Wikitruth thanks you for your years of support!
God-Kings
From Wikitruth
Contents |
[edit] All Hail Whoever It Is Ruling Over You Today
Compared to other authority figures, God-Kings have it pretty simple; nobody really appoints a King; it is often a case of the right bloodlines heading back to, well, one assumes, God. With this pretty intense pedigree, the God-King doesn't have to get re-elected or justify his position; a God-King simply Is. It makes for a lot less pressure during election time, since you ain't havin' one. You're the God-King. All bow down and listen to the wisdom from your Kingly lips. You're driving the bus of the People, and if you happen to not have a license, who cares! Dude, you're the God-King!
Wikipedia is loaded with God-Kings. Absolutely infested with them at every turn, every corner, every last nook and cranny. And why wouldn't it? Since this is the "encyclopedia" that "anyone" can edit, everyone basically has the same skills, same rights, same entrusted authority vested upon you by Jimbo to improve (or wreak havoc) throughout the Wikipedia landscape.
It's one thing to have a person who is adding information, adding facts, completing entries in an encyclopedia based on researched knowledge. It is another thing entirely when some yokel stumbles onto a page, decides they don't "like" the subject, consider it "irrelevant", apply some random set of criteria to it, and then nominate the article to be deleted off Wikipedia. Why? They're the God-King! They didn't add anything new, they just want to pull someone else's work down. Bow before them!
God-Kings do not need to be Administrators on Wikipedia; at least if the person removing your work is Jimbo Wales you feel like, well, Daddy's home and you're getting spanked. It's when the person who says your excellent and factual article is "Non-Notable" or "too Obscure" or "worthless" and begins yanking the carpet out from you has no credentials whatsoever, the true and utter arbitrariness of quality on Wikipedia becomes very clear.
[edit] Some examples of the "Criteria" for keeping/deleting articles
Here are examples of quotes from the "Articles for Deletion" page on Wikipedia; essentially small votes over whether or not a subject should remain on Wikipedia or be deleted forever. Whether or not the ultimate usefulness/relevance of a page is in doubt, there is amazing, undependable variance given as to why an article should be disappeared forever. Remember, the people "nominating" that an article should be deleted are more often than not just random folks, with no particular knowledge of the subject.
It is worth noting how widely variant and arbitrary these calls for deletion are, and how even with a policy and rules-heavy set of guidelines on Wikipedia, these sorts of requests are made every day.
[edit] Article on an "American exotic dancer and big-bust model" named Tabitha Jordan
"Hardly notable. She does not have any accomplishments that bring her above the big-bust, breast-flashing mediocrity that pervades the internet. No awards or citations in her "profession" to make her notable. Has only done 30 movies in less than 8 years, and has very little in the way of magazine appearances. Thus, delete. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 01:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)"
- Obviously Ms. Jordan needs to get a few more movies under her belt and get some proper adult film awards before she's considered Wikipedia material; and good luck on future magazine appearances, of which Mr. Beaudoin appears to be well-appraised.
[edit] List of LEXX episodes
"I loved this show dearly, having watched every episode aired on the SciFi Channel in the U.S. I even have autographed pictures of two major cast members, Patricia Zentilli and Eva Habermann. In spite of all this, I must say that this article is unencyclopedic fancruft and listcruft and needs to go. I can't think of a single reason to save it, and the existing systemic bias towards science fiction fandom means that we should hold articles on science fiction topics to a very high standard." -- Brian G. Crawford 00:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- We already have lots of articles about science fiction, so instead of congratulating ourselves on breadth of coverage, let's start getting rid of them. Mr Crawford should have known better. The wikinerds cannot get enough science fiction and the list was kept. The observant but uninformed might be puzzled by the suffix "-cruft". This is wikispeak for "detail". Wikipedians hate detail whenever someone else adds it.
[edit] The Anatomy of the Body of God
"Non-notable book, Amazon rank 1,657,640 (or 2,319,877 for paperback). Was de-prodded for the reason of being a published book. However, WP:NOT a catalogue of all the books in the world. Merge and redirect to the author, Frater Achad (whose notability is dubious himself, IMHO). Sandstein 07:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)"
- "Non-notable" is wikispeak for "I haven't heard of it". Nothing is more illustrative of the divide between "inclusionists" and "deletionists" than the concept of "notability". It is quite obviously not an objective standard (because what I note, what you note and what he notes are going to be different things), yet content-destroying wikinerds like to pretend it is. In this instance, "Sandstein" excels in expressing his cluelessness, Frater Achad being an important figure in what is, to be sure, a less-visited area of human knowledge. One wonders why an encyclopaedia that aims to include the sum of all human knowledge would not aspire to include notes on all the books in the world though.
