![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"The Suburban Jungle" got deleted on Wikipedia.
Right now, I am of two feelings about Wikipedia. On the one hand, it's pretty useful for a quick reference – if I'm reading my webcomics and run into a reference to Dennis Miller, thirty seconds and I know what I need to – but at least in the past year or two, it has developed a dismaying trend towards deletion.
I'm talking to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
nanakikun about this, and he's pointed out a huge problem: the process is biased towards deletion. All articles are guilty non-notable until proven notable. To delete an article requires nothing but, "I don't see proof that this article is important" – a fellow could delete five thousand files a day, and some people do – while to relist takes, at the minimum, half an hour to track down sources per article.
I don't know why things are this way. Asnanakikun has pointed out, you can't change anything without knowing what is going on. But something is massively broken.
The deletion review is here, by the way.
Right now, I am of two feelings about Wikipedia. On the one hand, it's pretty useful for a quick reference – if I'm reading my webcomics and run into a reference to Dennis Miller, thirty seconds and I know what I need to – but at least in the past year or two, it has developed a dismaying trend towards deletion.
I'm talking to
nanakikun about this, and he's pointed out a huge problem: the process is biased towards deletion. All articles are I don't know why things are this way. As
nanakikun has pointed out, you can't change anything without knowing what is going on. But something is massively broken.The deletion review is here, by the way.
