Below I am reposting DGG's warning to me that they placed on my talk page:

WARNING

The attempt to delete this article for the reasons given is directly contrary to the cooperative principles of wikipedia. (I pass no judgment on any of the articles themselves--I am an ingnoramus on the subject) But to do so as a combination of revenge and experiment is interfering with the operation of AfD & other processes of the encyclopedia, and could well be considered reason for a block. I hope you will realize your error, and apologize on the relevant talk page, and at the afd. The correct action there is to ask to withdraw the request for deletion. DGG 14:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is my reply that I posted on their talk page:

If you are ignorant of the subject as you seemed to have indicated on my talk page, don't let that cause you to have any doubts about issuing me a warning of being blocked. What say we leave the warnings to somebody a little more familiar with the subject?

The operation of Afd as you alluded to, is supposed to serve the goal, not be the goal. We may disagree on what the goal is, as do Wikipedia's deletionists and inclusionists. But where pray tell is this discussion supposed to be had? The vague term you used on my talk page, other processes, might just be the disagreements that are Wikipedia. So can the process interfere with itself? Perhaps with your help, it can.

I'd ask you to objectively look at the two articles and reconcile why one is toast and the remaining one still has no sources? Nanabozho 08:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My own description of what motivated me to make my AfD of the Australian Band's article that appeared on a couple of talk pages, was my attempt to illustrate to the people who are actually writing these articles, what is happening to them? The use of the words Revenge, and Block, and perhaps the call for a withdrawal by me, point out the lack of objectivity of the poster, and ironically, the difficulty they may have, cooperating with others.

When we look at all the discussion in defense of the Australian Misery, we have to wonder where all that sentiment was when the Minneapolis band was being considered? Generally I see the two bands as interchangeable, but the AfD's provided opposite outcomes.

Here I am reposting what Hesperian recently wrote on my talk page:

"Are you aware of our WPOINT policy? You most probably are; it is well-known because too many Wikipedians make a sport of accusing other Wikipedians of violating it. I prefer not to bandy it about myself, but your nomination of Misery (Australian band) is a textbook case. Just because you're pissed off that your pet article was deleted, you're going to piss away the valuable time of other contributors. To prove what? Will it bring your article back? Will it improve the encyclopaedia? Will gnawing this bone help you sleep at night? Hesperian 11:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)"

Here is my reply on their talk page:

Have you looked at the article for the Australian band recently? You didn't add sources, Ziggy didn't add sources, I didn't add them, no one did. But we are protecting the article why again? So easy to destroy, and so hard to create.

If you want a reason for the AfD, how about to promote a better understanding between contributors - creators of information, and deletionist like Ziggy? But did that happen? Deleting the one article helps the encyclopedia as much as deleting the other.

See this link: http://www.punknews.org/review/4657 See your quote: "Verifiable by recourse to an independent third party source, which is considered reliable and reputable within the Australian heavy metal music subculture... That's all the notability guideline requires."

Are we going to be leaving a message for Ziggy too? Nanabozho 07:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

So we have Hesperian and I not writing an encyclopedia, but doing the above instead. So it's not that we have to be a writer to write Wikipedia, we have to be a debater. Fine. We are learning about our new world.

And an afterthought, I am sleeping fine with or without the Misery article, and it's really not my pet article. I didn't write it, I only tried to protect it. As I have disclosed, my distant cousin is in the band.

Perhaps part of the insight I gained from the Misery (band) discussion is how easily people lose focus around here. Yes I have a website with the domain name IHateWikipedia.com. (Which by the way is for sale. Bidding starts at $50,000.) But is that fact supposed to determine the fate of Misery band article? No, most would agree it shouldn't. One voter on the Afd page for the Australian band even redacted their entry after looking at my sites. 

Here's a link to support the Minneapolis bands inclusion in Wikipedia: 

http://www.punknews.org/review/4657

Here's a link that was used by the one who apparently swayed the debate to include the Australian bands inclusion in Wikipedia:

http://www.ausmetal.net.au/band.m?action=view&id=14

Do we see a difference? Can we find a hair to split in such a way as to allow one band in and the other out?

This is Wikipedia. This is it, unless some people change it. Wikipedia belongs to those that show up.

