All material on Wikipedia is free. It can be reused anywhere, legally so long as attribution (credit) is given, noting its source.
This is just as well, because all material on Wikipedia is also derivative (or in breach of Wikipedia rules). There is no information on Wikipedia that cannot be found elsewhere, in accordance with the Original Research rule.
Because people with free time have more time to contribute to Wikipedia, edits there are a war between the Idle Rich and the Unemployed. The Idle Rich are winning. They are better educated, and more likely to be certain that they are right. Also, they have been promoting their worldview through scholars, for millenia.
Weasel tells the truth by leaving out all falsehood. If you find that vague, that is your problem
- Consider whether the original article was the POV of the FORK
- "Neurotics build castles in the sky. Psychotics live in them. Capitalists float a futures market on the expected returns of rent from them"
N = truth Edit
- The product of N itself is empirically observable, all things working properly
- The value of N on the other hand, is truth by another name
- This mental legerdemain escapes comment if not notice or comprehension
- If it isn't in Wikipedia:WP:DELETION, why is it at AfD?
Where do I start? For one thing, the etymology of the name GAMECRUFT is about useless things left behind, while the rule itself is about useful things being removed. Useful things do not necessarily belong on WP. And yet some useful things do remain on Wikipedia. Well, I must say I am relieved. And why are other things removed? Gamecruft. It is a circular logic, or it would be better called smearing.
You can talk about N until doomsday. It does not describe the nature of the content put into WP. All WP articles that do not concern Mathematics or Logic have a nature of value judgements. Thus, the fight is between those who agree with the content, and those who do not. All arguments about the nature of content are essentially value judgements other than a hazy collection of ideas users have about what an online encyclopedia is for. USEFUL aims right at this one remaining consensus. Therefore it can taint any argument, no matter how cogent, with a deadly poison...Wikipedia is entirely composed of material that:
- Does not conflict with N
- Has not been deleted, or is protected, by a cabal
- Has more editors supporting it than against it
This is how it goes
- Nomination for AfD: This is Gamecruft
- Nomination is Wikipedia:WP:VAGUEWAVE, it is an integral part of the game, the summary of the game would not be complete without it, and therefore its usefulness cannot be denied.
- Wikipedia:WP:USEFUL, ignore VAGUEWAVE
- Agree, CRUFT and USEFUL
- What he said
- But, WP:VAGUE and WP:VOTE
Closer ignores VAGUE and VOTE and deletes
N is singled out here, because all other rules are derived from it. The subjective nature of inclusion becomes even more obvious at this point. All of the other rules are a SUBJECTIVE TREATMENT OF N.
Consensus building for dummies -- Wikipedia:User:Anarchangel/Sandbox/Consensus building
- Consensus isn't everything, if you can get everyone to agree with that.
- The absence of evidence does not equal the evidence of absence, unless after evidence has been refuted as a Wikipedia:negative proof, those who presented it absent themselves from the discussion when it comes time to collect their concessions.
Handful of Needles
- The bare bones of a folk tale told in many versions in the East, the West, and the New World (before Europeans):
- The two girls are given a handful of needles by their mother to protect them from witches. They throw the needles, and the witch is forced to count them all before continuing what has become a fruitless search.
- A cautionary tale for all witches, or people facing a witch hunt or witch trial.Burn the Witch! If you can nail down all the needles (let's call them arguments, for argument's sake) it may be worthwhile. But know when you are up against a needle manufacturer.
- Archaeologists announced Tuesday, after recently getting enough funding for a consultation with media experts who agreed that Tuesday would be a slow news cycle, that they had discovered the Lost Tablets of Hammurabi, with the first drafts of his Codes. Not included in the final draft was a rule that if a village needed more houses, it should be burned down, and the plans destroyed. According to the rule, prefaced with the Babylonian characters for A, f, and D, someone else would theoretically come along and build more houses.
