http://www.thestandard.com/node/116822/comments comments feed. en A Catch 22 for Wikipedia: Should the Deletionpedia entry be deleted? http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/19/if-wikipedia-deletes-entry-deletionpedia-it-pedia-singularity <p> <p> </p> <p><img src="/sites/thestandard.com/files/u4993/Deletionpedia_logo.jpg" alt="Deletionpedia logo image" align="left" border="0" height="134" hspace="10" vspace="10" width="132" /><i>(Update) </i>Never ones to take humor and criticism lying down, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deletionpedia">Wikipedia editors have already put a new page up for deletion</a>: the one for Deletionpedia. The page in question, apparently created after <a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/17/deletionpedia-where-wikipedia-goes-die">our coverage here at <i>The Standard</i></a> hit Slashdot, was deemed by an editor as non-important or insignificant, the criteria for "speedy deletion."</p> <p>Aside from the personal slight given as reason for deletion (<a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/17/deletionpedia-where-wikipedia-goes-die">our front-page article about Deletionpedia</a> is only <i>"a minor mention in The Industry Standard, which was then picked up by Slashdot"</i>), it appears that the impetus for removal isn't so much due to insignificance (a site cataloguing nearly 64,000 pages deleted from Wikipedia seems to be a decent reference site as well as entertainment) as it is due to perceived criticism of Wikipedia itself.</p> <p>The <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/17/1933219">discussion at Slashdot</a> included a healthy percentage of criticism of "Deletionism" at Wikipedia, with many commenters suggesting that Deletionpedia reflects an overzealous desire of editors to delete the contributions of others. While the meta aspect of writing about the potential deletion of a Wikipedia page about a site containing deletions from Wikipedia surely isn't lost on those participating in the discussion, it seems the editors are caught in a Catch-22. If they do delete the entry at this point, are they not proving the Slashdot commenters right? Is a site like Deletionpedia important enough to warrant its own entry if for no other reason than to highlight the others who may follow the Wikipedia edit process and find it problematic?</p> <p>Update: The Wikipedia article has been saved:</p> <ul> <li><b><a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/22/slashdot-coverage-nets-deletionpedia-wikipedia-reprieve">Effort to delete Deletionpedia entry on Wikipedia fails</a></b></li> </ul> <p><b>More news, commentary, and predictions from <i>The Industry Standard</i>:</b></p> <ul> <li>Special Feature: <b><a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/05/29/where-are-they-now">Where are they now? <i>The Industry Standard</i> tracks down 10 dot-coms from the Web bubble of the late 1990s</a></b></li> </ul> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/19/if-wikipedia-deletes-entry-deletionpedia-it-pedia-singularity#comments co:Deletionpedia co:Wikimedia product:wikipedia Software & Web The Industry Standard Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:50:53 -0700 Cyndy Aleo-Carreira 116822 at http://www.thestandard.com A Catch 22 for Wikipedia: Should the Deletionpedia entry be deleted? http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/19/if-wikipedia-deletes-entry-deletionpedia-it-pedia-singularity <p> <p> </p> <p><img src="/sites/thestandard.com/files/u4993/Deletionpedia_logo.jpg" alt="Deletionpedia logo image" align="left" border="0" height="134" hspace="10" vspace="10" width="132" /><i>(Update) </i>Never ones to take humor and criticism lying down, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deletionpedia">Wikipedia editors have already put a new page up for deletion</a>: the one for Deletionpedia. The page in question, apparently created after <a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/17/deletionpedia-where-wikipedia-goes-die">our coverage here at <i>The Standard</i></a> hit Slashdot, was deemed by an editor as non-important or insignificant, the criteria for "speedy deletion."</p> <p>Aside from the personal slight given as reason for deletion (<a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/17/deletionpedia-where-wikipedia-goes-die">our front-page article about Deletionpedia</a> is only <i>"a minor mention in The Industry Standard, which was then picked up by Slashdot"</i>), it appears that the impetus for removal isn't so much due to insignificance (a site cataloguing nearly 64,000 pages deleted from Wikipedia seems to be a decent reference site as well as entertainment) as it is due to perceived criticism of Wikipedia itself.