Also we have this from Wikipedia:

"Misery formed and provided a nucleus for what was has become an internationally envied crust punk scene in Minneapolis. Taking their influence from UK bands like Discharge and Amebix, Misery blended dark and heavy hardcore with an anti-authority political stand that was very influential on the future development of the genre."

For the deletionists to be consistent in my book, now they have to go and look at purging the above. Is it sourced? Did Misery really do this, or did some insider puff up the band?  I admit the above doesn't have the weight of a complete article, but the question of the dividing line of article/no article, can be looked at. Wikipedia is supposed to provide information that people use in my opinion, but I think that those in charge of it should have the attribute of being consistent in what they do.

Real life has interfered with my keeping up with the Misery (band) situation. It seems the Australian band Misery lives on at Wikipedia, while the Minneapolis one is still dead and buried.

Here are some comments from my talk page that resulting from my nomination of Australian band article:

Are you aware of our POINT policy? You most probably are; it is well-known because too many Wikipedians make a sport of accusing other Wikipedians of violating it. I prefer not to bandy it about myself, but your nomination of Misery (Australian band) is a textbook case. Just because you're pissed off that your pet article was deleted, you're going to piss away the valuable time of other contributors. To prove what? Will it bring your article back? Will it improve the encyclopaedia? Will gnawing this bone help you sleep at night? Hesperian 11:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

WARNING

The attempt to delete this article for the reasons given is directly contrary to the cooperative principles of wikipedia. (I pass no judgment on any of the articles themselves--I am an ingnoramus on the subject) But to do so as a combination of revenge and experiment is interfering with the operation of AfD & other processes of the encyclopedia, and could well be considered reason for a block. I hope you will realize your error, and apologize on the relevant talk page, and at the afd. The correct action there is to ask to withdraw the request for deletion. DGG 14:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Warning Calm down Magic

I suppose it would be asking too much of Wikipedia to look beyond why an article was nominated and then objectively evaluate it? That's like saying, The devil made the nomination, so it's wrong. That we can find some rules and attempt to apply them here, isn't helping the situation. I made a nomination of an article with not much going for it. Are we at Defcon 1 now? Nanabozho 07:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC) (End of stuff from my talk page.)

I'd say we saw a rally to Giggy's defense here, and the well known references to policy. Quite predictable. I'll be posting more in the coming days with my replies to Hesperian and DGG. And as always, thank you for editing Wikipedia.

Here's the discussion on the Afd page:

Articles_for_deletion/Misery_(Australian_band)

"But 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?" - David Sarno

My off the cuff answer is no, we aren't actually hanging people, just booting them off of Wikipedia. Their articles can even at a later date, get back on Wikipedia. I do like the quote though.

Sarno writes a good article about deletionists and inclusionists, which I found while reading Lih's blog. He and Keli Martin are endorsed by me, as being worth listening to.

Some of Sarno's article covers the Mzoli's Meats situation. Once again I am happy to see Wales participating. I think other CEO type people from all types of businesses and non-profits should learn from him. It's easy to be cautious and above it all. It's more difficult to engage others that don't have your seniority, but do do the work that makes an entity successful. I think that wikis will be used by more businesses and governments, and that people will be writing things in the future such as: This is how Jimmy Wales handled this similar situation at Wikipedia.

Here's my recent note to the identifiable writers of the Misery (Australian band) article:

I have nominated the article, Misery (Australian band) for deletion from Wikipedia. You can access the process by visiting the article. I have done this not because I am deletionist or a senior writer for Wikipedia, or because I believe in destroying your work, as some do at Wikipedia.

I am doing it for a variety of reasons: To learn how the deletion process works. As a reaction to the recent deletion of the Misery (band) article. (Based in Minneapolis, MN., US.) I admit this difficult to defend reason but offer up my wish to learn about the internal problems of Wikipedia by responding to the Minneapolis band's deletion by attempting to delete the Australian band. As an attempt to review Wikipedia's deletion policy as it relates to alternative and all bands.

I am blogging on this situation. The blog is accessible through my user page.

Thank you for editing Wikipedia.

The saga continues. For those not up to date on it, Giggy, the nominator of the deletion of the Misery (band) article, who appears to be from Australia, is now perhaps pondering the counter attack from Minneapolis. Perhaps it will turn out to be a case of Mutually Assured Destruction, a subject I learned about somewhere on the path to my college degree. I have posted a number of times recently on the subject and wont repeat most of my arguments here.

