Getting kicked off of Wikipedia for “not being notable”

God saw fit to infest wikipedia with idiots, but then again there ARE alot of idiots in the world.

Imagine if search engines deleted web sites because they weren’t notable. That would be lame.

This is lame too.

Wikipedia is run by a bunch of egotistical morons who take great delight in deleting pages people have spent a long time on. Their greatest achievement is stating that they don’t need to reply to reasoning on why a page shouldn’t be deleted. I congratulate that. I know many people who’ve tried wikipedia and then left because they were either called a “sock puppet”, told their article was not notable and a myriad of other trivial reasons. They gave up after that. It seems, to have an article accepted you need to make about 1000+ minor edits and then they’ll let you into their group of Wikipedians.

if Wikipedia took all criteria out, what would we be left with? – a google search. If someone wants to know about you, they’ll google you. I’ve edited at least three Wiki articles because they were just WRONG and was able to link to a “real” encyclopedia or the OED to prove it. Of what use will wiki be if it becomes even more unreliable? There’s enough misinformation presented by the media already and i am inclined to congratulate the wikipedians for having standards. Who’s project is it anyways? If you don’t like it – DON’T USE IT!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit

Glad to see they have an entry for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bullshit

Haha.

That’s why one has a user page over at Wikipedia.

I agree with comment #28 up there. It does also seem like folks have different views of the rules, especially with external links. While fansites for something like a television show aren’t allowed on certain pages, they are for others.

I gave up on them a long time ago. I run my own copy of Wikipedia (and DMOZ, another site with mucked up rules) and edit it to my hearts content.

Hey, I enjoy Fred’s blog… it’s interesting and he has great taste in music. But he’s not notable. Frankly, very few bloggers are… notorious, maybe, notable? Not so much.

“everyone should have a Wikipedia page”

At least some search engines could increase their index size in a truly manner. 6 billion docs is pretty good.

On this topic.. create at your will!

Wikipedia’s double standards.
Why don’t they just seek donations only from ‘notable’ people?

We can solve all the world problems if we do away with sarcasm and hypocrisy.

I once written an article about a topic in my blog and in the WIki page on that topic, on the external link, I included a link to my entry which was. Then it was removed by an editor who has no track record about that field. This is perhaps one of the reasons why Wikipedia has not become credible.

Consiser wikipedia as a resource for what it is — a simple resource NOT A DESTINATION like they would have us believe. There are better and more substantial places on the Net to be noted by. Personally, in my circles the wikepedia is one of the LAST places we refer or point others to for reference.

I think that the elitism and filtering itself is a more important cultural artifact than any particular entry, so for that reason alone it should trump individuals. And yes, Robert, you are much more notable than Fred (sorry, Fred). I’m as far from a geek as it is possible to get, but even I have heard of you. I never heard of Fred before I came across the controversy of him not being notable enough for Wikipedia.

I would certainly automatically disallow (if such a thing were possible) entries about people posted by themselves. If you cannot inspire or convince one person on Earth to write about you, you really don’t have any pull at all.

Recently I just finished my first book (by recent I mean yesterday) and I always went to wiki first. Not because its so accurate but because the quick synopsis it provides at times really is enough (imagine if you knew all the general info of wiki!!!) & they give AMAZING links to other sources that are garanteed to be what your looking for. Often those links have lead me to others and others etc.
At McGill University, I noticed that the porfessors there turn to the site a lot which suprised me. ESPECIALLY the science department. Saying that it was a great first step to gather the necessary vocab to properly serch the term elsewhere.
It’s a little lame that they would dump off Fred’s bio though. If their intention is to be information gatherers then they should be content with HAVING the information available. Once, I looked up Max Stern and was so suprised that they actually had something on the guy! That was the moment they got my loyalty – they’ll be losing some others for that. Sorry to hear it.

vgiovanna@gmail.com
brainwashcafe.blogspot.com

I hope they don’t delete Ze Frank.

http://engtech.wordpress.com/2006/12/05/on-wikipedia-blogging-and-the-anti-blog-bias/

what the hell?
get a life and stop complaing about being blocked from wiki, its really really sad that you care so much! and why the hell do you have a quote from the incredibles on this site? grow up and get a life! what is this ‘freds bio thing anyway? I think wikipedia is great so stop being such arseholes.

While I see your points, I’m going to have to go with Wikipedia on this one, because the whole “let’s give everyone a page” idea has been tried, and it’s called urbandictionary.com *shudder*

lol. Wikipedia. Even the goatse page has a Wikipedia page. lol again.

I am so glad he stayed.