PDA

View Full Version : possible Bloggingheads deletion on wikipedia


Nate
12-21-2008, 05:50 AM
I created a category to help out with categorization of people who had been on bloggingheads, but it was nominated for deletion on wikipedia. If you have a wikipedia account, I would encourage you to vote to keep it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Contributors_to_Bloggingheads.tv

bjkeefe
12-21-2008, 08:11 AM
I created a category to help out with categorization of people who had been on bloggingheads, but it was nominated for deletion on wikipedia. If you have a wikipedia account, I would encourage you to vote to keep it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Contributors_to_Bloggingheads.tv

As I noted (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=99548#post99548) in the other thread, I added (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_20#Category:Contributors_to_Blogging heads.tv) my bit.

For as great as Wikipedia is, it's sad to see that it's gotten infested with the same sort of self-important, self-appointed busybodies that tend to show up on any sustained voluntary effort. "Category clutter?" Please.

Oh, and by the way, thanks for creating that category. I didn't know it existed, but if it stays around, I expect it will be handy to have. I keep thinking that I'd like something more than what the Heads page on this site offers, and it never occurred to me to build it on Wikipedia. If that category gets deleted by the fussbudgets, we should talk about recreating something similar elsewhere.

TwinSwords
12-22-2008, 08:21 AM
If you have a wikipedia account, I would encourage you to vote to keep it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Contributors_to_Bloggingheads.tv

I would just note that even people who don't have Wikipedia accounts may vote to keep the page. Wikipedia allows anonymous edits as well as anonymous participation in most discussions and decisions.

Nate
12-25-2008, 12:11 AM
I would just note that even people who don't have Wikipedia accounts may vote to keep the page. Wikipedia allows anonymous edits as well as anonymous participation in most discussions and decisions.
Very true, but anonymous IPs are held to a higher level of scrutiny than registered accounts. (and votes are generally not counted in final tallies if it is a close vote)

Nonetheless, it appears that the category is going to stay around. (if the current vote holds) Luckily once something has been through a nomination process and has been voted to be kept, it is much harder to get it removed in the future, so this might be a good thing in the long run.

Nate
12-25-2008, 12:15 AM
As I noted (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=99548#post99548) in the other thread, I added (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_20#Category:Contributors_to_Blogging heads.tv) my bit.

For as great as Wikipedia is, it's sad to see that it's gotten infested with the same sort of self-important, self-appointed busybodies that tend to show up on any sustained voluntary effort. "Category clutter?" Please.

Oh, and by the way, thanks for creating that category. I didn't know it existed, but if it stays around, I expect it will be handy to have. I keep thinking that I'd like something more than what the Heads page on this site offers, and it never occurred to me to build it on Wikipedia. If that category gets deleted by the fussbudgets, we should talk about recreating something similar elsewhere.

Thanks for the vote!

As far as the category, I thought it would be useful for just what you describe. Unfortunately, not everyone who comes on bloggingheads has a wikipedia entry. but probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 75% or 80% do. (at least that was about the feel I got when initially going through and classifying; as you can see there are currently 241 people listed in the category while there has to be in the neighborhood of 300 or so people who have contributed to bloggingheads in at least one diavlog) Certainly, almost all of the more prominent people do.

As far as the self-important, self-appointed busybodies; You have no idea how many of those types are on wikipedia, haha. The reems of procedure/policy/guidelines/etc. that is argued about on a daily basis would make a Senate sub-committee on environmental policy impatient. For what is perceived by most as such an "open" environment, there is a surprising amount of red tape and institutional structure that has developed. I could cite numerous examples I have been involved in personally, but it would bore people to tears, haha. Luckily, this is a relatively minor thing and I am glad I was able to cull some votes in favor of it.

Generally posting on message boards and whatnot to drum up support is considered bad form, but I could really give 2 shits about that; I figured you guys might be interested in it.

TwinSwords
12-27-2008, 01:09 PM
Very true, but anonymous IPs are held to a higher level of scrutiny than registered accounts. (and votes are generally not counted in final tallies if it is a close vote)
Good point. I just wanted to make sure that if there was anyone out there willing to vote to keep but unwilling to go to the trouble of registering, it would be worth knowing that Wikipedia is open even to anonymous contributors.

Maybe part of the reason I made this point is that I think it's one of the coolest things about Wikipedia: their total embrace of the open system is reflected by their refusal to require contributors to formally register.

Anyway, glad to know the page is going to survive. (I haven't checked it in a couple of days; hopefully nothing has changed.)