01:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
* (User’s first edit. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC))
# Delete. From reading the article, she sounds like an ordinary writer. She has not accomplished anything that makes her noteworthy compared to any random professional writer. Sledgehammer 01:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
* (User’s first edit.) Dpbsmith (talk) 02:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
=================================
Seems like one of them came from our favorite counter-fan site.
Plus one of the wiki-elders has stepped in with this bit of exchange:
=================================
# Comment: Please note, the Blogosphere is beginning to take up discussion of an apparent WikiPedia editorial POV in all matters savoring of politics; this discussion, and especially the tone of a lot of it, cannot possibly help matters. Keep in mind, It is no more possible for WikiPedia than for anyone else, to be “a little bit pregnant.” CDJones 01:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
* And the Neo-Nazis are taking up discussing of our “apparent Wikipedian editorial POV.” The Communist Party of the United States probably thinks we’re biased, too. So, what’s your point? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
o I think I’ll rest that one on Godwin’s Law. CDJones 01:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
=============================
This is better than watching SeeBS on a winter storm’s evening.
Comment by Andy — 02.20.05 @ 9:28 pm
I stumbled into Wikipedia through a link. I read the La Shawn keep/delete wars entries and I felt like I was being sandblasted by geeks gone wild.
I am ignorant of the purpose of Wikipedia and I will proudly stay that way. If I ever feel the urge to go there again, I will just sit by the radio and listen to static instead.
Elmer Fudd ought to go over there and let them have it with both barrels.
Comment by Heliotrope — 02.20.05 @ 9:44 pm
Bucky Rae,
Aren’t you projecting just a wee bit?
Comment by Scott Ferguson — 02.20.05 @ 10:25 pm
Wiki is a mess. Always.
La Shawn’s tale is being picked up on other blogs.
Comment by Scott Konecky — 02.21.05 @ 1:54 am
Wikipediagate and La Shawn Barber
NEWDAVE.COM called it so he gets to run with Wikipediagate - An
Trackback by Common Sense Runs Wild — 02.21.05 @ 3:00 am
You got to meet Dr. Mike,
My my!
Comment by Jase Alston — 02.21.05 @ 3:14 am
In the midst of LaShawn Barber’s Wikipedia controversy, this gem
There’s a debate, of sorts, underway at Wikipedia over whether La Shawn Barber, one of the better bloggers on the right, is worth an entry. Wikipedia is a site (and a concept) that I like a lot, but it has
Trackback by The Radical Centrist — 02.21.05 @ 3:35 am
There may be some decent people at Wikipedia after all.
An anonymous and apparently powerful godling entered into the fray; and (in good taste) mauls “Rikk” and “Gamaliel” with an appeal to principle, The rhetoric is brilliant. Scroll down; comment appears before “01:48, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)”.
Comment by Scott Ferguson — 02.21.05 @ 7:59 am
Wikipedia seems to be “reasonably OK” when it comes to non-controversial topics, and slightly insane when it comes to controversial ones. Often after a while things settle down into some compromise that presents everyone’s point of view in a quasi-objective way. Possibly the Negroponte thing is one-sided because nobody on the right of US politics has been sufficiently interested to make a change. If it bothers you, maybe you should document some positive things about his career.
Comment by Sam — 02.21.05 @ 11:58 am
And therein lies the faulty concept of an “online encyclopedia”…whenever somebody uses the words “compromise,” “bothers you,” and “document positive things” in the same sentence about Wickedpedia, then there is certainly something seriously wrong with the whole Wickedpedia concept. This isn’t about “control.” This is about a runaway train heading for the cliffs. Better check out the “Vandalism” page on Wickedpedia’s site and you can see the problems first hand.
Comment by Mike McConnell — 02.21.05 @ 12:09 pm
Wikipediagate? Runaway train? Please. Note the number of ongoing deletion discussions - nothing exceptional is happening here. This stuff is old hat to us, we deal with it everyday. Just run of the mill coping with new users who think it’s “brilliant rhetoric” to accuse us of having a left-wing/right-wing/Nazi/communist/anti-just about everything agenda because they can’t understand or don’t bother to read the simple rules of our community.
Comment by Gamaliel — 02.21.05 @ 3:34 pm
Hello again Gamaliel, you’re a pretty prolific wikipediaist.
Wonder if you’ll still feel that all of your work invested into rickety-wikity was worth it all, when it gets dislocated by a real objective and notable encyclopedia? Looks like Jimbo owned your soul for his own widdle wiki-enterprise.
Comment by Andy — 02.21.05 @ 4:44 pm
I’ve used Wikipedia only occasionally, and mostly for convenience when I needed to have a quick definition on a topic. I hinestly had no idea about the inner workings of the thing and it ain’t pretty. Having seen the way the sausage is made over there, I can say definitively that they’ve diminished their utility in my eyes.
That LSB belongs in such a resource is a no-brainer.
Comment by MartiniPundit — 02.22.05 @ 12:57 pm
LOL, Wickedpedia (did I say Rickety-Wikity?) has now been down for over a day now with database corruption and lost files. IIRC, Ri-Wi said something like 120 GB, and to think one of the Deleters said LSB wasn’t worthy of 5Kb.
They finally manged to restore enough from archives to get into a read-only mode. It remains to be seen if they can recover everything up to the moment of the crash.
Wikis are not worthy before Queen La Shawn
Comment by Andy — 02.22.05 @ 4:23 pm
Wikipedia is as good as new with no losses. You know, Andy, wikis are pretty easy to start. Even the Star Trek geeks have their own wiki encyclopedia. So you can start up “a real objective and notable encyclopedia” of your own, if you are up to the task.
Comment by Gamaliel — 02.23.05 @ 1:59 am
That’s if I want to. It was fun while it lasted, taking a peek under the hood, but I’ve got more important things to do with my time. Thanks for the invite though.
Comment by Andy — 02.23.05 @ 2:52 am
Andy,
Unless I’ve gone completely bonkers, this:
“Delete. Her radical and wrong-headed opinions don’t deserve this kind of endorsement from us! We must not let her have even 5k of space on our glorious servers of the revolucion; we must not give her an outlet for her reactionary words! Vote for social justice, vote for deletion! Vanu 18:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
was not a serious post. Vanu wasn’t serious; he or she was mocking the purported political correctness of the Wickipedia folks by posting an exaggerated example of a Communist revolutionary arguments. You may find legitimate arguments against the delete crowd, but I don’t think this post is one of them.
Comment by UML Guy — 02.23.05 @ 4:22 am