</p> <p>The <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/17/1933219">discussion at Slashdot</a> included a healthy percentage of criticism of "Deletionism" at Wikipedia, with many commenters suggesting that Deletionpedia reflects an overzealous desire of editors to delete the contributions of others. While the meta aspect of writing about the potential deletion of a Wikipedia page about a site containing deletions from Wikipedia surely isn't lost on those participating in the discussion, it seems the editors are caught in a Catch-22. If they do delete the entry at this point, are they not proving the Slashdot commenters right? Is a site like Deletionpedia important enough to warrant its own entry if for no other reason than to highlight the others who may follow the Wikipedia edit process and find it problematic?</p> <p>Update: The Wikipedia article has been saved:</p> <ul> <li><b><a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/22/slashdot-coverage-nets-deletionpedia-wikipedia-reprieve">Effort to delete Deletionpedia entry on Wikipedia fails</a></b></li> </ul> <p><b>More news, commentary, and predictions from <i>The Industry Standard</i>:</b></p> <ul> <li>Special Feature: <b><a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/05/29/where-are-they-now">Where are they now? <i>The Industry Standard</i> tracks down 10 dot-coms from the Web bubble of the late 1990s</a></b></li> </ul> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/19/if-wikipedia-deletes-entry-deletionpedia-it-pedia-singularity#comments co:Deletionpedia co:Wikimedia product:wikipedia Software & Web The Industry Standard Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:50:53 -0700 Cyndy Aleo-Carreira 116822 at http://www.thestandard.com A Catch 22 for Wikipedia: Should the Deletionpedia entry be deleted? http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/19/if-wikipedia-deletes-entry-deletionpedia-it-pedia-singularity <p> <p> </p> <p><img src="/sites/thestandard.com/files/u4993/Deletionpedia_logo.jpg" alt="Deletionpedia logo image" align="left" border="0" height="134" hspace="10" vspace="10" width="132" /><i>(Update) </i>Never ones to take humor and criticism lying down, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deletionpedia">Wikipedia editors have already put a new page up for deletion</a>: the one for Deletionpedia. The page in question, apparently created after <a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/17/deletionpedia-where-wikipedia-goes-die">our coverage here at <i>The Standard</i></a> hit Slashdot, was deemed by an editor as non-important or insignificant, the criteria for "speedy deletion."</p> <p>Aside from the personal slight given as reason for deletion (<a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/17/deletionpedia-where-wikipedia-goes-die">our front-page article about Deletionpedia</a> is only <i>"a minor mention in The Industry Standard, which was then picked up by Slashdot"</i>), it appears that the impetus for removal isn't so much due to insignificance (a site cataloguing nearly 64,000 pages deleted from Wikipedia seems to be a decent reference site as well as entertainment) as it is due to perceived criticism of Wikipedia itself.</p> <p>The <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/17/1933219">discussion at Slashdot</a> included a healthy percentage of criticism of "Deletionism" at Wikipedia, with many commenters suggesting that Deletionpedia reflects an overzealous desire of editors to delete the contributions of others. While the meta aspect of writing about the potential deletion of a Wikipedia page about a site containing deletions from Wikipedia surely isn't lost on those participating in the discussion, it seems the editors are caught in a Catch-22. If they do delete the entry at this point, are they not proving the Slashdot commenters right? Is a site like Deletionpedia important enough to warrant its own entry if for no other reason than to highlight the others who may follow the Wikipedia edit process and find it problematic?</p> <p>Update: The Wikipedia article has been saved:</p> <ul> <li><b><a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/22/slashdot-coverage-nets-deletionpedia-wikipedia-reprieve">Effort to delete Deletionpedia entry on Wikipedia fails</a></b></li> </ul> <p><b>More news, commentary, and predictions from <i>The Industry Standard</i>:</b></p> <ul> <li>Special Feature: <b><a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/05/29/where-are-they-now">Where are they now? <i>The Industry Standard</i> tracks down 10 dot-coms from the Web bubble of the late 1990s</a></b></li> </ul> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/19/if-wikipedia-deletes-entry-deletionpedia-it-pedia-singularity#comments co:Deletionpedia co:Wikimedia product:wikipedia Software & Web The Industry Standard Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:50:53 -0700 Cyndy Aleo-Carreira 116822 at http://www.thestandard.com A Catch 22 for Wikipedia: Should the Deletionpedia entry be deleted? http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/19/if-wikipedia-deletes-entry-deletionpedia-it-pedia-singularity <p> <p> </p> <p><img src="/sites/thestandard.com/files/u4993/Deletionpedia_logo.jpg" alt="Deletionpedia logo image" align="left" border="0" height="134" hspace="10" vspace="10" width="132" /><i>(Update) </i>Never ones to take humor and criticism lying down, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deletionpedia">Wikipedia editors have already put a new page up for deletion</a>: the one for Deletionpedia. The page in question, apparently created after <a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/17/deletionpedia-where-wikipedia-goes-die">our coverage here at <i>The Standard</i></a> hit Slashdot, was deemed by an editor as non-important or insignificant, the criteria for "speedy deletion."