The deletionists have won

[Giraffe Stapler]

It's getting worse, I'm seeing AFDs for the primary protagonists and antagonists being deleted, not just minor characters. Wikipedia's conflict of interest in moving most of its content to the ad-monetized Fandom.com is so infuriating. In a sane world, Fandom would be ad free and part of Wikimedia, as I mentioned in my Wikimedia should acquire Fandom post. Right now, there is no reason to contribute to Wikipedia, is it will just get AFDed or reverted. I've had enough of Wikipedia and will not contribute there again until Jimbo Wales and all his deletionist friends are gone.

The deletionists only win when good, right-thinking people like yourself stop editing. You need to edit even more! Create even more articles about roads, trains, voice actors, video game characters, abandoned hamlets, and celestial bodies! Vote "keep" on every AfD that is opened! Organize off-wiki to create a voting block of hundreds of Roblox players! Use Google translate to copy every article from another language! Start your own botnet to infect computers with programs that write random articles! Don't let the deletionists win!!

[C&B]

[Poetlister]

It's getting worse, I'm seeing AFDs for the primary protagonists and antagonists being deleted, not just minor characters. Wikipedia's conflict of interest in moving most of its content to the ad-monetized Fandom.com is so infuriating. In a sane world, Fandom would be ad free and part of Wikimedia, as I mentioned in my Wikimedia should acquire Fandom post. Right now, there is no reason to contribute to Wikipedia, is it will just get AFDed or reverted. I've had enough of Wikipedia and will not contribute there again until Jimbo Wales and all his deletionist friends are gone.

The deletionists only win when good, right-thinking people like yourself stop editing. You need to edit even more! Create even more articles about roads, trains, voice actors, video game characters, abandoned hamlets, and celestial bodies! Vote "keep" on every AfD that is opened! Organize off-wiki to create a voting block of hundreds of Roblox players! Use Google translate to copy every article from another language! Start your own botnet to infect computers with programs that write random articles! Don't let the deletionists win!!

Alternatively, only write articles when you are sure that you have some good references to establish notability. It won't always work, but probably it will help.

[Beeblebrox]

Don't hold your breath.

[Instant Noodle]

Is there any point in submitting articles through the article wizard? I'm not interested in creating a wikipedia account but my impression is the deketionists dominate the draft review process and tend to reject articles on the flimsiest of pretexts.

[Ritchie333]

Is there any point in submitting articles through the article wizard? I'm not interested in creating a wikipedia account but my impression is the deketionists dominate the draft review process and tend to reject articles on the flimsiest of pretexts.

Try it and see.

Since you have to be confirmed as having 10 edits and 4 days' service to create an article, AfC has grown to be the place where corporate spam and autobiographies are left to fester; so for every Donna Strickland (T-H-L) there are probably 100 Draft:Schmolling Frischdienst für Molkereiprodukte GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG (T-H-L)s. If your draft has too few references, it'll be declined because of that; if it has too many, it'll probably be declined as spam. A bit of a tightrope, really.

[AngelOne]

The best way to be sure your AfC draft is accepted is to approve it yourself, according to fellow member Atsme: Robert H. Boyle (T-H-L) and Neil Jacobson (T-H-L).

[Poetlister]

The best way to be sure your AfC draft is accepted is to approve it yourself, according to fellow member Atsme: Robert H. Boyle (T-H-L) and Neil Jacobson (T-H-L).

Can any confirmed account approve a draft? That would be a huge loophole.

[AngelOne]

The best way to be sure your AfC draft is accepted is to approve it yourself, according to fellow member Atsme: Robert H. Boyle (T-H-L) and Neil Jacobson (T-H-L).

Can any confirmed account approve a draft? That would be a huge loophole.

I think only AfC reviewers are allowed to approve drafts submitted to AfC, and there are rules about who can become an AfC reviewer.

[Poetlister]

I think only AfC reviewers are allowed to approve drafts submitted to AfC, and there are rules about who can become an AfC reviewer.

