Friday, December 01, 2006


WikiDumper Leaves a Mark

Thanks for making WikiDumper a success. Started less than a month ago, when the word “WikiDumper” had zero Google hits, we now find over 25,000 Google pages with this term. The site has received over 70,000 visits.

Press in Germany, Italy, and the US have been favorable, and the site has been warmly reviewed in web sites associated with The Chronicle of Higher Education, USA Today, Fortune, Der Spiegel, CNET, Gawker, Boing Boing, and more. Radio shows have shown interest. Thanks again for all your support, and please give me suggestions for improvement.

In an interesting turn of events, I stumbled upon a WikiDumper article that has been added to the Wikipedia. Amusingly, it is currently being considered for deletion. The following is a snapshot of the latest reasons for deletion of WikiDumper from Wikipedia. Enjoy!

[ is]:

- Non-notable. Although mentioned by the Associated Press, the site doesn't have multiple non-trivial sources.

- Weak Delete - Wow. Talk about irony. Anyway, the AP story linked to in the article is actually about another website. The Alexa page rank of 244,798 doesn't exactly impress either. I'm still kind of torn since I like the idea of a blog that keeps a record of deleted WP content. However, in the end it clearly doesn't satisfy WP:WEB.

- Delete; As I see it, it's just a blog someone created earlier this month. Right now, it fails WP:WEB. One mention at the end of a newspaper article (often where less important details are placed) doesn't quite cut it, and as above, the Alexa rank is weak. Perhaps later this will meet the inclusion guidelines, but it doesn't now.

- Delete bloggish, and fails WP:WEB.- Delete per nom. Sounds like an interesting idea. -Merge to Clifford A. Pickover. Seems more proper to be there.

From the AP article: " isn't the only site trying to save the ever-changing Web., which constantly regurgitates itself with user-inputted data, is now being watched by Any information not truthful enough to make it into Wikipedia is probably dubious twice over, but Wikidumper helps provide some oversight to the editors of Wikipedia, who can take down an entry for any number of reasons."
- Delete per nom. - Merge per Yanksox - Delete per Bobby and Crystallina.
- Delete, even when I like the idea a lot (and already subscribe to their RSS feed). This is more of project space material, regrettably, likely not famous enough yet to warrant an article space article. I don't mind it if someone recreates it later when there's no question about this thing's notability, but I'm sceptical on whether or not it ever will get there.
- Merge as above, the last thing we need is someone having a proof that we are biased against our critics

-Comment - Wikipedia's numerous critics will find bias no matter what, because that critics do. We should be concerned with enforcing Wikipedia's consensus-built policies consistently, rather than with allowing external criticisms to dictate the actions of the community. IMO, this is a very weak arguement against deletion.

- And what exactly is "critical" about Wikidumper anyway? It's not like they have an agenda of "look at all these valid and well-sourced articles that they've unjustly deleted"; they publish just about everything that may be deleted later (ranging from blatant BJAODN material to little-known topics). I'd be a little bit hesitant to lump them among critical sites; at best they're doing a service to the community, at worst they're just making people say "look at that ridiculous stuff they published - but good thing it looks like they deleted it."

- Comment: How can it be said that WikiDumper is non-notable if it has 24,600 Google hits and 39 articles in Google news? Isn't this objective evidence that it is notable?

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia discussion "Articles_for_deletion/Wikidumper ". This entry is a fragment of a larger work. Link may die if entry is finally removed or merged.

I have found many of the articles in WikiDumper to be interesting. It is not clear to me why the Wikipedia has rejected them. It is not surprising that the in-crowd at Wikipedia wants to dump an entry on the WikiDumper. They do not want to have any trace left of the vanished articles. This procedure is straight out of "1984."
It should not come as a surprise that the Wikipedia editors want to remove an entry on the WikiDumper. The editors have a job like that of Winston Smith in "1984." Every time they remove an entry, they re-write history. The WikiDumper brings unwanted attention to this process.
I don't know if anyone's noticed it yet (it's nearly a violation of [[WP:POINT]]), but the person who created the article was the same person who nominated it for deletion, and for most of the deletion discussion, the article had only a single edit. I thought it would be appropriate for the site to have an AfD to call its own.

Nonetheless, if the site has been covered by so many different news sources (and they're not copies of the same wire story), then that would be worth mentioning in the AfD...

I'm sorry, I wish I had something more intelligent to add but this whole article just makes me laugh so much I'm sure it's unhealthy.

Did the person who created the article actually nominate it for discussion? That's just... I mean...

Is it possible to die of an overload of irony? Because I think I passed that threshold about three paragraphs ago.
The irony continues. The person who wrote that the person who wrote the WP article on WikiDumper and then marked it for deletion, Interiot, is the same person. His motivea are not clear.

The latest on this is that the WP article on WikiDumper is no longer marked for deletion. Now that it has gone through the trial by fire, the discussion on deletion, it is presumably safe.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

eXTReMe Tracker