</p> <p>Aside from the personal slight given as reason for deletion (<a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/17/deletionpedia-where-wikipedia-goes-die">our front-page article about Deletionpedia</a> is only <i>"a minor mention in The Industry Standard, which was then picked up by Slashdot"</i>), it appears that the impetus for removal isn't so much due to insignificance (a site cataloguing nearly 64,000 pages deleted from Wikipedia seems to be a decent reference site as well as entertainment) as it is due to perceived criticism of Wikipedia itself.</p> <p>The <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/17/1933219">discussion at Slashdot</a> included a healthy percentage of criticism of "Deletionism" at Wikipedia, with many commenters suggesting that Deletionpedia reflects an overzealous desire of editors to delete the contributions of others. While the meta aspect of writing about the potential deletion of a Wikipedia page about a site containing deletions from Wikipedia surely isn't lost on those participating in the discussion, it seems the editors are caught in a Catch-22. If they do delete the entry at this point, are they not proving the Slashdot commenters right? Is a site like Deletionpedia important enough to warrant its own entry if for no other reason than to highlight the others who may follow the Wikipedia edit process and find it problematic?</p> <p>Update: The Wikipedia article has been saved:</p> <ul> <li><b><a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/22/slashdot-coverage-nets-deletionpedia-wikipedia-reprieve">Effort to delete Deletionpedia entry on Wikipedia fails</a></b></li> </ul> <p><b>More news, commentary, and predictions from <i>The Industry Standard</i>:</b></p> <ul> <li>Special Feature: <b><a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/05/29/where-are-they-now">Where are they now? <i>The Industry Standard</i> tracks down 10 dot-coms from the Web bubble of the late 1990s</a></b></li> </ul> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/19/if-wikipedia-deletes-entry-deletionpedia-it-pedia-singularity#comments co:Deletionpedia co:Wikimedia product:wikipedia Software & Web The Industry Standard Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:50:53 -0700 Cyndy Aleo-Carreira 116822 at http://www.thestandard.com A Catch 22 for Wikipedia: Should the Deletionpedia entry be deleted? http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/19/if-wikipedia-deletes-entry-deletionpedia-it-pedia-singularity <p> <p> </p> <p><img src="/sites/thestandard.com/files/u4993/Deletionpedia_logo.jpg" alt="Deletionpedia logo image" align="left" border="0" height="134" hspace="10" vspace="10" width="132" /><i>(Update) </i>Never ones to take humor and criticism lying down, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deletionpedia">Wikipedia editors have already put a new page up for deletion</a>: the one for Deletionpedia. The page in question, apparently created after <a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/17/deletionpedia-where-wikipedia-goes-die">our coverage here at <i>The Standard</i></a> hit Slashdot, was deemed by an editor as non-important or insignificant, the criteria for "speedy deletion."</p> <p>Aside from the personal slight given as reason for deletion (<a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/17/deletionpedia-where-wikipedia-goes-die">our front-page article about Deletionpedia</a> is only <i>"a minor mention in The Industry Standard, which was then picked up by Slashdot"</i>), it appears that the impetus for removal isn't so much due to insignificance (a site cataloguing nearly 64,000 pages deleted from Wikipedia seems to be a decent reference site as well as entertainment) as it is due to perceived criticism of Wikipedia itself.</p> <p>The <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/17/1933219">discussion at Slashdot</a> included a healthy percentage of criticism of "Deletionism" at Wikipedia, with many commenters suggesting that Deletionpedia reflects an overzealous desire of editors to delete the contributions of others. While the meta aspect of writing about the potential deletion of a Wikipedia page about a site containing deletions from Wikipedia surely isn't lost on those participating in the discussion, it seems the editors are caught in a Catch-22. If they do delete the entry at this point, are they not proving the Slashdot commenters right? Is a site like Deletionpedia important enough to warrant its own entry if for no other reason than to highlight the others who may follow the Wikipedia edit process and find it problematic?