Call this inside journalism if you will, where anyone with a blog can claim to be a journalist, and defend their actions as some sort of public service. I am not nominating the article for deletion for any negative reason. I'd like to see a change at Wikipedia concerning deletions, but am just one person with an opinion that is shared by an apparent minority.

Giggy has a new user name, Dihydrogen Monoxide.
 
See the article: Article
See the debate: Debate

"Australia is a dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica" Unknown author, found on Wikipedia.

Kelly Martin writes recently: "So, in the first place we have the Arbitration Committee proposing to put the community ahead of content, and in this latter matter we have the community putting its process machine ahead of content. People, wake up. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Nothing is supposed to come ahead of content. This shouldn't even require a whole lot of thought. And yet I, and others, keep having to repeat this over and over again. What is wrong with you people?"  Clowning around

"I will add a level to her statement and write that, Nothing is supposed to come ahead of site traffic. Its mission is content delivery. I'll admit that some of these discussions Martin refers to are had by people who believe they are doing just that, and that their point is that Wikipedia needs quality content. 

There's an interesting discussion going on at the Wikimedia Foundation page, about who founded Wikipedia? Here's my recent entry there:

I'm with Wales here, not because I understand all your arguments, but because an employee can't found a for-profit business, which is what Wikipedia was before it was Wikimedia. I am an accountant, and strongly believe that an entity must be something (Am I sounding like Rand here?). Wikipedia was a for-profit before it was Wikimedia. There aren't any mushy definitions of something other than a for-profit or a non-profit. Wikipedia was owned by Wales (perhaps with Bomis), and not Sanger as I understand it. If Sanger had negotiated a future equity stake in Wikipedia, he could have been the founder, but I haven't heard that he did. Sticking to the facts and possibilities arising from those facts, Sanger can't be the co-founder in my opinion.

As far as relying on sources, that policy while part of Wikipedia, fails the article. Someone writing for MSNBC or whoever, that doesn't understand that an employee can't found a for-profit company, that an entity must be either for or non profit, and who hasn't spent a lot of time with the issue, isn't worth citing.

Someone above had mentioned something about implies a business. If it wasn't a business, then what for goodness sakes was it? Up until the day it got Florida's non-profit status, it was a for-profit. I think it's relevant that when the time came to give stuff (domain names, etc.) to the just born Wikimedia, it was Wales doing it, while Sanger was doing whatever Wikipedia says he was doing that day. (end of comment)

Have a look at the complete discussion. (Criticism) I don't want to quote anyone, though the material is open and transparent. I have come take Wales side for the most part. It's partly to do with my dealings with a lot of new businesses and non-profits as a CPA. It's my opinion that the IRS gives no quarter on the issue. I read their rules to say that if you aren't a recognized non-profit (with a letter from them saying so) you are a for-profit. To be honest, many small entities fly under the radar, for example youth booster clubs. But Wikipedia was too big to do that and I suspect looked too much like a business.

You'll also read at the discussion about intangibles. Wikipedia, which is really a part of Wikimedia, is mostly intangible. The value of its servers is dwarfed by the parts of Wikimedia that accountants have a hard time valuing. I'd guess Wikimedia is worth a billion dollars while it's servers are valued at around a million. The difference between these two numbers are called intangibles, plus there's a little cash laying around. So Wikimedia is much more than some hardware. Wales does make a comment to the discussion, and feel I should disclose that I am not a sock puppet of Jimbo Wales nor has he ever contacted me, and most importantly, his lawyers have never contacted me.

I think there's value in watching this article along with the Criticism of Wikipedia article. Wikipedia looking at itself, with noobs, veterans, and even the founder weighing in. I think we will see more of this type of thing. One example would be a governmental Wiki. Perhaps about a town with council people and citizens contributing. Wikipedia has a form of communication that most aren't familiar with. No emails, but with the ability to contact anyone who is active. Plus its openness slants things towards civility.  