Thanks. That looks reasonable, but it wouldn't be all that difficult to become one and then approve articles written by a sock.

[GlwnDwr]

Deletionist Pride Worldwide!

[Beeblebrox]

Just in case this isn't clear to everyone: autoconfirmed users can just go ahead and create articles directly without using AFC at all. Being confirmed is a very low bar, designed only to stop the laziest spammers and vandals, and to encourage new users to make sure they know what they are doing before they submit an article.

[AngelOne]

Just in case this isn't clear to everyone: autoconfirmed users can just go ahead and create articles directly without using AFC at all. Being confirmed is a very low bar, designed only to stop the laziest spammers and vandals, and to encourage new users to make sure they know what they are doing before they submit an article.

Which makes one wonder why Atsme didn't just create the two articles instead of going to the trouble of submitting them to AfC and then approving them herself. From what I understand, approving one's own AfC submissions is rather frowned upon.

[Poetlister]

Just in case this isn't clear to everyone: autoconfirmed users can just go ahead and create articles directly without using AFC at all. Being confirmed is a very low bar, designed only to stop the laziest spammers and vandals, and to encourage new users to make sure they know what they are doing before they submit an article.

Presumably, any tighter restriction on article creation would be resisted bitterly as contravening the principle of "anyone can edit".

[Ryuichi]

Presumably, any tighter restriction on article creation would be resisted bitterly as contravening the principle of "anyone can edit".

Moving it up to "extended confirmed" would have some support. Mostly from those completely unaffected by such a change.

[Poetlister]

Presumably, any tighter restriction on article creation would be resisted bitterly as contravening the principle of "anyone can edit".

Moving it up to "extended confirmed" would have some support. Mostly from those completely unaffected by such a change.

Indeed, and the sort of people who form the "community" and comment on RfCs and the drama pages are probably mostly extended confirmed.

[Beeblebrox]

The bigger problem these days is not articles on non-notable things, or even vandals, it's undisclosed paid editing, and generally they create new accounts for each client, so as to be less obvious. This tactic would be foiled by requiring EC to create articles. I'd be in favor of just upping the standards for a confirmed account as well for the exact same reason. If we made the bar two months and 100 edits, paid editors wouldn't find it so easy to hide their activities and still get paid, and one thing that is clear to me is that they are a very greedy bunch ($2,000 for a crappy stub that could be deleted at any time?), they won't have the patience to meet such requirements before doing work they can get paid for.

[Vigilant]

The bigger problem these days is not articles on non-notable things, or even vandals, it's undisclosed paid editing, and generally they create new accounts for each client, so as to be less obvious. This tactic would be foiled by requiring EC to create articles. I'd be in favor of just upping the standards for a confirmed account as well for the exact same reason. If we made the bar two months and 100 edits, paid editors wouldn't find it so easy to hide their activities and still get paid, and one thing that is clear to me is that they are a very greedy bunch ($2,000 for a crappy stub that could be deleted at any time?), they won't have the patience to meet such requirements before doing work they can get paid for.

I suspect you have too much confidence in en.wp

Paid editors are prima facie going to be more motivated and are likely more tech savvy than the average wikikpedia denizen.

It's an arms race against a one armed ding dong.

[Poetlister]

The bigger problem these days is not articles on non-notable things, or even vandals, it's undisclosed paid editing, and generally they create new accounts for each client, so as to be less obvious. This tactic would be foiled by requiring EC to create articles. I'd be in favor of just upping the standards for a confirmed account as well for the exact same reason. If we made the bar two months and 100 edits, paid editors wouldn't find it so easy to hide their activities and still get paid, and one thing that is clear to me is that they are a very greedy bunch ($2,000 for a crappy stub that could be deleted at any time?), they won't have the patience to meet such requirements before doing work they can get paid for.

I think people worry too much about paid editing. The bigger problem is people with a strong POV or even COI who aren't being paid. That's why we have so many people creating articles about third-rate boy bands. And of course many people write or edit articles about their employers universities, schools, possibly notable distant relatives and so on.