Wikipedia:WP:OR is simply an Wikipedia:ad hominem version of Wikipedia:WP:RS; one cannot assert that an editor is making something up without violating AGF. And the reason for AGF? It prevents mistakes: there is no way of telling the difference between something created out of thin air and something for which no sources can be found. Far better to ignore the term OR altogether and just say it is unsourced and therefore fails RS
Wikipedia:WP:AGF is not a contest to see whose heart beats the most pure, but a way to look at another editor's actions to see what you actually know about them and what you are only assuming. Anarchangel (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
All observations are based, at best, on inductive reasoning, and are therefore assumptions. All human systems are based, at best, on these shared assumptions. This is of practical use to any who seek to improve a system; more accurate assumptions lead to a better system.Anarchangel (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
This User is an Wikipedia:Oxonian, in the right and proper sense of someone who lives or used to live or intends to live in Wikipedia:Oxford, England, with the subtext that is implied by that name, namely, drank or intends to drink much Guinness there while seeing as many live music performances within a 300 mile radius of Oxford as possible. Merely attending University there is obviously trivial and probably irrelevant. And of course it goes without saying that this refers to the real Oxford and you can just plain forget those other Oxfords.
This is and/or will be the User's Real Life & everything else, including writing this sentence, is purely prologue, denouement, or something exactly like those things except that it happens in the middle of the story.
and other Convert values
How many bytes does an edit take up? Edit
Q: Why is 3RR an instantly blockable offense?
A: The largest amount of storage is Revisions
Q: Then why are so many people so keen on deleting the whole or parts of articles, when their discussions to do so take up more storage than the articles ever will?
A: Most people do not know that the largest amount of storage is Revisions. In fact, most go to great lengths to deny the possibility.
Village Pump: Technical =Edit
Anarchangel Q: "How many bytes does an edit take up?" Midom A: ~20K
I would like to get an idea of the relative importance of deleting articles as compared to bot activity. I very much get the impression that if not the rules of WP so much, then most definitely editors' application of the rules, in places like AfD and Speedy, are driven at least in part by the desire to keep clutter out of WP to save space.
Yet, here is a bot history with five thousand edits in four days. That's not an increase in bytes in terms of the pages, but I am a little concerned about the room that the page history takes up. I am quite sure it is a very small amount each time, but five thousand? How many bytes does it take to store the page history? Even if it was one byte, that is max article size (100k per Wikipedia:WP:SPLIT) in twenty days; 18.25 articles per year. Anarchangel (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- If I am not mistaken, you are confusing RAM with hard drive storage. Anarchangel (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- If I am not mistaken, you are confusing "don't worry about performance" with "worry about performance." :P
All kidding aside, there's no point in fretting about how much hard drive space discussion takes up. Most AfDs are, as you say, to keep clutter out of Wikipedia. But this is for editorial reasons, not because of hard drive space; we delete the bad pages because they don't live up to our quality levels in some fashion (chief reason being that the subject isn't notable enough to warrant inclusion), not because we have a finite amount of space and we need to keep a few extra megabytes clear for better articles. Deleted pages still exist within the system, so deleting pages doesn't free up space at all. We don't need to limit bots because they make five thousand edits in four days, either. If those five thousand edits help to improve the encyclopedia, so be it; that's the whole point of the project. EVula 14:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- If I am not mistaken, you are confusing "don't worry about performance" with "worry about performance." :P
- If I am not mistaken, you are confusing RAM with hard drive storage. Anarchangel (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- A simple null edit takes ~500 bytes in revision table, ~500 bytes in cu_changes, 250 bytes in page, 700 bytes in recentchanges, 100 bytes in 'text', may grow external storage blob by few bytes or do a compressed text copy (depends). Multiply that by amount of replicas (nearly 10 for enwiki), and you get 20k per edit. A bot which does 5000 edits per day consumes at least 10MB of diskspace a day. Of course, thats just null edits - anything involving changes in links tables or bigger text differences do cost more. If anyone wants to see our core database dataset distribution, a somewhat old snapshot is at http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pfjIQrTbpVkaIStok1hWAdg&hl=en - it doesn't show external-store use though. Cheers! Domas Mituzas (talk) 08:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
More data, and Conclusions Edit
Wikipedia:WP:SPLIT "There are no hard and fast rules for when an article should be split. A guideline for article size is... > 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided"
- 20Kb per edit. 100Kb max per article. Therefore, all articles with more than five revisions have more revision information in WP storage than article content.