Here's the latest and probably last exchange with Giggy (Dihydrogen Monoxide). I can see this approach isn't going to work. I'd like to mention that the often claimed transparency of Wikipedia doesn't necessarily apply to  specific editors. The question, why did you nominate this article for deletion, isn't being answered here. Transparency is not always an attribute of its editors. And this isn't a pick on Giggy post. They are probably average and typical, and receive all kinds of stuff on their talk pages. There are probably valid reasons that Giggy responds as they do.
 
I write on Giggy's talk page:
I noticed you recently added the WikiProject Alternative Music userbox to your page. I had a look at the goals of that WikiProject. "To improve Wikipedia's coverage of alternative music, by creating and improving articles related to the subject." So how does that relate to your nomination of this article for deletion? And thank you for not answering my last question which was, what motivated you to nominate the article? September 12th

Giggy writes on my talk page:
The goals should read "To improve Wikipedia's coverage of NOTABLE alternative music, by creating and improving articles related to the subject." Misery isn't notable. Would you like me to again explain why this is so? Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I write on Giggy's talk page:
Well it doesn't read, To improve Wikipedia's coverage of NOTABLE alternative music, so I hope you change it or find another way to reconcile your apparently conflicting positions of more coverage of alternative music while deleting their articles. You won Giggy. The world is now safe from having to read the Misery (band) on Wikipedia and can focus their research on professional wrestlers and Wikipedia approved NOTABLE alternative music. Thank you and good luck.  20:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC) [End of comment on Giggy's page.]

NOTABLE alternative music is somewhat of an oxymoron. To say that Misery (band) is not notable is somewhat what of a "Well duh" argument. The Red Hot Chili Peppers, found on the Alternative WikiProject aren't really alternative. I know who they are, and I remember seeing a video they made. And Nirvana? For goodness sake. These are notable bands with tons of money. So it seems we are against alternative bands while claiming to be in favor of them. Oh, the humanity of it all!

"The goals of this WikiProject are:

Recently, Kelly Martin wrote about, "Devolving Power", as it applies to Wikipedia (WP) admins:

"...the fact that most editors cannot retrieve deleted articles, even when those articles have been deleted for being "nonnotable". Right now, deletion on Wikipedia is used for two totally different purposes: one is to remove articles deemed "unworthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia", and the other is to remove content which is legally, morally, or ethically problematic. The problem with using the same mechanism for both is that the first leaves too few people with the ability to see the "unworthy" article, while the second leaves the dangerous content where too many can see it -- any of 1300+ admins..."   Power

I think she's right about using the same mechanism for both. We have two completely different situations here. WP should branch and approach each problem without regard to the existing common solution. I see an opportunity here: Not-Notable.com. I've written that whatever WP decides to not be for purity reasons, someone else will do, and that's the nature of competition. Some articles about Wikipedia should be headlined, "Wikipedia takes the high road, capitalists to fill the gap."

This subject relates to the deletion of the Misery (band) article issue of my recent blogs. I was concerned about where the disappeared article was? Answers.com, the WP mirror site, has it up, and I've copied it. I have the copy in case I decide to re-post it. The reason I didn't obtain a copy earlier is that my interest grew as the discussion went on. That, and real life takes up too much time. See a reproduction of the article here:  Misery

Here's the answer to my prior entry on KrakatoaKatia's talk page:

"Hello - thanks for the message. Since you're unhappy with the AFD result, you should open a discussion at RV deletion review. In short, the three chief reasons I closed the discussion as 'delete' because 1) there were five editors who supported deletion, and their arguments were stronger than the two who supported continued inclusion; 2) the article had no sources; and 3) the band was not notable per WP:BAND. The discovery that the subject of the article was changed in April 2007 from a New York band called Misery to a Minneapolis band called Misery didn't help much either.

If you do decide to go to DRV, I'll be happy to lay out the full reasoning behind my position and an answer to each of your questions. Thanks again. - KrakatoaKatie 07:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)"

Here I am being taught about the Wikipedia phrase, rough consensus. In this case it seems to mean, I count what I want, because it isn't a consensus, only something like a consensus. The issue of a lack of sources perhaps does calls for a deletion, but that's just the critics having their way. The creator(s) of this article, which was probably accurate, has had their work undone. There are the creators and the destroyers in this world, and with this article, the destroyers had their way. I think Wikipedia is evolving to less use of sources. Much of it is unsourced already, and it works. The source standard, is in my opinion often just a tool of the destroyers. To source, is to go against the often repeated meaning of "Wiki", which is quick. The issue of not meeting WP standards for bands, is to me about the counter productive use of the standards. These and all standards, should support the goal of Wikipedia. That being traffic, as opposed to irrelevancy.