[Ryuichi]

I think people worry too much about paid editing. The bigger problem is people with a strong POV or even COI who aren't being paid.

I don't get paid to edit. I am what is known as a "mug". But paid NPOV, NOR aligned editing is not the biggest problem. It's certainly not yet been demonstrated to be a bigger problem than non-paid POV, OR editing.

[Beeblebrox]

I suspect you have too much confidence in en.wp

Paid editors are prima facie going to be more motivated and are likely more tech savvy than the average wikikpedia denizen.

It's an arms race against a one armed ding dong.

I've seen quite a few of their pitches. People send us stuff. An awful lot of them are obvious scammers, charging 1-2K to write an article, and five hundred bucks to maintain it for six months, stuff like that. Alternately, they pull this one: "I will have your article deleted if you don't pay me to fix it up for you." They are no more tech-savvy than a Nigerian prince who needs just a few thousand dollars in cash to get his 3 million bucks out of the country, if only you could help him out, Dear Sir or Madam....

[Vigilant]

I suspect you have too much confidence in en.wp

Paid editors are prima facie going to be more motivated and are likely more tech savvy than the average wikikpedia denizen.

It's an arms race against a one armed ding dong.

I've seen quite a few of their pitches. People send us stuff. An awful lot of them are obvious scammers, charging 1-2K to write an article, and five hundred bucks to maintain it for six months, stuff like that. Alternately, they pull this one: "I will have your article deleted if you don't pay me to fix it up for you." They are no more tech-savvy than a Nigerian prince who needs just a few thousand dollars in cash to get his 3 million bucks out of the country, if only you could help him out, Dear Sir or Madam....

And yet they persist to the point that you declare them the #1 issue facing en.wp and there is a complete cowpat of an RFC that even its proponents admit won't solve anything.

Again, I suspect you have too much confidence in en.wp.

[Ming]

The thing is that obsessive people tend to be perfectionists in trivia, whereas people in it for the money are (after all) trying to do as little work as possible. It's not surprising that a lot of paid editing is nigh unto a scam.

[Atsme]

The best way to be sure your AfC draft is accepted is to approve it yourself, according to fellow member Atsme: Robert H. Boyle (T-H-L) and Neil Jacobson (T-H-L).

I did not create Neil Jacobson - I just cleaned it up, copy edited and moved it out of draft - that's what I do at AfC and NPP. I did start the Boyle bio at AfC but only because I like to stay current with how some of the processes work from start to finish, and to see if anything had changed or could be improved. I have autopatrolled rights, and normally create straight into namespace. But the question here is why are you looking at my contributions? That's kinda like creepy stalker stuff.

[Midsize Jake]

I have autopatrolled rights, and normally create straight into namespace. But the question here is why are you looking at my contributions? That's kinda like creepy stalker stuff.

Naah — your standards are waaaaay out of date. Surely if it were "creepy stalker stuff," they wouldn't put a handy "Only show edits that are page creations" checkbox in the "Search for contributions" dropdown box at the top of everyone's contributions list, making it trivially easy to find articles you've created...?

Besides, this is probably just another one of those bulldog-related things. You have to expect a certain amount of push-back for that — this is why so many people prefer cats.

[Poetlister]

Isn't it supposed to be a virtue of MediaWiki-based sites that they are open and transparent, so it's easy to stalk see what other people are doing? Wouldn't things be better if it were equally easy to see what ArbCom is doing?

[AngelOne]

Is it stalking when all the contributions are just right there for all to see? This is more like stalking:

I've already said that Atsme (T-C-L) created Robert H Boyle (T-H-L), submitted the article to AfC, and approved her own submission.

Could she have approved her own submission to test the process, as she claims? That claim is barely believable on its face (and doesn't explain submitting Neil Jacobson (T-H-L) to AfC and then approving it herself) and it's even less believable when we see she contacted BD2412 (T-C-L) and said that she might have a COI with Boyle. Such a COI isn't on the Talk page, and it wasn't declared when she requested Cwmhiraeth (T-C-L) do the GA review.