</p> <p>Update: The Wikipedia article has been saved:</p> <ul> <li><b><a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/22/slashdot-coverage-nets-deletionpedia-wikipedia-reprieve">Effort to delete Deletionpedia entry on Wikipedia fails</a></b></li> </ul> <p><b>More news, commentary, and predictions from <i>The Industry Standard</i>:</b></p> <ul> <li>Special Feature: <b><a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/05/29/where-are-they-now">Where are they now? <i>The Industry Standard</i> tracks down 10 dot-coms from the Web bubble of the late 1990s</a></b></li> </ul> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/19/if-wikipedia-deletes-entry-deletionpedia-it-pedia-singularity#comments co:Deletionpedia co:Wikimedia product:wikipedia Software & Web The Industry Standard Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:50:53 -0700 Cyndy Aleo-Carreira 116822 at http://www.thestandard.com A Catch 22 for Wikipedia: Should the Deletionpedia entry be deleted? http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/19/if-wikipedia-deletes-entry-deletionpedia-it-pedia-singularity <p> <p> </p> <p><img src="/sites/thestandard.com/files/u4993/Deletionpedia_logo.jpg" alt="Deletionpedia logo image" align="left" border="0" height="134" hspace="10" vspace="10" width="132" /><i>(Update) </i>Never ones to take humor and criticism lying down, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deletionpedia">Wikipedia editors have already put a new page up for deletion</a>: the one for Deletionpedia. The page in question, apparently created after <a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/17/deletionpedia-where-wikipedia-goes-die">our coverage here at <i>The Standard</i></a> hit Slashdot, was deemed by an editor as non-important or insignificant, the criteria for "speedy deletion."</p> <p>Aside from the personal slight given as reason for deletion (<a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/17/deletionpedia-where-wikipedia-goes-die">our front-page article about Deletionpedia</a> is only <i>"a minor mention in The Industry Standard, which was then picked up by Slashdot"</i>), it appears that the impetus for removal isn't so much due to insignificance (a site cataloguing nearly 64,000 pages deleted from Wikipedia seems to be a decent reference site as well as entertainment) as it is due to perceived criticism of Wikipedia itself.</p> <p>The <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/17/1933219">discussion at Slashdot</a> included a healthy percentage of criticism of "Deletionism" at Wikipedia, with many commenters suggesting that Deletionpedia reflects an overzealous desire of editors to delete the contributions of others. While the meta aspect of writing about the potential deletion of a Wikipedia page about a site containing deletions from Wikipedia surely isn't lost on those participating in the discussion, it seems the editors are caught in a Catch-22. If they do delete the entry at this point, are they not proving the Slashdot commenters right? Is a site like Deletionpedia important enough to warrant its own entry if for no other reason than to highlight the others who may follow the Wikipedia edit process and find it problematic?</p> <p>Update: The Wikipedia article has been saved:</p> <ul> <li><b><a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/22/slashdot-coverage-nets-deletionpedia-wikipedia-reprieve">Effort to delete Deletionpedia entry on Wikipedia fails</a></b></li> </ul> <p><b>More news, commentary, and predictions from <i>The Industry Standard</i>:</b></p> <ul> <li>Special Feature: <b><a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/05/29/where-are-they-now">Where are they now? <i>The Industry Standard</i> tracks down 10 dot-coms from the Web bubble of the late 1990s</a></b></li> </ul> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/19/if-wikipedia-deletes-entry-deletionpedia-it-pedia-singularity#comments co:Deletionpedia co:Wikimedia product:wikipedia Software & Web The Industry Standard Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:50:53 -0700 Cyndy Aleo-Carreira 116822 at http://www.thestandard.com A Catch 22 for Wikipedia: Should the Deletionpedia entry be deleted? http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/19/if-wikipedia-deletes-entry-deletionpedia-it-pedia-singularity <p> <p> </p> <p><img src="/sites/thestandard.com/files/u4993/Deletionpedia_logo.jpg" alt="Deletionpedia logo image" align="left" border="0" height="134" hspace="10" vspace="10" width="132" /><i>(Update) </i>Never ones to take humor and criticism lying down, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deletionpedia">Wikipedia editors have already put a new page up for deletion</a>: the one for Deletionpedia. The page in question, apparently created after <a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/17/deletionpedia-where-wikipedia-goes-die">our coverage here at <i>The Standard</i></a> hit Slashdot, was deemed by an editor as non-important or insignificant, the criteria for "speedy deletion."