- Media: Markedly variable. 'Lady of Shallot' this page, 299Kb, 15 revisions. "King Cophetua and the Beggar Maid", my talk page, 5.92 Mb (5,920 Kb), 246 revisions. A picture better be worth a thousand words, then.
- Average revisions per page: Yeh, please, someone who knows, let us know.
- Ten articles using the 'Random article' link, with revisions calculated at 20kb per:
|Title||Article Kb||Media Kb||Revisions Kb|
|Wikipedia:Discourses on Livy||8||None||2,000|
|Wikipedia:Animal (Pearl Jam song)||8.4||18||5,600|
|Wikipedia:Silver Birch House||1.2||None||100|
|Wikipedia:Rosalie Sorrels discography||29.6||None||1,060|
|Wikipedia:William Turner (dab)||1.4||None||740|
|Wikipedia:Little Gull Island Light||4.1||96 (2)||500|
|% of total||0.45||10.25||89.29|
- This data is considerably better than pure speculation, but more data is of course needed.
- It appears that most storage is of revisions. Even media does not take up as much storage. Page size is of next to no concern to storage (Page size is quite rightly restricted for client side access issues).
- When the issue of bots is added, revisions take on a whole new dimension, as noted in the "How many bytes" section above. The example bot made edits requiring the same amount of storage as all ten articles, in only four days. Every day, nearly twice the storage of the media in all ten articles.
And by the way, if you are wondering how much the chart uses, it is all html, but because of the number of lines, it might conceivably be possible to make (uneditable) .gif file charts that would actually take up less storage. The .gif flag in Wikipedia:Appen (Netherlands) is only .8 Kb; this whole edit added 6.6 Kb to my user page. Anarchangel (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
right H20 E=MC2
Game drain Edit
WP's coverage of games is weakened to the point of uselessness, leading game experts to not expand WP articles, leading back to deletion in a vicious circle.
For example, game coverage has at least one glaringly obvious double standard. There are scores, perhaps hundreds, of articles on Chess openings, and individual articles for each of the five Chess pieces, and even the chessboard itself, but computer game mechanics are not allowed in any computer game article. Video game mechanics are more complex and thus require more explanation than the moves of individual chess pieces. Chess is elegant in its simplicity, but it is simple, and therefore can be covered in a few sentences. Without anything to say, the articles are flabby and repetitious, padded with illustrations and filled with hypothetical recommendations of the same kind as the strategy guides which are forbidden on WP. Meanwhile other game articles are bled dry of essential content.
Similarly, while Wikipedia:Voice acting in Japan is given as much or more credit as/than film actors, WP rules forbid the listing of voice actors in game articles altogether. There is a again, an obvious double standard here: animation articles, whether shorts or feature length, have no such restriction on the listing of their voice actors, and this is reflected in the fact that there is no note paid in the Japanese voice acting culture to a distinction that has been created wholesale from the WP culture. Voice actors in Anime, animated features and games are all Seiyu to the Japanese.
Anarchangel (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia.
Trust me when I say I wish that the material you added to Wikipedia:User:Anarchangel could be used, but it is out of context with the rest of the material and does not adhere to (Wikipedia:WP:Ignore all rules).
Here's some tips from someone who has contributed to thousands of articles without really knowing anything much:
- Read and understand fully, Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Notability. And every other Wikipedia rule (Wikipedia:Wikipedia:List of policies and Wikipedia:Wikipedia:List of guidelines) you can possibly stand to read.
