The relevance of irrelevant in Wikipedia
Want to sweeten your morning? Then you look at some the current fighting talk of Daniel Katz of article on Wikipedia.
"Sure, relevant - for a 5-slice, as it is consonant for celebrities (to put it with Atze ...) belongs!"
"If you look at the course of the discussion looks at, one gets the impression that many a Wikipedian has erupted from his dark Kellerchen never."
"Do you only let go to a cucumber or vice umoperieren to be considered famous?" [N Reference to Daniel Küblböck]
As you can see, is discussed in the Wikipedia family oh so important relevance. Not about the relevance per se, but the question is whether the entry is to the person Daniela Katzenberger Sun relevance that he may continue to remain open in the Wikipedia.
Is not it getting ridiculous? Delete Delete that, because - the Wikipedia itself makes getting ridiculous. Do not get me wrong, I am God knows no fan of Daniel Katz. But the fact that such an article was written shows, but that are interested in a particular group of people for the person. This has something to do with class in my opinion nothing. If so, then there must be dozens of other people still delete at Wikipedia.
Cult status? By whom? For whom? By Alexander Duszat (aka Elton), I had hitherto heard anything yet, which is probably because I like TV shows such total not look as far as possible. Your first call I made reference to the corresponding Wikipdia article - and I must say, has actually also looking at anything in an encyclopedia.
And sorry, but that some "Wikipedians" have not heard of the woman is also no reason for a Löschung.Wenn you just a bit in the media landscape is familiar, then you would have at least ever noticed the name of it. I think that at least the young generation "Katzi" is familiar. Already due to the fact that she was a guest on such programs as tvtotal. The woman is represented in the media. Whether some like it or not. Or sit all day in the basement.
I am simply getting bolder times: once it has called only a person of the article Daniel Katz on Wikipedia, is the reason and purpose of encyclopedias yet met. Just because some articles of any hacks people have never heard, but that is not mean that the person would be for all people uninteresting and irrelevant. When developing the Wikipedia in that direction, then I'm sorry tuts.
No related articles.
Ha!
So you can turn even a fly an elephant. Since I only say: Naught but the poor woman but simply their products, are available in Wikipedia about the things you should worry much more likely than those Lapalien. But the discussion is always funny. ^ ^
Is now more arbitrary than actual idea of the matter, discuss why many long-admins about what is "valuable" for Wikipedia, and what is not.
Ever tried to amend an article with verifiable information? Happened to me in recent weeks Sun Despite repeated reference to the cleaner research, I was told that my comments are irrelevant - because you can have different opinions, which I would immediately think of a Wikipedian who would scream in this case "NO"
. Many admins set up their own minds about much of the new additions or the general interest, even in contravention of or against the own rules of Wikipedia. Unlike the exorbitant Edit Wars are no longer to explain.
Should make calm so on. On the one hand, there are enough people who are stubborn enough to ride out such discussions and to investigate further. On the other hand, if the great question of the relevance of new articles and sections of this continues to Wikipedia digs his own grave itself. Who wants to use a platform that only allows what some fits to an admin to mind?
It's just too crazy ...
That shovels the Wikipedia with this strategy even her grave, I suspect. After all, if the articles are approved so selectively and filtered, then there sometime just Nerdartikel. Or just those responsible for the vast majority of people is not relevant (ha!). Tables are turned.