</p> <p>Aside from the personal slight given as reason for deletion (<a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/17/deletionpedia-where-wikipedia-goes-die">our front-page article about Deletionpedia</a> is only <i>"a minor mention in The Industry Standard, which was then picked up by Slashdot"</i>), it appears that the impetus for removal isn't so much due to insignificance (a site cataloguing nearly 64,000 pages deleted from Wikipedia seems to be a decent reference site as well as entertainment) as it is due to perceived criticism of Wikipedia itself.</p> <p>The <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/17/1933219">discussion at Slashdot</a> included a healthy percentage of criticism of "Deletionism" at Wikipedia, with many commenters suggesting that Deletionpedia reflects an overzealous desire of editors to delete the contributions of others. While the meta aspect of writing about the potential deletion of a Wikipedia page about a site containing deletions from Wikipedia surely isn't lost on those participating in the discussion, it seems the editors are caught in a Catch-22. If they do delete the entry at this point, are they not proving the Slashdot commenters right? Is a site like Deletionpedia important enough to warrant its own entry if for no other reason than to highlight the others who may follow the Wikipedia edit process and find it problematic?</p> <p>Update: The Wikipedia article has been saved:</p> <ul> <li><b><a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/22/slashdot-coverage-nets-deletionpedia-wikipedia-reprieve">Effort to delete Deletionpedia entry on Wikipedia fails</a></b></li> </ul> <p><b>More news, commentary, and predictions from <i>The Industry Standard</i>:</b></p> <ul> <li>Special Feature: <b><a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/05/29/where-are-they-now">Where are they now? <i>The Industry Standard</i> tracks down 10 dot-coms from the Web bubble of the late 1990s</a></b></li> </ul> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/19/if-wikipedia-deletes-entry-deletionpedia-it-pedia-singularity#comments co:Deletionpedia co:Wikimedia product:wikipedia Software & Web The Industry Standard Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:50:53 -0700 Cyndy Aleo-Carreira 116822 at http://www.thestandard.com A Catch 22 for Wikipedia: Should the Deletionpedia entry be deleted? http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/19/if-wikipedia-deletes-entry-deletionpedia-it-pedia-singularity <p> <p> </p> <p><img src="/sites/thestandard.com/files/u4993/Deletionpedia_logo.jpg" alt="Deletionpedia logo image" align="left" border="0" height="134" hspace="10" vspace="10" width="132" /><i>(Update) </i>Never ones to take humor and criticism lying down, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deletionpedia">Wikipedia editors have already put a new page up for deletion</a>: the one for Deletionpedia. The page in question, apparently created after <a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/17/deletionpedia-where-wikipedia-goes-die">our coverage here at <i>The Standard</i></a> hit Slashdot, was deemed by an editor as non-important or insignificant, the criteria for "speedy deletion."</p> <p>Aside from the personal slight given as reason for deletion (<a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/17/deletionpedia-where-wikipedia-goes-die">our front-page article about Deletionpedia</a> is only <i>"a minor mention in The Industry Standard, which was then picked up by Slashdot"</i>), it appears that the impetus for removal isn't so much due to insignificance (a site cataloguing nearly 64,000 pages deleted from Wikipedia seems to be a decent reference site as well as entertainment) as it is due to perceived criticism of Wikipedia itself.</p> <p>The <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/17/1933219">discussion at Slashdot</a> included a healthy percentage of criticism of "Deletionism" at Wikipedia, with many commenters suggesting that Deletionpedia reflects an overzealous desire of editors to delete the contributions of others. While the meta aspect of writing about the potential deletion of a Wikipedia page about a site containing deletions from Wikipedia surely isn't lost on those participating in the discussion, it seems the editors are caught in a Catch-22. If they do delete the entry at this point, are they not proving the Slashdot commenters right? Is a site like Deletionpedia important enough to warrant its own entry if for no other reason than to highlight the others who may follow the Wikipedia edit process and find it problematic?