[Blooxo]

Wikipedia is near bursting point now. The pool of articles that are both “notable” (by deletionists standards) and not already on Wikipedia is small. Wikipedia will start shrinking as more articles are deleted than created. I lost it this morning when a deletionist destroyed an article about a listening device for the blind that I worked hard on. The amount of the public at large bitten by deletionists is growing, and it is inevitable that incluionist wikis start over taking Wikipeda in search results and depriving Wikipedia of traffic and potential donations. The heads at the top have already seen what is to come, thats why they are trying to build Wikimedia’s endowment before the public at large boycott donating to them. After 20 yaers people are going to say enough! And leave deletionst wikis behind.

I’ve seen internet giants fall before, Wikipedia will go the way of Digg, Myspace and Altavista.

[jf1970]

I've seen quite a few of their pitches. People send us stuff. An awful lot of them are obvious scammers, charging 1-2K to write an article, and five hundred bucks to maintain it for six months, stuff like that. Alternately, they pull this one: "I will have your article deleted if you don't pay me to fix it up for you." They are no more tech-savvy than a Nigerian prince who needs just a few thousand dollars in cash to get his 3 million bucks out of the country, if only you could help him out, Dear Sir or Madam....

That's poor logic, like a police officer saying criminals are generally stupid because every criminal he's ever caught was stupid. Obviously the UPEs you know about are unsophisticated; they're the ones who are unsophisticated enough to get caught. What you don't know is how many more are out there that are outsmarting you (and everyone else). Don't judge an iceberg by the part you can see.

[Poetlister]

Wikipedia is near bursting point now. The pool of articles that are both “notable” (by deletionists standards) and not already on Wikipedia is small. Wikipedia will start shrinking as more articles are deleted than created. I lost it this morning when a deletionist destroyed an article about a listening device for the blind that I worked hard on. The amount of the public at large bitten by deletionists is growing, and it is inevitable that incluionist wikis start over taking Wikipeda in search results and depriving Wikipedia of traffic and potential donations. The heads at the top have already seen what is to come, thats why they are trying to build Wikimedia’s endowment before the public at large boycott donating to them. After 20 yaers people are going to say enough! And leave deletionst wikis behind.

I’ve seen internet giants fall before, Wikipedia will go the way of Digg, Myspace and Altavista.

There are of course sites like Everipedia. I have not seen them come high up in Google searches. Has anyone else seen them?

[Katie]

Wikipedia is near bursting point now. The pool of articles that are both “notable” (by deletionists standards) and not already on Wikipedia is small. Wikipedia will start shrinking as more articles are deleted than created. I lost it this morning when a deletionist destroyed an article about a listening device for the blind that I worked hard on. The amount of the public at large bitten by deletionists is growing, and it is inevitable that incluionist wikis start over taking Wikipeda in search results and depriving Wikipedia of traffic and potential donations. The heads at the top have already seen what is to come, thats why they are trying to build Wikimedia’s endowment before the public at large boycott donating to them. After 20 yaers people are going to say enough! And leave deletionst wikis behind.

I’ve seen internet giants fall before, Wikipedia will go the way of Digg, Myspace and Altavista.

Ehhh, I'm sorry to say this, but I don't think most people, aside from a minority, care about inclusionism or deletionism. Besides, wikis like Everipedia tend to be flooded with junk and rapidly become useless. If Wikipedia is going to fall, it's going to be for other reasons.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Wikipedia is near bursting point now. The pool of articles that are both “notable” (by deletionists standards) and not already on Wikipedia is small. Wikipedia will start shrinking as more articles are deleted than created. I lost it this morning when a deletionist destroyed an article about a listening device for the blind that I worked hard on. The amount of the public at large bitten by deletionists is growing, and it is inevitable that incluionist wikis start over taking Wikipeda in search results and depriving Wikipedia of traffic and potential donations. The heads at the top have already seen what is to come, thats why they are trying to build Wikimedia’s endowment before the public at large boycott donating to them. After 20 yaers people are going to say enough! And leave deletionst wikis behind.