Below I am replying on KrakatoaKatie's talk page to her above:

I've got both you and Giggy not answering my questions, and me learning that you don't care to. You remarked on my user page that the count was 5 for deletion and 2 against. If Giggy (who didn't leave, and only had a name change) had a point with their nomination, and was objective, you'd think they'd not vote. So if you were counting them in your 5, that makes it 4. You counted the 2 maybes as in favor of deletion. If one was cautious, they wouldn't count a maybe as a for. It seems you're speaking for the 2 maybes to make your case, and that's not objective. Since we can't speak for Giggy, and we can only surmise that they wouldn't vote as a way to prove their objectivity, (in fact, they did not formally vote) that vote is not counted either. It's 2 to 2, the motion fails. Yes, I realize there may have been one other vote, but that one wasn't formalized and didn't say "Delete", but rather said "comment", and again, we are not speaking for them. And since you did not not formally vote, perhaps concerned about your objectivity, I can't see where you get the 5 in favor, which is really 4, which is really 2. When Wales said be bold, I don't think he meant this.

Now there's the, "this article used to be about the New York not the Minneapolis band called Misery issue." Why does it matter? The article improved once this was discovered, didn't it? Since I can't find the WP article any more, I can't really see a point here. Is it that, the band from Minneapolis that I can find on the internet was the subject your article, and that the band from New York that I can't find, was for awhile, but that got fixed? Nanabozho 02:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want help out here, do what you can and keep me informed. If you can retrieve the article using your special skills, I'd like a copy of it in case I decide to attempt to put it back up. If you haven't read my other comments on this, one of the band members is my distant cousin, who I've never met, and on whose behalf I am not acting.

Here's my contribution to User talk:KrakatoaKatie's talk page who I think ruled for deletion of the article on Misery the band:

It appears to me that you decided to terminate this article as the judge, but I'm no expert on WP, so disregard the following if I'm wrong. What was accomplished by this deletion? Looking at the big picture, was WP improved by what you did? What problem was solved?

Where is this Giggy that nominated this article? They seem to be missing and their page blanked. As far as I know this person never answered my question of what motivated them to nominate it for deletion? The consensus you mentioned has a good chance of being nonsense. Giggy's vote doesn't count, so you have 2 deletes, 2 maybes, and 2 keeps. And what do these 2 deleters care about the article anyway? Some people don't feel a need to delete other people's work that is valuable and serves a useful purpose.

There are rules of notability that were referenced in the discussion of this. But those rules did not serve WP well is this case. WP has given up this traffic, to prove what? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Misery_%28band%29


Giggy who nominated the article for deletion, did the all too often seen on Wikipedia, I'm out of here, I am blanking my stuff, you can't talk to me, move. How's that as an example of credibility? What a celebration of their work? So well planned, they have a noob like me taking shots at them. Good luck Giggy. Don't let them get you. 

Update: It turns out Giggy has not quit Wikipedia and was only going through a name change. I retract what I said about them above. They still haven't answered the question of why they nominated the article for deletion?

The apparent endorsement in the title of Jeremy Wagstaff's article reminds me of one of my own made up slogans. Wagstaff like myself generally sees positive things for Wikipedia (WP) despite the recent WikiScanner episode. The best part is where he writes: "The truth is that Wikipedia has come of age. Wikipedia is now important enough for ExxonMobil, The Church of Scientology, the U.S. Defense Department and the Australian government to spend time and effort trying to get their version of events across. If it was so irrelevant or unreliable, why would these people bother?"  Wagstaff

My comments: We still have to keep in mind that most "proof" to date only shows that "someone" at these large entities did some editing. I like to generalize but it may very well be low level people doing the edits. Still, many of these entities are now examining their WP policies, and probably will even put someone in charge of dealing with their article. Can the same be said of Google? No, Exxon doesn't give a darn about Google because it can't effect it. Because Exxon might effect WP, Exxon cares about WP. The lack of the ability to interact, in this case is important.

