Item — HN Reader

His case for the notability of his friend doesn't seem to add anything that hadn't already been considered by the Wikipedians already, and his attitude was monstrously shitty. Especially his reaction to the guy/girl that removed his comments on the page that said not to leave comments on it, saving them on his "user page" with a helpful message about the process to get the debate, which was already over, reopened.

I hate the tone of this. He knows what should be in Wikipedia, and what they should consider notable under their standards, yet feels put upon by having to know what a "talk page" or "deletion review" is, and assaulted by being informed of a talk page being created for him. In turn, he assaults the random person who tried to help him with his goal by saving his work and giving him directions with more than a half dozen paragraphs of angry, condescending tl;dr like he was reading his list of grievances to the King of Wikipedia.

2 comments

I seem to be dropping like a stone here, so let me go on forever about this:

1. Danny Sullivan hears that his friend Jessie Stricchiola, a pioneer in fighting click fraud, has been deleted from Wikipedia.

2. He somehow gets to a discussion about the deletion of her page on Wikipedia. On it is a debate between 13 people about whether her page should be deleted, and at the top of that page is a detailed explanation by the editor that made the final decision why that decision was made.

3. At the top of this page is an explanation that this page is an archive, and that any comments should be added to the article's "talk page" or a "deletion review". The text for "deletion review" is a link to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review which explains Wikipedia's deletion review policies, and offers a pretty clear six step process for having a deletion reviewed.

4. Author rages and instead writes on archive page. Summary: a. Stricchiola was a founding member of SEMPO, the largest trade group of the search marketing industry. b. Stricchiola was the earliest, and the largest stature person in the area of click fraud. c. Co-authored a popular book on click fraud.

5. Some time later, author gets an email from Wikipedia saying his "talk page" had been created and changed. When he clicks through, he is shown what changes were made, and they are a suggestion by one of the participants in the debate on deletion that his comments will not be read on the archive page, and yet another link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review which, again, explains Wikipedia's deletion review policies, and offers a pretty clear six step process for having a deletion reviewed.

6. Instead of following this link, he clicks through the link in the email that told him how to get in contact with the person that edited his "talk page."

7. It clicks him through to a page that it then tells him not to touch. That's really annoying, but it immediately gives him the link to the place to talk to him in the same place.

8. He rages at this user about being asked to go through "some arcane cryptic obscure Wikipedia deletion review process," and asks why this user didn't just do it for him. He tells this Wikipedia editor that the decision to delete Stricchiola's article came from "the insane closed little world of Wikipedia editors, where non-specialist editors pretend to be experts on what’s notable[...]", and refers to his general feeling that "contributing anything to Wikipedia is a big giant waste of time[...]"

I don't know much about Wikipedia, and don't care whether Stricchiola is notable or not, or included or not, except in the general sense that I support the mission of Wikipedia and find it useful, and I hope that they at least keep it as useful as it has been, or make it even more useful. I want friction in my crowd-sourced encyclopedia, and know that it is far less friction than would occur in the World Book, where the appeal process would be far more obscure, and far less democratic. The deletion review process seemed pretty clear and quick to me. There was a lot of copying and pasting involved, it would be nice to have a button for that, but I'm not sure that the free form nature of the debate on the deletion page lends itself well to one. I consider this a flaw in the deletion page, not a reason not to simplify the process, but there is something to say in having a bit of friction in a process to reopen a debate that had already been concluded.

The sense of entitlement in this blog entry astounds me. I'm really surprised that so many people sympathize.

---

edit: I did skip the conclusion. In the end, he does go to the "deletion review" page. Instead of following the six step process (and notably not including a screenshot of that in his blog entry), he decides that it's the wrong page, and instead finds another page with a banner on top that begins: "Please note that this page is NOT for challenging the outcome of deletion discussions[...]"

More righteous condemnation ensues.

I seem to be dropping like a stone here, so let me go on forever about this

You are my new favorite commenter.

Yeah - Both of you got my up. I too like Wikipedia - and its chock a block full of good stuff - so it seems some folk have taken the time to learn the rules and add to collective knowledge contained within.

The Deletion Review process is for pages in the process of being deleted; not for those that have already been deleted.

Perhaps you're dropping like a stone because I explained this in my post.

I don't have a sense of entitlement over Wikipedia. I have a sense of disgust.