I’ve seen internet giants fall before, Wikipedia will go the way of Digg, Myspace and Altavista.

Why are you still editing Wikipedia? You don't like them and they don't like you. You should spend your time on one of those "inclusionist wikis" that are taking over.

[tarantino]

But the question here is why are you looking at my contributions? That's kinda like creepy stalker stuff.

You upload photos of yourself posing with celebrities.

Atsme and Steven Tyler at Sturgis in 2008.

You want people to look at you, but not look at your contribution history. Okay.

[Vigilant]

But the question here is why are you looking at my contributions? That's kinda like creepy stalker stuff.

You upload photos of yourself posing with celebrities.

Atsme and Steven Tyler at Sturgis in 2008.

You want people to look at you, but not look at your contribution history. Okay.

[Zoloft]

But the question here is why are you looking at my contributions? That's kinda like creepy stalker stuff.

You upload photos of yourself posing with celebrities.

Atsme and Steven Tyler at Sturgis in 2008.

You want people to look at you, but not look at your contribution history. Okay.

Heck, that's on your user page.

[Atsme]

I have autopatrolled rights, and normally create straight into namespace. But the question here is why are you looking at my contributions? That's kinda like creepy stalker stuff.

Naah — your standards are waaaaay out of date. Surely if it were "creepy stalker stuff," they wouldn't put a handy "Only show edits that are page creations" checkbox in the "Search for contributions" dropdown box at the top of everyone's contributions list, making it trivially easy to find articles you've created...?

Besides, this is probably just another one of those bulldog-related things. You have to expect a certain amount of push-back for that — this is why so many people prefer cats.

Pussies like cats...you know, pussy cats.

[Atsme]

But the question here is why are you looking at my contributions? That's kinda like creepy stalker stuff.

You upload photos of yourself posing with celebrities.

Atsme and Steven Tyler at Sturgis in 2008.

You want people to look at you, but not look at your contribution history. Okay.

Heck, that's on your user page.

What? Are you jealous? Sorry, I chose that career instead of something you can better relate to ... like spending your time here dissing people you don't know while you hide behind your anonymity and troll like a creepy stalker. There are remedies are for that, too.

[Atsme]

The best way to be sure your AfC draft is accepted is to approve it yourself, according to fellow member Atsme: Robert H. Boyle (T-H-L) and Neil Jacobson (T-H-L).

Can any confirmed account approve a draft? That would be a huge loophole.

I think only AfC reviewers are allowed to approve drafts submitted to AfC, and there are rules about who can become an AfC reviewer.

If you create a draft in user space, what do you think happens if you're auto patrolled? It's one thing to be critical of someone when it's constructive criticism, but just being stupid about it like the stupid stuff being spewed here is....well, stupid. It's time to grow up.

[Vigilant]

But the question here is why are you looking at my contributions? That's kinda like creepy stalker stuff.

You upload photos of yourself posing with celebrities.

Atsme and Steven Tyler at Sturgis in 2008.

You want people to look at you, but not look at your contribution history. Okay.

Heck, that's on your user page.

What? Are you jealous? Sorry, I chose that career instead of something you can better relate to ... like spending your time here dissing people you don't know while you hide behind your anonymity and troll like a creepy stalker. There are remedies are for that, too.

And these remedies are what, precisely?

[AngelOne]

The best way to be sure your AfC draft is accepted is to approve it yourself, according to fellow member Atsme: Robert H. Boyle (T-H-L) and Neil Jacobson (T-H-L).

Can any confirmed account approve a draft? That would be a huge loophole.

I think only AfC reviewers are allowed to approve drafts submitted to AfC, and there are rules about who can become an AfC reviewer.

If you create a draft in user space, what do you think happens if you're auto patrolled? It's one thing to be critical of someone when it's constructive criticism, but just being stupid about it like the stupid stuff being spewed here is....well, stupid. It's time to grow up.