Wagstaff also writes: "Of course, coming of age isn't always a good thing. A recent conference on Wikipedia in Taiwan highlighted how Wikipedia is no longer an anarchic, free-for-all, but has somehow miraculously produced a golden egg."

I wrote about Wikipedia the Golden Egg back in June. The goose is in my opinion is the free flow of information. Perhaps someone at WP is reading my blog? I'd disagree with Wagstaff here because I see what he's describing, "anarchic, free-for-all" as close to the free flow of information. Perhaps it's a matter of degrees. The "somehow" is what free markets do. It's not understood by most, just as libertarians are not well understood.

From: Slashdot: "Researchers at UCSC developed a tool that measures the trustworthiness of each Wikipedia page. Roughly speaking, the algorithm analyzes the entire 7-year user-editing-history and utilizes the longevity of the content to learn which contributors are the most reliable: If your contribution lasts, you gain 'reputation,' whereas if it's edited out, your reputation falls." Trustworthiness


This is good for Wikipedia. Another case of its evolving into a source. Seamless integration will be needed. Wikipedia itself might be able to add it, and if it doesn't, would they concede some value to someone else? For instance, a Firefox add-on made by a for profit entity. Wikipedia tracks your edits and it's interesting to ponder the possibilities, not all of them good. What can be learned about a person from their edits? I'd also be interested in my own Trustworthiness score. What other types of scores can we think of? Perhaps how often they vote on articles for deletion?

There's and article on Wikipedia (WP) that is about Misery the Band. A distant cousin of mine is the bands guitar player. It's been nominated for deletion by Giggy. Have a look at the article, and then think up reasons why it's a threat to WP? I can't think of any. Some have judged them not notable. Maybe they don't meet WP's standards of being notable, but then it's time to look at the standards. I understand you can't have everything on WP. But maybe you can have a band that's been around for about 20 years. I'd like to see page traffic numbers for the article on Misery, but I don't know of any way to do that. Maybe that ought to be part of the criteria.

If you Google "Misery the Band", WP wins that search, but not if Giggy has their way. I still think, the goal despite what you've heard, is traffic. If the Misery article draws decent traffic it should stay. Good things in the future come from more traffic. This is a case where traffic will drop with the deletion, unless it somehow increases traffic because people perceive a higher quality encyclopedia. Now remember what WP is used for as I blogged not too long ago. It's Anime, which I think has something to do with cartoons, but I never cared about what it is? So we have Anime good, Misery the Band bad. This band probably fits right in with WP's normal traffic. WP could be a place for a decent useful article for interested people, but not in this case, as Giggy just had to protect WP from Misery or whatever. I recently asked them specifically why they nominated this article for deletion. I'll see if they answer?  

In the mean time, please vote as a reasonable person would, if it's not too late, and please no sock puppetry.

There's an interesting situation on Wikipedia (WP) having to do with Hate Crimes. The author of the WP article on Nireah Johnson also runs a website where he asks people to "...support the project to document anti-LGBT hate crimes on Wikipedia..."

The writer perhaps challenges WP to examine its policies about notability. Nireah Johnson was a "transgender woman, murdered in Indianapolis, Indiana by Paul Moore, after Moore discovered Johnson was biologically male." - according to WP. Besides running into a murderer with some issues, Johnson doesn't seem to be notable, and I think the case is, it's that he or she was a victim.

As an aside, I've always thought that whether one is a male or a female is not a state of mind. I must be a conservative when I write that there are certain things that only a man can do, and the same goes for women. I am disappointed that what I quoted from WP says that he was a transgender woman and a biological male. WP can be edited, so maybe that description will change? 

But back to the main point, is WP a place for this? Apparently it is, as the article on Nireah Johnson made the front page of WP according to TerranceDC, even though there are questions about its notability on its talk page.  The main author of the Nireah Johnson article certainly seems to have a cause and it's my opinion that it's usually dangerous to criticize gay issues. So what does WP do here? Maybe it cuts TerranceDC a little slack the same as society usually does, so that again WP just reflects what we are. And finally, please read the talk page for the article to see an example of the issue being addressed. TerranceDC even mentions a possible solution there, where he starts a special wiki where there would probably would not be people thinking about deleting his articles. The option of not liking Wikipedia being to start your own. 

