Mod+ Wikipedia Wants to Delete My Page...

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Dec 7, 2015.

  1. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,608
  2. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,119
  3. Hurmanetar

    Hurmanetar New

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,377
    Home Page:
    Either that or just change the page title to one that is more suitable for the page content like... "Ben Radford's and Mark Edward's unchallenged emotional rants about an author they don't like."

    But seriously tho... I've never gotten involved with Wikipedia, so I'm not sure...
    I see that they have a number of possible reasons for deletion. Which reason is cited here?
     
  4. K9!

    K9! New

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,596
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alex_Tsakiris

    You would think the page would be deleted on the grounds that it was just set up to harass Alex, but they are saying it's because he isn't famous enough.
     
    Trancestate and The Moderator like this.
  5. Arouet

    Arouet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,222
    It looks like the primary basis is that of your notability. I would suggest starting by searching for others of your relative level of notability (ie: podcasters with similar number of subscribers, authors with similar traction on their books) and see if they have active pages that were either suggested for deletion or, even better, survived a deletion attempt.

    It looks like they thought you potentially notable enough that they denied a speedy deletion so I assume that give you some shot. I'm not nearly familiar enough with Wikipedia's criteria to know what should constitute sufficient notability.

    I don't have much of an interest becoming an wiki editor and getting involved in the process formally, but with my background as a lawyer I could look into it a bit and let you know what I think (not in a professional capacity or in any formal representative manner of course!). Let me know if you'd appreciate my input on this.
     
    Roberta, Johnny and Saiko like this.
  6. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,608
    why?
     
    Johnny likes this.
  7. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,119
    Okay, don't let them.
     
    Roberta, Slorri and The Moderator like this.
  8. Max_B

    Max_B Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    3,155
    Home Page:
  9. north

    north Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    306
    Because there is no benefit to appearing in Wikipedia.
     
    The Moderator likes this.
  10. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,119
    Okay. Here's the straight dope. The entry is totally outrageous and I can't imagine why you'd wanna keep it any way. I don't know if you want to argue with Wikipedia shitheads, but if you do, good luck with that. Personally, I wouldn't give them the oxygen.
     
    Steve, Pollux, Trancestate and 3 others like this.
  11. Judith

    Judith New

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    114
    You're in good company. They don't like Rupert Sheldrake either.
     
    Matt², Slorri, K9! and 1 other person like this.
  12. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,452
    I think the important thing is that if anyone GOOGLE's your name, SKEPTIKO comes up as the first item. I would not worry - Wiki is only really useful for non-controversial information.

    David
     
  13. Stephen Wright

    Stephen Wright New

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    898
    Alex, What category of radio shows/podcasts do you see Skeptiko placed? In reviewing Stichers list, would it be labeled as Science and Culture? High placement within that category would give objective statistics to support your effort.
     
  14. Vault313

    Vault313 New

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,254
    Notability? I can see that being a rule to some extent so it doesn't become a wiki/Facebook mash-up, but I'd argue if you've got a reasonably successful podcast and have authored at least one published book then why shouldn't he have an article. It's not like we're going to run out of space on the Internet.

    That being said, Wikipedia is for lazy people who are stupid enough to believe everything it says. Wikipedia is the knowledge equivalent of fine dining from a trash bin.
     
    TravisMontgomery likes this.
  15. Vortex

    Vortex Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    637
    As other members have already proposed - just let them. There is nothing valuable to lose on your Wiki page - except for skeptics' scornful sentiments. And the increase of the article's length would only mean the prolongation of their onslaught on you. Knowledgeable people are already aware that there is no use watching Wiki for anything (and anyone) even remotely controversial.
     
    Matt², Saiko, Johnny and 2 others like this.
  16. Johnny

    Johnny New

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    491
  17. Johnny

    Johnny New

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    491
    After reading the comments my reaction is to also let them , as it really isn't a positive contribution to your true character, in fact, it verges on the brink of slander, my hunch is that they will actually beg to have it restored, as it serves more their materialistic purpose of tearing down your character, rather then propping it up.

    I would just be happy that they have noticed you enough as a threat
     
    Saiko likes this.
  18. Luke Perkins

    Luke Perkins New

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2014
    Messages:
    14
    Any attempt to answer the criticism re Nancy Weber would only lead to re-editing by the guerrilla skeptics. Because of this you will never get balance. Knee jerk pathological skepticism is a black hole. Better of without it but it is infuriating. The request for deletion is not about Alex's notability it is about the paranormal. It has to be cleansed.
     
    Saiko, Johnny, Lusikka and 3 others like this.
  19. SkepticRecruiterRecruiter

    SkepticRecruiterRecruiter New

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    191
    One of the big arguments over at Sheldrake's wikipedia page was regarding the opening sentence, specifically whether or not the the socially inept imbeciles-for-editors would allow him to be labeled a biologist. The argument went something like -- Sheldrake hasn't done any research in biology within the past so-and-so number of years, therefore the opening sentence will read, "Rupert Sheldrake is an author, pseudoscientist and researcher of the paranormal..." There are probably over fifty thousand words on his 'talk' page arguing over that introductory sentence and why he can't be called a biologist.

    All the while according to Wikipedia, "Sam Harris is a neuroscientist, author and..." Of course, beyond his degree Harris has never worked in the field of neuroscience. To my knowledge, nobody had ever pointed this out in the many words wasted arguing with the lunatics editing Rupert's page. So there you go.
     
  20. Pollux

    Pollux New

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2013
    Messages:
    1,005
    Wikipedia is a quagmire of asshole-editors.

    Come to think of it, it is more of a Hydra-of-Assholes; - when you "cut" one asshole down, two new ones grows out - in an never-ending cycle.
     
    Red, Slorri, Saiko and 3 others like this.

Share This Page