</p> <p>Update: The Wikipedia article has been saved:</p> <ul> <li><b><a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/22/slashdot-coverage-nets-deletionpedia-wikipedia-reprieve">Effort to delete Deletionpedia entry on Wikipedia fails</a></b></li> </ul> <p><b>More news, commentary, and predictions from <i>The Industry Standard</i>:</b></p> <ul> <li>Special Feature: <b><a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/05/29/where-are-they-now">Where are they now? <i>The Industry Standard</i> tracks down 10 dot-coms from the Web bubble of the late 1990s</a></b></li> </ul> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/19/if-wikipedia-deletes-entry-deletionpedia-it-pedia-singularity#comments co:Deletionpedia co:Wikimedia product:wikipedia Software & Web The Industry Standard Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:50:53 -0700 Cyndy Aleo-Carreira 116822 at http://www.thestandard.com A Catch 22 for Wikipedia: Should the Deletionpedia entry be deleted? http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/19/if-wikipedia-deletes-entry-deletionpedia-it-pedia-singularity <p> <p> </p> <p><img src="/sites/thestandard.com/files/u4993/Deletionpedia_logo.jpg" alt="Deletionpedia logo image" align="left" border="0" height="134" hspace="10" vspace="10" width="132" /><i>(Update) </i>Never ones to take humor and criticism lying down, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deletionpedia">Wikipedia editors have already put a new page up for deletion</a>: the one for Deletionpedia. The page in question, apparently created after <a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/17/deletionpedia-where-wikipedia-goes-die">our coverage here at <i>The Standard</i></a> hit Slashdot, was deemed by an editor as non-important or insignificant, the criteria for "speedy deletion."</p> <p>Aside from the personal slight given as reason for deletion (<a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/17/deletionpedia-where-wikipedia-goes-die">our front-page article about Deletionpedia</a> is only <i>"a minor mention in The Industry Standard, which was then picked up by Slashdot"</i>), it appears that the impetus for removal isn't so much due to insignificance (a site cataloguing nearly 64,000 pages deleted from Wikipedia seems to be a decent reference site as well as entertainment) as it is due to perceived criticism of Wikipedia itself.</p> <p>The <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/17/1933219">discussion at Slashdot</a> included a healthy percentage of criticism of "Deletionism" at Wikipedia, with many commenters suggesting that Deletionpedia reflects an overzealous desire of editors to delete the contributions of others. While the meta aspect of writing about the potential deletion of a Wikipedia page about a site containing deletions from Wikipedia surely isn't lost on those participating in the discussion, it seems the editors are caught in a Catch-22. If they do delete the entry at this point, are they not proving the Slashdot commenters right? Is a site like Deletionpedia important enough to warrant its own entry if for no other reason than to highlight the others who may follow the Wikipedia edit process and find it problematic?</p> <p>Update: The Wikipedia article has been saved:</p> <ul> <li><b><a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/22/slashdot-coverage-nets-deletionpedia-wikipedia-reprieve">Effort to delete Deletionpedia entry on Wikipedia fails</a></b></li> </ul> <p><b>More news, commentary, and predictions from <i>The Industry Standard</i>:</b></p> <ul> <li>Special Feature: <b><a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/05/29/where-are-they-now">Where are they now? <i>The Industry Standard</i> tracks down 10 dot-coms from the Web bubble of the late 1990s</a></b></li> </ul> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/19/if-wikipedia-deletes-entry-deletionpedia-it-pedia-singularity#comments co:Deletionpedia co:Wikimedia product:wikipedia Software & Web The Industry Standard Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:50:53 -0700 Cyndy Aleo-Carreira 116822 at http://www.thestandard.com A Catch 22 for Wikipedia: Should the Deletionpedia entry be deleted? http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/19/if-wikipedia-deletes-entry-deletionpedia-it-pedia-singularity <p> <p> </p> <p><img src="/sites/thestandard.com/files/u4993/Deletionpedia_logo.jpg" alt="Deletionpedia logo image" align="left" border="0" height="134" hspace="10" vspace="10" width="132" /><i>(Update) </i>Never ones to take humor and criticism lying down, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deletionpedia">Wikipedia editors have already put a new page up for deletion</a>: the one for Deletionpedia. The page in question, apparently created after <a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/17/deletionpedia-where-wikipedia-goes-die">our coverage here at <i>The Standard</i></a> hit Slashdot, was deemed by an editor as non-important or insignificant, the criteria for "speedy deletion."</p> <p>Aside from the personal slight given as reason for deletion (<a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/17/deletionpedia-where-wikipedia-goes-die">our front-page article about Deletionpedia</a> is only <i>"a minor mention in The Industry Standard, which was then picked up by Slashdot"</i>), it appears that the impetus for removal isn't so much due to insignificance (a site cataloguing nearly 64,000 pages deleted from Wikipedia seems to be a decent reference site as well as entertainment) as it is due to perceived criticism of Wikipedia itself.