The point of AfC is to get more eyes on the article. You could have just moved the draft to mainspace but you didn't. And it wasn't like it was a mistake, either, because you submitted to AfC and approved a second article.

Is it stupid to draw attention to your COI and rule-breaking? Isn't that one of the points of this board?

[Midsize Jake]

What? Are you jealous? Sorry, I chose that career instead of something you can better relate to ... like spending your time here dissing people you don't know while you hide behind your anonymity and troll like a creepy stalker. There are remedies are for that, too.

You see, every time you say something like that, you're insulting the intelligence of everyone who reads what you've written.

You're essentially claiming that the term "stalking," an actual crime that has serious real-world negative consequences for the (nearly all) innocent victims of it, should apply to someone who looks at your publicly-available Wikipedia contributions, but not to someone who might, for whatever reason, want to stare at photos of you posing with celebrities that you uploaded yourself for no apparent reason other than to get people to believe that you (routinely?) hang out with celebrities.

The fact that you would ask if someone else is "jealous" because of this only reinforces that conclusion.

Aside from all that, you seem like a nice enough person. However, I would ask that you refrain from misusing the word "stalker" here from now on, out of respect for actual real-world stalking victims.

[wiki-reviewer]

Wikipedia is near bursting point now. The pool of articles that are both “notable” (by deletionists standards) and not already on Wikipedia is small. Wikipedia will start shrinking as more articles are deleted than created. I lost it this morning when a deletionist destroyed an article about a listening device for the blind that I worked hard on. The amount of the public at large bitten by deletionists is growing, and it is inevitable that incluionist wikis start over taking Wikipeda in search results and depriving Wikipedia of traffic and potential donations. The heads at the top have already seen what is to come, thats why they are trying to build Wikimedia’s endowment before the public at large boycott donating to them. After 20 yaers people are going to say enough! And leave deletionst wikis behind.

I’ve seen internet giants fall before, Wikipedia will go the way of Digg, Myspace and Altavista.

After bread and butter articles are written on a wiki, staff tends to like to gatekeep more than fix existing stuff. Seems to be common wiki psychology. It's easier and you feel important doing it.

[wiki-reviewer]

Thinking about making a new Delitionpedia, as that one actually stopped years ago.

But it'd be manual review. I wouldn't want to add bios of random people, as that'd afoul too many laws.

It'd also include stuff deleted from smaller wikis.

I bought a domain for it, might as well use it.

[wiki-reviewer]

Wikipedia is near bursting point now. The pool of articles that are both “notable” (by deletionists standards) and not already on Wikipedia is small. Wikipedia will start shrinking as more articles are deleted than created. I lost it this morning when a deletionist destroyed an article about a listening device for the blind that I worked hard on. The amount of the public at large bitten by deletionists is growing, and it is inevitable that incluionist wikis start over taking Wikipeda in search results and depriving Wikipedia of traffic and potential donations. The heads at the top have already seen what is to come, thats why they are trying to build Wikimedia’s endowment before the public at large boycott donating to them. After 20 yaers people are going to say enough! And leave deletionst wikis behind.

I’ve seen internet giants fall before, Wikipedia will go the way of Digg, Myspace and Altavista.

Yea, nothing lives forever. It will die for some reason or another. And so will the work of millions of people.

[Instant Noodle]

Wikipedia is near bursting point now. The pool of articles that are both “notable” (by deletionists standards) and not already on Wikipedia is small. Wikipedia will start shrinking as more articles are deleted than created. I lost it this morning when a deletionist destroyed an article about a listening device for the blind that I worked hard on. The amount of the public at large bitten by deletionists is growing, and it is inevitable that incluionist wikis start over taking Wikipeda in search results and depriving Wikipedia of traffic and potential donations. The heads at the top have already seen what is to come, thats why they are trying to build Wikimedia’s endowment before the public at large boycott donating to them. After 20 yaers people are going to say enough! And leave deletionst wikis behind.

I’ve seen internet giants fall before, Wikipedia will go the way of Digg, Myspace and Altavista.

