SandySandfort on June 10, 2011, 09:19:24 am
I just discovered that EFT has two mentions in the Wikipedia:

Anarcho-capitalism
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#cite_ref-87

Ceres in fiction
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ceres_in_fiction

Now if it just had its own Wikipedia article...

emb021 on June 10, 2011, 09:21:27 am
Not listed with the webcomics??

SandySandfort on June 10, 2011, 11:54:05 am
Not listed with the webcomics??

Fuck no! Hey, I'm a party at interest, but any of you readers (who understand the arcane policies and technology of the Wikipedia) who want to correct this grievous error, please do so. Thanks.

Apollo-Soyuz on June 11, 2011, 04:31:30 pm
Now if it just had its own Wikipedia article...

There's a game played by the long distance thru-hikers on the Appalachian Trail. The game is to get the weekend hikers and causal picnickers to give you food, snacks or supplies without actually asking them straight out for a handout. They call it Yogi-ing.


;-)

Apollo-Soyuz on June 11, 2011, 04:44:21 pm
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

How would we defend against the charge that EFT isn't a notable strip?

I've never created an article before, only edited existing ones, but I would hope we would have the answer to this question before it gets nominated for speedy deletion.

J Thomas on June 11, 2011, 07:22:16 pm
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

How would we defend against the charge that EFT isn't a notable strip?

I've never created an article before, only edited existing ones, but I would hope we would have the answer to this question before it gets nominated for speedy deletion.

It's currently within the top 100 on TopWebComics and has been to 80? 70? That's one thing. Are the top 100 webcomics notable?

Ideally it should be reviewed in paper newspapers or journals. The idea is that if notable publications think it's notable, then it's notable. They tend to accept commercial paper publications. Online publications have a strike against them for being online, but it can be argued that they are notable if they are main sources for a significant group. So if a few particular websites can be considered the main sources for webcomic reviews, and EFT has been reviewed in them, then they count as sources. Even if the reviews are bad, as they typically are. They want publications that have decent editorial review. That is, they don't want a webcomic review site that lets just anybody put up a review of EFT and then claim it's notable.

So ideally we would have three or more sites that do webcomic reviews and that have a lot of editorial control (that wouldn't let nobodies like us review EFT), that we can say are notable, and that have reviewed EFT. I'd expect the sticking point here is arguing that the review sites themselves are notable.

Beyond webcomics, we might argue that EFT is notable for its place in AnCap thought. EFT got added to the Anarcho-Capitalism Wikipedia topic back in February and that stood. But Wikipedia does not regard Wikipedia as a notable source. Find references where people notable in AnCap circles talk about EFT, or it's talked about in notable AnCap sources, and that counts.

So that's two strings for your bow.

The very fact that we are conspiring to get it accepted will look to some like evidence against it being notable. They seem to want only people who are totally uninterested to notice that something belongs in Wikipedia and do the work to put it there. I'm not sure what would help with that but if you like we could all delete our posts and cover up the conspiracy.

Tucci78 on June 11, 2011, 07:43:31 pm
...I'm a party at interest, but any of you readers (who understand the arcane policies and technology of the Wikipedia) who want to correct this grievous error, please do so. Thanks.

My experience with "Wiki-bloody-pedia" is that their key disqualification factor is a contributor's failure to believe whole-heartedly (and empty-headedly) in the "catastrophic man-made climate change" fraud.

I figure as long as nobody mentions the dirty-bad-awful word "Climategate," and maybe sticks in something about how industrialization of the Asteroid Belt will help Mother Gaia to avoid the Waterworld-slash-Steambath-Earth fantasy horrors of the preposterous anthropogenic CO2 forcing bogosity, the corrupt and intellectually incestuous scum camping on "Wiki-bloody-pedia" will let an EFT page go forward without opposition.

Can't predict what the advocates of victim disarmament will do to censor such a pro-self-defense Web comic, though. The "Liberal" fascists do most sincerely hate those of us who hold with the Atlanta Declaration.
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

SandySandfort on June 11, 2011, 09:03:00 pm
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

How would we defend against the charge that EFT isn't a notable strip?

I've never created an article before, only edited existing ones, but I would hope we would have the answer to this question before it gets nominated for speedy deletion.

It's currently within the top 100 on TopWebComics and has been to 80? 70? That's one thing. Are the top 100 webcomics notable?

Actually, think we were down into the 60s at one point. It rarely leaves two digits. Also, remember that the original story, World Ceres, received a special recognition at the Robert A. Heinlein Centennial (7 July, 2007 in Kansas City.

Here are some reviews:

http://comicsworthreading.com/2010/05/09/escape-from-terra/comment-page-1/#comment-111467

http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-9743814-7-3

http://badwebcomics.wikidot.com/forum/t-203324/escape-from-terra

Beyond webcomics, we might argue that EFT is notable for its place in AnCap thought. EFT got added to the Anarcho-Capitalism Wikipedia topic back in February and that stood. But Wikipedia does not regard Wikipedia as a notable source. Find references where people notable in AnCap circles talk about EFT, or it's talked about in notable AnCap sources, and that counts.

Can't get much more AnCap than the feminist anarchist, Wendy McElroy:

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/print.php?news.1948

It's also mentioned in the Libertarian Directory, here:

http://libhotties.com/directory

There is plenty of ammunition for claiming "notability."

