User:The stuart/The Secret History of Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On occasion I stumble across confrontations on wikipedia that I find really intresting. Soes I cut and paste them here. I called this project "Secret history of Wikipedia" because the first one I found was this first excerpt a user wrote on his user page in 2002 about how wikipedia is doomed. All of his prediction have been completely wrong by the way. I felt like it was historical because it was old, and sercret because you had to dig back in his hitory to find it. Anyway, enjoy

On 20 Nov 2002, 02:45 (Wikipedia time) User:TMC updated his user page:

I believe Wikipedia is doomed to uselessness at best or failure at worst. This is not the same as saying that I have ill wishes for Wikipedia, simply that I am pessimistic about the future. Despite this, I hope to make useful contributions to Wikipedia as I can.

It is my opinion that there are three attributes that are necessary for any encyclopedia, including Wikipedia, to be useful.

  1. It must have a useful hierarchy of information.
  2. It must have a useful flow of importance.
  3. It must have a useful point of view.

Wikipedia has a constantly evolving hierarchy of information, flow of importance, and point of view. I don't believe, as it exists at this moment in time, that Wikipedia expresses these attributes in a useful form. I unsure whether I believe Wikipedia can evolve to the point where it does possess all these attributes in a useful form.

A good digression at this point would be to clarify what it is for an enclopedia to be useful, or more specifically, who it is that an encylopedia should be useful to. Clearly there are currently a large number of people who have made contributions to Wikipedia, so it could be said that these people found it useful to make their contributions. But that is like saying that a book is useful merely because the author enjoyed writing it, and although that is true it misses the point of what Wikipedia is striving to be. Wikiepedia wants to be an encylopedia, which means that the usefulness of Wikipedia should be measured by how much utility it provides to the encylopedia.



User_talk:Joshuapaquin/List_of_interesting_Google_Maps_satellite_images

  • Do the original contributors still get credit for adding all these on the original page? -- Riffsyphon1024 16:35, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Hadn't really thought of that. I don't know. If you added some of the images and want to put your name in, go right ahead - I have no objection. -Joshuapaquin 04:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well that would look just tacky wouldn't it? -- Riffsyphon1024 15:22, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • I suppose it would, but I don't have another solution right now. -Joshuapaquin 20:39, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
          • Since when was open source creative commons Wikipedia about giving credit to contributors?!?!?!--The_stuart 23:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Heh. Good point. So here's my thought: Do whatever you want. -Joshuapaquin 04:59, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of notable people who have been stung by jellyfish

Reason? 'Cos its bloody silly. A high proportion of people have been stung by a jelly fish at sometime. What is the point in this? The article promises that wasp stings are next ... joy! (Can't wait for nettles)--Doc (?) 15:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Sting to death unmaintianable, and pointless even if maintained. ARRGH!! DES 15:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — nn — RJH 15:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Crush by walrus. android79 15:59, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ow! Delete DJ Clayworth 16:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • My sister's friend was stung by a jellyfish last week. Unless dhe gets added, delete. - ulayiti (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, quite a nice idea for an article! :D jamesgibbon 18:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless doesn't even begin to describe this one. 23skidoo 18:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Crush by jellyfish. humblefool® 18:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ..w..t...f... K1Bond007 19:10, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah? My sister was once bitten by a møøse. Delete. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
    • We apologise for the fault in the article. Those responsible have been sacked. android79 21:48, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • Møøse bites can be quite serious, you know.--Scimitar parley 14:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • As much as I'd like to keep this, it's unjustifiable; impossible to verify, impossible to maintain, too wide, etc. If there have been any particularly notable jellyfish stingings I'd like to see them added to jellyfish, but as for this list: delete. Flowerparty talk 22:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No one becomes any more notable for being stung by a jellyfish. — JIP | Talk 07:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
    Of course, we might want List of jellyfish who have stung notable people I suppose. :) DES 15:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Scimitar parley 14:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Theodore W. 14:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 23:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, Pavel Vozenilek 00:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Doesn't meet any of WP:CSD, so can't be speedied. - ulayiti (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Jellywiki, I mean, Merge with List of notable people who have had the common cold, I mean delete with prejudice. Now, premeditated jellyfish stings, that would be encyclopedic. Peter Grey 03:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - (unless I get to be on the list...) - Tεxτurε 17:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.