The latest story about WikiScanner shows me two things about Wikipedia. The first is that Wikipedia (WP) has many editors in important places with relevant knowledge, though they aren't always objective. This is a positive for WP because it needs qualified writers. I think that's a better situation than having generalists write the articles. WP should have volunteer experts writing for it. The issue should not primarily be the source of the edits, but rather their accuracy. The process that is WP benefits from participation, even from those that arguably are not neutral. Those closest to the article generally know the most about it. The WikiScanner episode has been once again, a training lesson for writers of WP, delivered by way of the news. I'd suggest to all of those embarrassed by this, to first learn to edit WP, then go to the article they want to change. Here noobs were working on articles, and the results were poor for them.

My second point is Wikipedia once again is perceived as the source. When reading the WikiScanner stories, it is implied that Wikipedia is a source, and I think that that is good, and worth pursuing. To have an article on a congressman be the thing that is fought over, helps WP grow. To have that article be the most useful thing on the Internet about a congressman, positions WP nicely. I am hoping for a gradual change away from WP's mantra that it is not a source.

I watch the Wikipedia Criticism article as I have been hoping for a link to my site on that page. I've had no luck so far, but maybe one day. I noticed a recent edit that talked about links on that page. Here it is:

<!-- Articles listed here should be notable in some sense--either:
		+	* Written by an authority on the subject
		+	* Written by an otherwise notable individual
		+	* Appearing in, or referred to, by a notable and/or widely-circulated publication
		+	* Can otherwise demonstrate SOME modicum of notability.
		+	Articles (critical or otherwise) which fail to meet some notability standard, will likely be removed. This includes blog entries (unless the blogger or blog itself is notable), postings on Internet forums, other self-published articles, etc. This is not intended to be a laundry-list of articles critical of Wikipedia; use google (or another search engine) to find those.

Kelly Martin recently blogged about the difficulties of targeted advertising that might face Wikipedia in the future. The obvious choice if that happened would be Google Ads. Wikia is gaining some experience in that area as I've learned with a new project of mine, the Westonka Wiki. Martin points out an example, but I'll use my own that's similar to hers. Wikipedia has an article on the American Nazi Party - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Nazi_Party .  Who is going to want to advertise on that page? But there can be solutions. The article might be easily tagged for no ads, but that might say something. Something like, this article is controversial, and then someone might ask, who decides which articles are? A warning could be given about the all the ads, divorcing them from any particular article.

One of her examples is the article on X-Box 360. So who gets that page? Microsoft or Nintendo? As I understand Google Ads, the one that pays the most gets it. A website owner wants the most money per click. I think the ads that run on their site, are the ones that pay the most for the keywords on that page.  There is something like an auction among advertisers for certain keywords.

This all ties back to the origins of IHateWikipedia.com. Wikipedia has a RuneScape article that drives traffic to a few selected for-profit sites. The owners of those sites praise Wikipedia, and worship it as the second coming of Christ as they spend their ad money on faster horses, younger women, and older whiskey. Lowly me, challenged that page's links policy, and lost, and hopefully learned from my mistake. Perhaps I am wiser now. (I consider myself a volunteer, and watch over my local area for Wikipedia, work a bit on the  articles, and seem to be one of the few taking an interest in it.)

What do these for-profit RuneScape websites do for Wikipedia I ask Jimmy Wales? Do they trade value for value as Ayn Rand wrote? Perhaps, but I can't see it. One model for ads on Wikipedia would be to phase it in. Pick 100 articles similar to the RuneScape one, pull those links to the for-profit sites that anyone with 4th grade education can find anyway, and let them market themselves if they want. A phased approach would give Wikipedia feed back on how the admins are really going to react? Do the admins really care about the RuneScape article? Do they really want to keep it pure? It's a video game for crying out loud. OK, no ads on the Magna Carta article, we can agree to that.

They can spend the money on servers if they want to put it that way. I have noticed the Wikipedia and Wikia pages are some of the slowest loading pages. 

A business should identify what's working and at least continue to do that. We might look at the well known disputes within the Wikipedia community and ask, what effect they have on its core business? Are the people arguing about something that's relevant?