1. One person at Wikipedia declares a 7-6 vote to be a "consensus.

2. The same person at Wikipedia, when alerted to a comment with and substantial information that hadn't been cited before does nothing.

3. A second person at Wikipedia, also alerted to the same comment, also does nothing other than leave a message that I should do a Deletion Review

If Wikipedia's goal is to make informed decisions around consensus, it has failed on multiple levels.

From the second paragraph of the deletion review page:

"Deletion review (DRV) considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion."

Further down, under the heading "What is this page for?", in a bold box:

"Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion.

"1. Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look. "2. Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions. "3. Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. "4.[...]"

This seems to describe precisely your situation, except that I don't think that you ever tried #1. Correct me if you think I'm misinterpreting this.

>1. One person at Wikipedia declares a 7-6 vote to be a "consensus."

It's good that you put quotes there, because Wikipedia has their own rules for determining what they call a consensus. As far as I can tell, they have to do with unanswered arguments. I can see why, because I'd be able to keep my band in high school on Wikipedia by simply calling my friends and knowing that the against side wouldn't be able to find 50 people who gave a shit either way.

>2. The same person at Wikipedia, when alerted to a comment with and substantial information that hadn't been cited before does nothing.

I don't remember what was in your blog entry, but I don't remember you ever getting in contact with "Mkativerata", the person who decided the consensus, just writing on the closed archive page. He/she most probably never saw it, according to the message helpfully left for you by Metropolitan90.

3. A second person at Wikipedia, also alerted to the same comment, also does nothing other than leave a message that I should do a Deletion Review.

The "second person", who noticed the comment, does nothing but leave a friendly message that told you that your other message would likely not be read, and referred you to the same link that was at the top of the archive page that you edited.

Sounds like nothing but kindness coming from Wikipedia's side, and success at keeping to the standards that they intend to keep to. The only failure I see here is the failure of a person who believes that they have a strong case for the inclusion of an entry in Wikipedia to ever make that case to anyone, through an angry refusal to follow simple directions or to show any respect to people he certainly demands a lot of respect from.

Also, let me apoligize for replying to this again, because you've certainly gotten enough shit for a few misunderstandings during what was obviously a frustrating process for you. I just feel that when somebody completely fails in every way to follow directions, to the point where I feel that you still haven't read them even to answer criticism, and condemns Wikipedia with a broad brush in an article with a linkbait title, I should do my bit to keep that meme from flourishing.

I'm with you in this one! I heard the rage and entitlement too! The author is out of line. Instead of talking about this constructively he posts a temper tantrum and everyone sides with him. I got downvoteed to hell too with my initial reaction. I do admit though I was very sarcastic and snarky but I think it warranted it. I mean, this post really did come off as the equivalent of a digital temper tantrum. How do you respond to someone who behaves like? Surely with the way that post is written and the points you make you cannot take him seriously anymore.

I don't understand why you are getting down-voted for your comment. This is exactly what happens. I've been in on more than 30 or 40 so AfD discussions. There is usually a deep debate of it.

In the end it's not about votes either. We leave long explanations as our points for or against. We weigh the arguments. It prevents the "+1 me too! I agree!" responses from adding to it so consensus by vote doesn't always matter.

The actual results were 7:6. On what planet is that "consensus"?

Oh wait, another WikiMagicThing is that only some votes count and some votes count more than others and what votes count is completely up to the arbitrary decision of someone who has no accountability for their decisions. Right.

Consensus cannot be found in votes alone. Don't over simplify things.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:!VOTE#Straw_poll_guid...

If you see the world in black and white, you're missing important grey matter. ~Jack Fyock

AfD closure isn't a vote. It's a discussion. The closer resolved on the merits of the arguments. And they are of course accountable; people who do a bad job closing can end up taking a ton of heat. But they're accountable to the Wikipedia community, not to the general public.

Wikipedia editors can claim all day long it isn't a vote, but the sailent point of the AfD "Discussion" is a bolded "Keep" or "Delete" right at the beginning of each response. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, ...

The most obvious thing is not always the most obvious thing. And the distinguishing characteristic of a vote isn't that people express opinions; it's how the opinions are counted.

Go read a number of closings of tricky AfDs and you'll soon see that it's the arguments that really matter.