Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Newsletter/20090901/News#Contest

In 2009, the membership of Article Rescue Squadron has more than doubled. At the end of 2008 there were 117 members,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Members&diff=255805196&oldid=255555646] just 9 months later, there are 277 members, making Article Rescue Squadron one of the largest Wikiprojects on Wikipedia.

cellpadding=3 style="border: 1px solid #0E0F10; background-color: #EAECF1" | Other wikiprojects: Video games 1,281 members Military history 967 active members Biography 596 members Wikipedians against censorship 577 members Comics 547 members May 2009

{|cellpadding=10 width=400px

| valign=top|

File:Delete Icon.png

The Article Rescue Squadron was put up for deletion in May of this year, the result of the discussion was keep. Thank you to everyone who supported this project in the MfD.

|}

{|

|width=600px|

It was recently discovered that five media outlets mentioned the Article Rescue Squadron.

• {{cite news | author=James Gleick

| date={{#if:{{{monthday|}}}|{{{monthday}}} {{{1|2007}}}|8 August 2008}}

| url=http://www.wsj.com/article/SB121815517776622597.html?mod=psp

| title={{{articlename|Wikipedians Leave Cyberspace, Meet in Egypt: In Alexandria, 650 Devotees Bemoan Vandals, Debate Rules; Deletionists vs. Inclusionists}}}

| publisher=Wall Street Journal}}

• {{cite news | author=Nicholson Baker

| date={{#if:{{{monthday|}}}|{{{monthday}}} {{{1|2007}}}|20 March 2008}}

| url=http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21131 | title={{{articlename|The Charms of Wikipedia}}} | publisher=New York Review of Books}}

• {{cite news | author=Jennifer Schuessler

| date={{#if:{{{monthday|}}}|{{{monthday}}} {{{1|2007}}}|8 March 2008}}

| url=http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/gone-to-deletopedia/

| title={{{articlename|Gone to Deletopedia}}} | publisher=New York Times}}

• {{cite news | author=Adversus Wikipedia

| date={{#if:{{{monthday|}}}|{{{monthday}}} {{{1|2007}}}|17 September 2008}} | url=http://www.pc-actual.com/actualidad/noticia/2008/09/17/Adversus-Wikipedia

| title={{{articlename|Adversus Wikipedia}}} | publisher=PC Actual}}

• {{cite book | author=John Broughton

| url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=h37N0BvkVSUC

| chapter=Ch.19 - Deleting Existing Articles | title=Wikipedia: The Missing Manual | publisher=O'Reilly | year=2008}}

|File:Newspaper Cover.svg

|}

Article rescue squadron member User:Ikip studied one random day of Article for Deletion. In the study he found, 67% of all articles which were put up for deletion were created by editors who had 100 contributions or less when they created the article.

This means a lot of new editors are having their work deleted, which may have a negative effect on editor retention.

The full study is here User:Ikip/AfD on average day. Note the see also section which has some very interesting articles.

{{{!}} class="navbox collapsible {{#if:||collapsed}}" style="text-align: left; margin-top: 0.2em;"

{{!}}-

! style="background-color: white;" {{!}} Journalists' negative views

{{!}}-

{{!}} style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; " {{!}}

• New York Review of books: "a narrow, almost grade-schoolish notion", "bullies, who take pleasure in wrecking and mocking peoples' work", "Notability purges' are being executed throughout Wikipedia by empire-building, wannabe tin-pot dictators masquerading as humble editors.", "book burners"; [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21131]
• Guardian: "self-promoted leaf-pile guards appeared, doubters and deprecators",[http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/10/wikipedia.internet]
• Guardian: "There are some people on Wikipedia now who are just bullies, who take pleasure in wrecking and mocking people's work..." "Inside, Wikipedia is more like a sweatshop than Santa's workshop"[http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/dec/06/wikipedia];
• Telegraph: "The notability debate has spread across the discussions like a rash", "Newer folks feel like they're wielding a machete, not planting new trees.", "…in the past few years Wikipedia has changed; it now takes short stubs and throws them in the trash can, and excoriates those who have the temerity to create them."[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/3354752/Wikipedia-an-online-encyclopedia-torn-apart.html];
• Washington Post: "Why does Wikipedia have a "notability" standard at all?...Wikipedia already maintains rules concerning verifiability and privacy. Why does it need separate rules governing "notability"?"[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301738.html];
• PC PRO: "For an example of the dark side [of Web 2.0] running out of control, though, check out Wikipedia…In the NYRB article Baker explains how Wikipedia continually struggles to repel vandalisation...but as a result is now ruled by bands of vigilantes who delete all new material without mercy or insight. This is such a strong claim that it needed checking, so I decided to attempt an edit myself…I wrote a roughly 100-word potted history of [The Political Quarterly]… within five minutes I received a message to the effect that this entry has no content…and has been put up for "express deletion…It seems Wikipedia has completed the journey by arriving at an online equivalent of the midnight door-knock and the book bonfire".[http://www.pcpro.co.uk/columns/204999/idealog.html]
• Los Angeles Times, Wikipedia wars erupt: At the heart of the include-exclude issue is the idea of notability, which a Wikipedia policy page defines as "worthy of notice." The problem is that deciding what counts as notable -- and who gets to decide it -- is a hopelessly slippery pursuit...if even a small number of useful articles are being deleted in the name of keeping Wikipedia clean, isn't that like allowing a few innocent men to hang in favor of a lower crime rate? "Wikipedia's community has become so rushed, so immediatist, that it is not willing to allow embryonic articles even a tiny modicum of time to incubate"[http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-ca-webscout30sep30,1,1815602.story?coll=la-headlines-technology]
• Info World Wikipedia topics are selected for inclusion on the basis of their notability, which is subjective and fosters discrimination and elitism, "the very things the Wikipedia is against." "Unlike academic journals and other legitimate reference sources, the Wikipedia has created new and anonymous elite 'editors' and administrators"[http://www.infoworld.com/news/feeds/08/04/14/Wikipedia-breeds-unwitting-trust-says-IT-professor.html]
• The Age Mzoli's Meats was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mzoli%27s_Meats&direction=prev&oldid=159502583 deleted] in 22 minutes...The two weeks of furious debate that followed was summarised [as the following]: "The Wikipedia that Jimbo (Wales) originally created takes short stubs like the one he created and turns them into articles; stubs should only be deleted when there is no reasonable hope that they will ever cease to be stubs. Unfortunately, in the past few years Wikipedia has changed; it now takes short stubs and throws them in the trash can, and excoriates those who have the temerity to create them. This stub is being saved only because it was created by Jimbo."..."The old timers remember the early days when we used to say 'ignore all rules' and 'assume good faith', but people tend not to emphasise that now,"[http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/delete-generation-rips-encyclopedia-apart/2007/10/12/1191696163688.html?page=fullpage]
• Slate.com "More on Wikability The arguments for a notability guideline don't hold up: Disptues these arguments:

:# "Wikipedia does not command infinite Web space. Servers cost money."

:# "Banning the notability guideline is an invitation to sock puppetry."

:# "Facts about nonfamous people are difficult to verify."

:# "Wikipedia articles about non-notables get policed less."

:# "How many George Bushes?"

:# "Wikipedia would turn into MySpace."[http://www.slate.com/id/2160839/]

{{collapse bottom}}