Yea, nothing lives forever. It will die for some reason or another. And so will the work of millions of people.

Yes, but think of all the joy the deletion of wikipedia itself will bring to the deletionists who dominate the site. Finally, every unnecessary article is gone! "My work is done!" they will exult.

[AndyTheGrump]

Wikipedia is near bursting point now. The pool of articles that are both “notable” (by deletionists standards) and not already on Wikipedia is small. Wikipedia will start shrinking as more articles are deleted than created. I lost it this morning when a deletionist destroyed an article about a listening device for the blind that I worked hard on. The amount of the public at large bitten by deletionists is growing, and it is inevitable that incluionist wikis start over taking Wikipeda in search results and depriving Wikipedia of traffic and potential donations. The heads at the top have already seen what is to come, thats why they are trying to build Wikimedia’s endowment before the public at large boycott donating to them. After 20 yaers people are going to say enough! And leave deletionst wikis behind.

I’ve seen internet giants fall before, Wikipedia will go the way of Digg, Myspace and Altavista.

Yea, nothing lives forever. It will die for some reason or another. And so will the work of millions of people.

Yes, but think of all the joy the deletion of wikipedia itself will bring to the deletionists who dominate the site. Finally, every unnecessary article is gone. "My work is done!" they will exult.

If Wikipedia is dominated by deletionists, how come the number of articles keeps increasing?

[wiki-reviewer]

Wikipedia is near bursting point now. The pool of articles that are both “notable” (by deletionists standards) and not already on Wikipedia is small. Wikipedia will start shrinking as more articles are deleted than created. I lost it this morning when a deletionist destroyed an article about a listening device for the blind that I worked hard on. The amount of the public at large bitten by deletionists is growing, and it is inevitable that incluionist wikis start over taking Wikipeda in search results and depriving Wikipedia of traffic and potential donations. The heads at the top have already seen what is to come, thats why they are trying to build Wikimedia’s endowment before the public at large boycott donating to them. After 20 yaers people are going to say enough! And leave deletionst wikis behind.

I’ve seen internet giants fall before, Wikipedia will go the way of Digg, Myspace and Altavista.

Yea, nothing lives forever. It will die for some reason or another. And so will the work of millions of people.

Yes, but think of all the joy the deletion of wikipedia itself will bring to the deletionists who dominate the site. Finally, every unnecessary article is gone. "My work is done!" they will exult.

If Wikipedia is dominated by deletionists, how come the number of articles keeps increasing?

that's like saying "If our government is austerity-minded, how does the debt keep increasing, hmm?"

self-serving growth by a few elites, with the average person at their disposal, doesn't mean the average person is enjoying that growth in any meaningful sense. On the contrary, despite growth being present, an average person can experience it as deprivation and censorship, as they are working to enrich the mindset of elites rather than improving general understanding and wellbeing.

[wiki-reviewer]

A lot of 2000s-founded platforms are dying now. The underlying tech just isn't scaling well. The tech was too simple and had a dumb right-libertarian vision of "the first rule is no rules bro". This ultimately leaves in place toxic groups of extremely aggressive and often criminal people (regardless of political persuasion) who hiijack everything and ruin it.

The unofficial motto of these large platforms was "we're a public utility to be used by anyone, and individual IPs are part of our democracy", is turning out to be a lie, and a poorly implemented lie. IPs cannot be democracy and no one has implemented anything resembling IRL free speech.

Twitter's millions of users are having a hard time accepting this. Preferring to prop up the corpse of unhealthy platforms in the name of "monitoring". It's current CEO falsely insisting traffic is a measure of website health, it isn't.... Just log off, don't put off it's demise.

Deleted my wikipedia years ago, and my twitter months ago. Time for new, better websites.

[wiki-reviewer]

Almost every somewhat interesting and topical page is locked from editing by the public. Number seemingly just keeps increasing every month. lmao, bait and switch

[Tarc]

Speaking of "Preferring to prop up the corpse"...