</p> <p>The <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/17/1933219">discussion at Slashdot</a> included a healthy percentage of criticism of "Deletionism" at Wikipedia, with many commenters suggesting that Deletionpedia reflects an overzealous desire of editors to delete the contributions of others. While the meta aspect of writing about the potential deletion of a Wikipedia page about a site containing deletions from Wikipedia surely isn't lost on those participating in the discussion, it seems the editors are caught in a Catch-22. If they do delete the entry at this point, are they not proving the Slashdot commenters right? Is a site like Deletionpedia important enough to warrant its own entry if for no other reason than to highlight the others who may follow the Wikipedia edit process and find it problematic?</p> <p>Update: The Wikipedia article has been saved:</p> <ul> <li><b><a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/22/slashdot-coverage-nets-deletionpedia-wikipedia-reprieve">Effort to delete Deletionpedia entry on Wikipedia fails</a></b></li> </ul> <p><b>More news, commentary, and predictions from <i>The Industry Standard</i>:</b></p> <ul> <li>Special Feature: <b><a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/05/29/where-are-they-now">Where are they now? <i>The Industry Standard</i> tracks down 10 dot-coms from the Web bubble of the late 1990s</a></b></li> </ul> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/19/if-wikipedia-deletes-entry-deletionpedia-it-pedia-singularity#comments co:Deletionpedia co:Wikimedia product:wikipedia Software & Web The Industry Standard Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:50:53 -0700 Cyndy Aleo-Carreira 116822 at http://www.thestandard.com A Catch 22 for Wikipedia: Should the Deletionpedia entry be deleted? http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/19/if-wikipedia-deletes-entry-deletionpedia-it-pedia-singularity <p> <p> </p> <p><img src="/sites/thestandard.com/files/u4993/Deletionpedia_logo.jpg" alt="Deletionpedia logo image" align="left" border="0" height="134" hspace="10" vspace="10" width="132" /><i>(Update) </i>Never ones to take humor and criticism lying down, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deletionpedia">Wikipedia editors have already put a new page up for deletion</a>: the one for Deletionpedia. The page in question, apparently created after <a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/17/deletionpedia-where-wikipedia-goes-die">our coverage here at <i>The Standard</i></a> hit Slashdot, was deemed by an editor as non-important or insignificant, the criteria for "speedy deletion."</p> <p>Aside from the personal slight given as reason for deletion (<a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/17/deletionpedia-where-wikipedia-goes-die">our front-page article about Deletionpedia</a> is only <i>"a minor mention in The Industry Standard, which was then picked up by Slashdot"</i>), it appears that the impetus for removal isn't so much due to insignificance (a site cataloguing nearly 64,000 pages deleted from Wikipedia seems to be a decent reference site as well as entertainment) as it is due to perceived criticism of Wikipedia itself.</p> <p>The <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/17/1933219">discussion at Slashdot</a> included a healthy percentage of criticism of "Deletionism" at Wikipedia, with many commenters suggesting that Deletionpedia reflects an overzealous desire of editors to delete the contributions of others. While the meta aspect of writing about the potential deletion of a Wikipedia page about a site containing deletions from Wikipedia surely isn't lost on those participating in the discussion, it seems the editors are caught in a Catch-22. If they do delete the entry at this point, are they not proving the Slashdot commenters right? Is a site like Deletionpedia important enough to warrant its own entry if for no other reason than to highlight the others who may follow the Wikipedia edit process and find it problematic?</p> <p>Update: The Wikipedia article has been saved:</p> <ul> <li><b><a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/22/slashdot-coverage-nets-deletionpedia-wikipedia-reprieve">Effort to delete Deletionpedia entry on Wikipedia fails</a></b></li> </ul> <p><b>More news, commentary, and predictions from <i>The Industry Standard</i>:</b></p> <ul> <li>Special Feature: <b><a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/05/29/where-are-they-now">Where are they now? <i>The Industry Standard</i> tracks down 10 dot-coms from the Web bubble of the late 1990s</a></b></li> </ul> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/19/if-wikipedia-deletes-entry-deletionpedia-it-pedia-singularity#comments co:Deletionpedia co:Wikimedia product:wikipedia Software & Web The Industry Standard Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:50:53 -0700 Cyndy Aleo-Carreira 116822 at http://www.thestandard.com