A business should not pretend to be something that it isn't. Others have described Wikipedia as being about Pop Culture. I think that's accurate.

So when an admin argues for the continued "purity" of Wikipedia, are they arguing for the purity of the Anime article? It would seem they are, because that's what Wikipedia is.

Interesting reading:  SlimVirgin  I am still trying to understand the anonymity part of Wikipedia.

Part of a MySpace Blog from Matthew: "I've decided to rant about Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a great site. I'm tired of people discrediting all of its integrity just because of that fact that anyone can sumbit data. I'll admit it, there are flaws in this system. However, if your not completely incompetent and have the ability to use reasoning to realize that Macaulay Culkin wasn't ever in NWA, its a useful site. I'm not proposing that anyone uses it as a reference on a research paper. I'm simply stating that if you need to find trivial information fast, it's the best way."  Matthew

Good job MySpace. I can see the entry is longer by looking at the RSS  feed, but can't read it because I don't belong to MySpace, making your blogs less valuable that other blogs. Yes, I know the world is out to get MySpace, and that your IT nerds are just protecting it from people like me who want to read what your members are blogging.

What is the Internet for? FaceBook, MySpace, YouTube, eBay, search engines, homepages, and Wikipedia (WP). How did WP end up leading this "Trivia Parade"? Was it dumb luck, or did it position itself like a politician who figures out where people are going, and then jumps out in front to lead them?

Looking at the leading sites mentioned above, what are they about? FaceBook: Me. MySpace: Me. YouTube: Me. eBay: Me. Wikipedia: Saving the Planet. Yeah right. WP does have a "Me" element with its internal battles. I think most good editors on it have a good level of self worth. Self worth and things like it may be what motivates them.

As a good capitalist, I'm in favor of Wikipedia seeing what people want, and giving it to them in the most efficient manner. Go, Wikipedia, Go! TM  I think a realization of what makes WP dominant, and it's not that it's better than Encyclopedia Britannica, is important to its continued relevancy. Encyclopedia Britannica is not a player, then or now, because it doesn't do enough trivia. Sanger may never catch up, if he doesn't include a Trivia Delivery TM element. I don't think Wikipedia's original mission was Trivia Delivery TM, but there you are, I accept trail and error results, and think we generally should.

From The Register: "Wikia, the latest effort from Wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales, has bought the distributed search software Grub from LookSmart for an undisclosed sum and open sourced it.

Wales, speaking here at OSCON, announced the move during a morning speech. He pitched Grub as being analogous to Seti@home in that users run the client software in the background on their PCs. Grub then indexes URLs and sends the information back to centralized servers. The software had languished under the stewardship of Looksmart, and Wales now hopes to make it a core piece of Wikia." 

"Together, we can all kick Google's ass" - Jimmy Wales   GRUB

My comments: Wales' theory is good. A process to create a better search engine following somewhat what worked for Wikipedia. The fact that Google is built upon a secret formula should worry its investors. Someone might develop a better secret formula or a hybrid as Wales is proposing.

What might we look forward to regarding search engines? Perhaps everyone involved with outsmarting Google, and everyone at Google trying to prevent that, will have to get real jobs?

This sounds a bit like increased efficiency from Wales. Increased efficiency ties in nicely with his background involving Hayek, and Rand. A market drives out inefficiencies if allowed to operate. Someone relying on a secret formula, somehow seems inefficient to me, and "competition never sleeps", as Neil Young sang.* It's true I have wondered about the inefficiencies of Wikipedia? So I'll write now that both Wikipedia and this new search engine need to be efficient to last.

*Rust Never Sleeps - Neil Young

It seems there is one more thing to keep track of online today, and that's WikiYou. The Wiki where everyone is notable and nothing has to be verified. I wish I'd come up with the idea. I suppose it's to be expected. What Wikipedia is not, others will be. Wikipedia has defined itself and limited itself perhaps. All these hits for non-notable people, now will go to WikiYou and Wikipedia wins the day, and advances by having web traffic going elsewhere. Hooray!

It seems you first have allow an article on yourself at WikiYou before you can edit their articles. If you feel like it, here are two articles you can work on:
http://www.wikiyou.com/p/Jimmy-Wales/33863
http://www.wikiyou.com/p/Angela-Beesley/37494