Wikipedia deletions
- Thread starter Bruno@MT
- Start date
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
They were deleted. Most of the other ones state that they are needing more "reliable" sources, and are set for merging, or deletion.
OP
Bruno@MT
Senior Master
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2009
- Messages
- 3,399
- Reaction score
- 74
- Thread Starter
- #4
Reliable sources... right.
That would be interesting.
I could understand the request for citations on some of the things in the biography of soke. Most of what was on that page had no external sources (other than Genbukan sources). Still, with topics like that, it is hard to see where one could get more information than what is known already.
But what I don't understand is why the Genbukan page was deleted. Apparently, someone marked it for deletion and there were no objections within 7 days. Imo it is a bit crass to expect people to monitor the wiki on a weekly basis and then to assume that noone cares about it so it should be deleted. And regardless of the 'citation needed' remarks, Genbukan does verifiably exist as an organization.
And, oh irony, the frank dux page is of course still up.
That would be interesting.
I could understand the request for citations on some of the things in the biography of soke. Most of what was on that page had no external sources (other than Genbukan sources). Still, with topics like that, it is hard to see where one could get more information than what is known already.
But what I don't understand is why the Genbukan page was deleted. Apparently, someone marked it for deletion and there were no objections within 7 days. Imo it is a bit crass to expect people to monitor the wiki on a weekly basis and then to assume that noone cares about it so it should be deleted. And regardless of the 'citation needed' remarks, Genbukan does verifiably exist as an organization.
And, oh irony, the frank dux page is of course still up.
There are a couple asshats on Wikipedia going around and pretty much wiping out as many martial arts entries as they can. I've seen most of the articles I've contributed to wiped. Wiki's a fricken joke IMO.
Oh, MT has it's own wiki. Anyone want to copy an entry over to save it, let me know and I'll give you an account on it. It's locked down because we were getting too many spammers.
I just noticed that on October 15th the Shinden Fudo Ryu wiki was deleted by a Phil Knight (link) because the "article contains no documented facts and fails to show why its subject is notable."
Umm...I'm outraged. Does not show why its subject is notable? Really?
I know Wikipedia is not the most reliable of online sources, but this is really a new low. I really want to find out more information. Thoughts? Ideas?
That said, does anyone have a link to any good online sources for Shinden Fudo Ryu?
Umm...I'm outraged. Does not show why its subject is notable? Really?
I know Wikipedia is not the most reliable of online sources, but this is really a new low. I really want to find out more information. Thoughts? Ideas?
That said, does anyone have a link to any good online sources for Shinden Fudo Ryu?
oaktree
Master of Arts
If the matter truly bothers anyone then someone may write up another article on the subject providing the sources.
Maybe asking Wikipedia itself why it was deleted and what information to provide to keep the entry from being unfairly deleted.
I suppose if you are truly passionate about writing the articles you may have to debate with others concerning sources and information. I recall Ashida Kim having similar problems with his entry(I am using him as an example of the debates and discussion on the Wiki forums you may have to deal with)
To me, it seems like a waste of time of wanting to belong to a group who clearly does not want the material there.
I wish you good luck though.
Maybe asking Wikipedia itself why it was deleted and what information to provide to keep the entry from being unfairly deleted.
I suppose if you are truly passionate about writing the articles you may have to debate with others concerning sources and information. I recall Ashida Kim having similar problems with his entry(I am using him as an example of the debates and discussion on the Wiki forums you may have to deal with)
To me, it seems like a waste of time of wanting to belong to a group who clearly does not want the material there.
I wish you good luck though.
Meh, I'm in no way capable of writing the articles myself, sadly. My knowledge base just isn't that deep or complete.
Perhaps my frustration was more apparent than need be, last week. Lack of sleep, or too much coffee, mayhaps.
Still, I think it is kind of shady of Wikipedia. I will probably contact them about why, in specific, the articles were removed. But honestly, it's a fight I don't wish championing. They will do what they will do, and I am more than capable of finding my information from other (and more verifiable) resources.
Perhaps my frustration was more apparent than need be, last week. Lack of sleep, or too much coffee, mayhaps.
Still, I think it is kind of shady of Wikipedia. I will probably contact them about why, in specific, the articles were removed. But honestly, it's a fight I don't wish championing. They will do what they will do, and I am more than capable of finding my information from other (and more verifiable) resources.
The articles are removed after about a week of debate and majority rules, with the voters weighted by how long and how active on wikie they've been.
Hmm... So much for obscurity.
Soon, Wikipedia will be little different than MySpace, catering to just pop trivia. Your one-stop site for which celebrity is having an affair or in rehab. As that is totally relevant to today's times, not some musty old article on a still-debated martial art lineage. What was I thinking to be at all riled up by the deletions?
Time to relax now, and surf on over to my favorite wiki to see who Lindsay Lohan is screwing in rehab. :barf:
That's the drawback to Wikipedia, and why it's not a fully reliable source. It's so flexible and so member/user driven without a strong real quality review panel. I view it as a good, quick pointer, and good general info -- but always stuff to verify.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
As I hear tell, members of another online community are doing it for fun and kicks.
OP
Bruno@MT
Senior Master
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2009
- Messages
- 3,399
- Reaction score
- 74
- Thread Starter
- #14
The problem is that it is very hard to rewrite those articles if we need to include external referencs that will pas muster. A lot of the info is word of mouth, with only circumstantial evidence at best.
Take Tanemura sensei for example. The pics of his scrolls are on the genbukan webpage. But for the wikipedia article, we'd have to have detailed scans, as well as a translation (which is hard, considering that some of the language is ancient) and proof that the line of predecessors is legit.
Sure, the koryu scholars in Japan might be able to do those things, as well as actually have permission. Us, not so much. And even then, th ewiki vandals will just flag it because of lack of noteworthiness. And then it will be deleted again.
Take Tanemura sensei for example. The pics of his scrolls are on the genbukan webpage. But for the wikipedia article, we'd have to have detailed scans, as well as a translation (which is hard, considering that some of the language is ancient) and proof that the line of predecessors is legit.
Sure, the koryu scholars in Japan might be able to do those things, as well as actually have permission. Us, not so much. And even then, th ewiki vandals will just flag it because of lack of noteworthiness. And then it will be deleted again.
So, archive it on ours before they remove it there.
Check http://wikibin.org for the articles. I found a few of mine in there, porting them over later on.
So out of related curiosity I did a search for martial arts wiki.
I found wikimartialarts.org and searched for ninjutsu. This is what I found: http://wikimartialarts.org/index.php/Ninjutsu
For weapons, at least they put the nunchaku and ninja-to near each other.
I found wikimartialarts.org and searched for ninjutsu. This is what I found: http://wikimartialarts.org/index.php/Ninjutsu
For weapons, at least they put the nunchaku and ninja-to near each other.
Hi, I have noticed this in other areas (besides martial arts) to. Maybe they are getting flack because one political party changes anothers info??? Or to many entries with no citations at all???
Doug