- Use Google and Yahoo and Google Books, find new information there, and use templates at Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Citation templates to add the title of the book, and URL web address of the google book search. Optionally, (and because it works better and looks better, preferably) you can also add the author' name etc.
- Wikipedia (WP) is unfair. You will get people messing with your edits, large numbers of editors all making bad decisions and using force of numbers to enforce them, administrators making terrible decisions, and using their powerful positions to enforce them, etc. Number one thing is, keep your cool.
- Always use the passive voice in your discussions with other editors; do not say "You made a bad edit", say, "The edit of 8th of September contained errors". The more you know about the subject, and about WP procedure, the more that this will come automatically to you. Wikipedia:Wikipedia:No personal attacks is not just a good rule because it keeps things harmonious, it is a good rule because the best arguments are always logical ones.
- Do not get sucked into edit wars, arguments, anything that wastes your time and disrupts WP.
- If it gets too much, take a break from Wikipedia.
- Have fun with it. Heh. If I have not taken all the fun out of it already, anyway. Good luck.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not summarizes what Wikipedia is, and what it is not. • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; Wikipedia's core approach, neutral unbiased article writing. • Wikipedia:No original research: what is, and is not, valid information. • Wikipedia:Verifiability: What counts as a verifiable source and how a source can be verified. • Wikipedia:Citing sources. Sources should be cited, and the manner of doing so. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style; articles should follow this style guide
- Main article: [] = main article
Huffington Post is a citable source per RSN opinions
- WP:NPOV cannot be used to claim that criticism of a subject should be excluded just because it is criticism, rather than properly sourced and stated in neutral, factual terms
- WP:BLP cannot be used to claim that only confirmed matters of objective fact are reflected in a BLP (facts about opinions are explicitly OK, and it's widely acknowledged that there are few confirmed, objective facts that will be of interest in a Wikipedia article -- see WP:POV)
- WP:BLP cannot be used to claim that allegations by a subject's critics not go into the BLP just because they are allegations by a critic
- WP:BLP cannot be used to claim that a BLP about a politician should not include sourced, relevant criticism
- WP:Verifiability cannot be used to claim that major newspapers are not reliable sources
- WP:Verifiability also cannot be used to claim the editors should actively seek evidence of bias in articles published by reliable sources and exclude such articles based on Wikipedia editors' opinions that the sources are biased and therefore not reliable (this represents original research and is expressly counter to the Verifiability policies)
- WP:Synth cannot be used to claim that articles including synthesis should be excluded (since that's not what WP:Synth says)
- WP:Weight cannot be used to say that a topic must be excluded just because it's conceivable that some editor could insert material on that topic that would violate WP:Weight -- if the actual article text does not reflect undue weight, the undue weight policy does not come into play
- WP:Consensus cannot be used to claim that core Wikipedia policies are trumped by the opinions of editors, no matter how numerous their accounts may be
- WP:Summary cannot be cited simply for the purpose of creating a POV fork -- see WP:Content_forking
- Wikipedia:WP:3RR Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user count as one revert. (This differs from the definition of "revert" used elsewhere in the project.)
The rule applies per person, not per account; reverts made by multiple accounts count together. The rule applies per page; reverts spread across multiple pages so that an editor does not revert a single page more than three times do not violate the rule (but may indicate disruptive editing).
- Wikipedia:WP:BLP Refers to inclusion of whole articles, not the content of articles
- Wikipedia:WP:BRD edit boldly, revert, discuss
- Wikipedia:WP:CCC Consensus can change
- Wikipedia:WP:TEND more serious form of NPOV where the editor repeatedly uses pov.
- Wikipedia:WP:EQ etiquette, incl "Do not ignore questions." "If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate."
- Wikipedia:WP:IGNORE Ignore All Rules. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.