Apollo-Soyuz on June 11, 2011, 09:23:52 pm
I think there's a difference between "conspiring to get it accepted" and "deciding if it's worth the effort to write"

The very fact that we are conspiring to get it accepted will look to some like evidence against it being notable. They seem to want only people who are totally uninterested to notice that something belongs in Wikipedia and do the work to put it there. I'm not sure what would help with that but if you like we could all delete our posts and cover up the conspiracy.

Scott on June 12, 2011, 12:17:07 pm
Do you really think the Wiki editors would go to the trouble of perusing this forum for evidence of such a "conspiracy?"

If so, I could change the title of this thread.

J Thomas on June 12, 2011, 01:37:30 pm
Do you really think the Wiki editors would go to the trouble of perusing this forum for evidence of such a "conspiracy?"

If so, I could change the title of this thread.

I've only been involved in one similar controversy. The guy who made the motion for speedy deletion got personally committed to the cause and looked up everything he could find. He found that the PR guy had suggested that somebody write up the Wikipedia topic, and so he argued that it was self-promotion even though it wasn't actually anybody connected with it. Even though it isn't supposed to matter why the originator did it, so long as it's actually good information about something notable.

If it's very easy to change the title, then I'd say go ahead. It does no harm and might possibly do some good. My own guess is if it takes three whole minutes then you probably have something better to do with your time.

Apollo-Soyuz on June 12, 2011, 10:48:33 pm
Too late! this guy will vote for speedy deletion!

Just read the thread! Amazing work.

Apollo-Soyuz on June 12, 2011, 11:23:44 pm
I've only been involved in one similar controversy. The guy who made the motion for speedy deletion got personally committed to the cause and...<snip>

One day I was re-reading an article and I noticed an "inconvenient truth"  had been removed. I checked to see who did it and their rational for the removal and noticed it was an uncommented edit buried in the middle of a tsunami of activity. About a dozen different IP addresses (lots of university IPs, so I'm guessing anonymous proxies), There was vandalism, reverts, pranks, reverts, bot edits, and constructive edits.

I even wrote a quick and dirty script to graph the timestamps. The effort put in to erasing one sentence could only have been put forth by a fanatic.

I'll agree that way too many people get wrapped up in editing, like they're at work at MinTruth and they need to make a few unpersons and revise last years quotas for airstrip one.  ~~~~

quadibloc on June 13, 2011, 12:52:38 am
My experience with "Wiki-bloody-pedia" is that their key disqualification factor is a contributor's failure to believe whole-heartedly (and empty-headedly) in the "catastrophic man-made climate change" fraud.
Original research is not permitted by Wikipedia rules.

Thus, if you believe that the color purple has a bad effect on people, or that the Earth is now being visited by flying saucers, or that Nikola Tesla discovered the secret of antigravity, or that it's possible to use porous nickel to produce, from hydrogen, an amount of energy similar to that which nuclear fusion would produce... or anything else that does not accord with mainstream official science, it will indeed not be permitted.

Global warming is mainstream official science. You may think that in this particular instance, the forces of orthodoxy are wrong. But you will not be permitted to edit Wikipedia to reflect your belief. This isn't because they're making a special rule just for global warming.

Their goal is to make Wikipedia a useful reference work - like the Encyclopedia Britannica. If you want something that isn't staid, orthodox, and conventional... you can find it somewhere else.

Wikipedia is there to inform people - to broadcast your personal pet theories, you have to use your own web site. Of course, maybe someday there will be something like Wikipedia for independent thinkers, where believers in astrology, ghosts, UFOs, alternate energy, and so on and so forth will all coexist in mutual respect... providing the truth Wikipedia is hiding from us.

But like the Weekly World News, it will get no respect.

sam on June 13, 2011, 03:23:31 am
Wikipedia is there to inform people - to broadcast your personal pet theories, you have to use your own web site. Of course, maybe someday there will be something like Wikipedia for independent thinkers, where believers in astrology, ghosts, UFOs, alternate energy, and so on and so forth will all coexist in mutual respect... providing the truth Wikipedia is hiding from us.

But like the Weekly World News, it will get no respect.

That depends on how transparently crazy the orthodoxy is.  Orthodox history differs radically from the history that was orthodox a few decades ago.  It used to be that Paul Revere rode to alert Americans that the British were coming to grab their guns, that Daniel Boone's son was tortured to death by injuns, and that the Marines went to the shores of Tripoli to free whites kidnapped and enslaved by Muslims.  On some topics, such as science history, it is rather easy to find which version of history is the correct one, since science history is the history of what scientists wrote, and of course, we have all recently been given a refresher course on Paul Revere's ride.

Orthodoxy biology is not in fact all that orthodox, since orthodox biology is anti racist and anti sexist, while actual biologists regularly say startlingly racist and sexist things in very thinly disguised code.  The orthodoxy tends to wobble erratically between repressing them and rationalizing away what they are saying.  Lately it has been wobbling towards rationalization, perhaps in reaction to overreaching on repression.  A biologist may now say, and will say, that some human races have larger cranial capacities than others without suffering any reprisals (provide he says "population" as code for race) but I doubt you will find that in Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia account of speciation still adheres in substantial part to the politically correct Gouldian orthodoxy that speciation is abrupt and rare, though in fact no biologist believes Gouldian version, and they have long stopped giving even superficial lip service to it.  All biologists these days believe the Darwinian account of speciation, that speciation is under way most of the time with most kinds in most places.  On this topic, Wikipedia reports what politically correct scientists are supposed to say before impressionable students, rather than what they actually do say.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 03:40:52 am by sam »