Meanwhile, Wikipedia is filled with entries for baseball players from over 100 years ago who did little more than get a single at-bat, struck out, went back to the minors, and did nothing else notable.
Or some politician in Turkey or Brazil who held a very minor elected office for a year or two in the 1950s and did nothing else notable.
Meanwhile, Wikipedia is filled with entries for baseball players from over 100 years ago who did little more than get a single at-bat, struck out, went back to the minors, and did nothing else notable.
Or some politician in Turkey or Brazil who held a very minor elected office for a year or two in the 1950s and did nothing else notable.
Or some horse who placed 12th in a minor race decades ago and spent the rest of his life as a stud of similar caliber race horses.
Why are you interested in the deaths of "baseball players from over 100 years ago" and "[insignificant politician[s] in Turkey or Brazil"?
On a more serious note: Jimmy Wales has no direct control over the contents of Wikipedia. Sure the system has it's flaws, but all in all it solves a very difficult problem in a kinda-democratic way which works out most of the time. IMHO the usability mentioned in the post is one of the smallest flaws of the system as it is consistent with the way editors use Wikipedia normally and the quoted page simply guides an unfamiliar user through the steps necessary to discuss a deletion. They could implement a form to that but what about the dozens of other actions a user might want to do (e.g. contest the validity of a source/a statement with contradicting sources/a biased formulation etc.).
Meanwhile, Wikipedia is filled with entries for baseball players from over 100 years ago who did little more than get a single at-bat, struck out, went back to the minors, and did nothing else notable.
Or some politician in Turkey or Brazil who held a very minor elected office for a year or two in the 1950s and did nothing else notable.
Or some horse who placed 12th in a minor race decades ago and spent the rest of his life as a stud of similar caliber race horses.
Jimmy Wales has a lot to answer for.
Indeed he does. Have a google of (Jimmy Wales and) Philip Cross, for more conspicuous Wikipedia shenanigans.
You are being trolled by logic because your logic is invalid.
Being good at things does not make you noteable. Doing lots of work does not make you noteable. Being a good person doesn't make you noteable
I could care less.
The only thing I use Wikipedia for is checking on who died.
It's funny to see who or what they think is notable.
Why are you interested in the deaths of "baseball players from over 100 years ago" and "[insignificant politician[s] in Turkey or Brazil"?
On a more serious note: Jimmy Wales has no direct control over the contents of Wikipedia. Sure the system has it's flaws, but all in all it solves a very difficult problem in a kinda-democratic way which works out most of the time. IMHO the usability mentioned in the post is one of the smallest flaws of the system as it is consistent with the way editors use Wikipedia normally and the quoted page simply guides an unfamiliar user through the steps necessary to discuss a deletion. They could implement a form to that but what about the dozens of other actions a user might want to do (e.g. contest the validity of a source/a statement with contradicting sources/a biased formulation etc.).
Yawn