- Wikipedia:WP:NPA no personal attacks
- WP:SS use summaries and links to main articles.
Users violating the rule may warrant a block from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance. Administrators tend to issue longer blocks for repeated or aggravated violations, and will consider other factors, such as civility when doing so. Administrators decide whether to issue a block. Where multiple editors violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides fairly.
Post hoc: Data dredging . Logical fallacy: A occurred, then B occurred. Therefore, A caused B.When B is undesirable, this pattern is often extended in reverse: Avoiding A will prevent B.
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute, then attributes that position to the opponent
Rhetorical or propaganda arguments: Boiling frog, camel's nose, thin end of the wedge
"Recentism: Include what was important 'for the time', not 'at the time'" - VvAvV
Divhide normally used for lengthy discussions, especially when there is a natural break such as an RFC bringing many additional editors to the discussion. I am not personally in favor of it because it is easy to miss. thumb|450px|right
Project in progress: The pyramid foundations, referring to 'Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement', above
Foundations of the Pyramid
The pyramid shows the end effect; this is what is required of an editor to obtain that effect.
Belief that the argument is wrong. Namecalling is also considerably less civil, but the editor has no more than a vote to contribute to the discussion, and is taking on the entire argument with that vote, regardless of the fact that his vote is irrelevant to the process of reasoning in the discussion. That the person believes otherwise is all that is required and all that is conveyed by this.
Objection. Ad hominem arguments are also less civil, but their effect on the discussion is otherwise, no more than saying, 'I have an objection to that argument', without saying what it is. This blends seemlessly into an Overview understanding and even Argument in that elements from those procedures, such as one-word criticisms or even WP rule acronyms can be used. For example, an ad hominem argument itself requires evidence, even if it is only the primary source evidence of the critic's own assertion. It is the value and applicability of the evidence used, not its type, that typifies this level of the pyramid.
Evidence or reasoning
WP rule or reasoning to show evidence
Here I deviate from the pyramid. Refuting the central point is an elusive goal, because it requires that the central point of the argument is incorrect. More often, arguments are a matter of judgement; it is incumbent upon those who seek the top of the pyramid to not only show evidence, or show a wp rule, but to apply reasoning to wp rules, to show their applicability in the specific case.
Invisibubble: font color = white for invisible text. You can still select the text and it comes up as white text with a blue background.
I tried to do this to make spoilers that wouldn't spoil unless the reader wanted them to, with explanatory text on how to use it, but was shot down. Maybe I will try presenting that idea later.
UTC is 7 hours ahead of PST/PDT
- Recentism is an essay
Something of a split here between the WP that produces an In the News catagory with awards, and one that makes a rule Wikipedia:WP:RECENTISM I can hear the sound of someone getting old. Important "at the time" and "for the time" is my rule to ignore that rule. (written under a barrage of misinvokations of WP:RECENTISM)
may help explain the rule to unaware users involved in edit warring. Report violations of the rule at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.
The rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule. Wikipedia:WP:TEND more serious form of NPOV where the editor repeatedly uses npov.
Wikipedia:WP:NOTLINK Not a collection of links
Wikipedia:WP:LIVEbio of living persons
- Wikipedia:WP:NPOV requires, and Wikipedia:WP:BLP does not prohibit, including all significant points of view on a topic. The opinion of the editors of the state's leading newspaper is a significant viewpoint. It is a fact that the editors printed this opinion, and that fact can be conveyed using simple, neutral language
Almost typed on Wikipedia Edit
Early versions of this section would have included sarcasm or even aggression. The following are mellower and hopefully more accurate
Almost typed on Wikipedia:
- Without respect to whether the "insubstantial" argument is true or not (it is presented without evidence and is therefore only one editor's assertion), the key values would be "non-trivial" and "reliable". As with all of WP's dancing around the "truthiness" issue with N, these values are quite subjective, which is why we waste time here at AfD.