Wikipedia's war on the demoscene

category: general [glöplog]
I am curious what people think about Wikipedia's seeming war on the demoscene, for example all the deletion discussions here.

I don't have the energy to argue with Wikipedia editors on what a "reliable source" can possibly be for the demoscene. I don't understand how actual files in actual archives, and websites with photos of actual events, are somehow not considered reliable sources, but whatever. I've posted a few civil sentences on the Renaissance discussion but I'm sure it will go nowhere.

Eventually all demoscene articles will be removed from Wikipedia under this criteria... I guess I'm glad we have scene.org, pouet, and demozoo.
added on the 2014-09-09 20:19:23 by trixter trixter
added on the 2014-09-09 20:19:31 by Gargaj Gargaj
No, seriously. Wikipedia is not relevant. I did my fair share of fighting and it's only grief.
added on the 2014-09-09 20:20:07 by Gargaj Gargaj
To be precise, it currently seems to be exactly one user's war.
Kinda ironic, given that the same articles (as far as they exist) stay untouched on the German wikipedia, which is historically known to be exclusive compared to the English wikipedia, as far as I know.
The same user also nomiated Shiva Shidapu (predecessor of Infected Mushroom, they sometimes used Impulse Tracker for their songs) for deletion.
I'd be curious to hear what jscott thinks about Wikipedia's policy on deletion.

Kidding, of course. That viewpoint was already shared eight years ago.

Like gargaj, I had a fleeting interest in demoscene articles on WP years ago, but have since stopped caring. Give them introductory articles to the demoscene and tracking, and that's enough. It's a waste of effort to argue with deleters. There are plenty of other, actively maintained resources that can be linked from the basic articles.
added on the 2014-09-09 20:31:30 by phoenix phoenix
Speaking of which, what happened to the demoscene wiki on scene.nl?
Fuck wikipedia.
added on the 2014-09-09 20:33:43 by Preacher Preacher
also their money begging is more annoying than bums at the train station :P
added on the 2014-09-09 20:43:14 by Maali Maali
wikipedia is a fact we have to live and deal with, there's no use in saying "screw it, it's fucked up anyway". such edit-delete-war dickheads should be simply confronted with information from established scholarly publications, which can be found at http://www.kameli.net/demoresearch2/?page_id=4. if diskmags etc. are not an established source for them, scholarly articles and books are something they can't argue with.
added on the 2014-09-09 20:53:16 by dipswitch dipswitch
Won't help much with individual group articles though. By WP standards, they are most likely not notable unless it's Future Crew or Farbrausch.
added on the 2014-09-09 20:59:22 by Preacher Preacher
"Notability" and "Neutral Point of View"...

We are damned! :D
added on the 2014-09-09 21:15:55 by ham ham
Introductory articles and links to external sources should be sufficient. I also second the suggestion of throwing scholarly articles and sites at the issue. Here is one example: http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/10-print-chr2055rnd1-goto-10-0

Also, Aeternus will eventually go away. The demoscene is bigger than one deleter.
added on the 2014-09-09 21:19:08 by metoikos metoikos
I don't get the obsession to put every minor scene thing on WP.
added on the 2014-09-09 22:07:44 by tomaes tomaes
Wikipedia - fuck em.
added on the 2014-09-09 22:16:13 by visy visy
But hey, the clickbait headline worked.
added on the 2014-09-09 22:16:30 by Gargaj Gargaj
I am curious, did we ever had a demoscene wiki? Where is this NL wiki?

I mean, ok some of the groups are not notable enough indeed, and if we added every single group or person then it would be too much for wikipedia, but in a specific demoscene wiki it would be ok.

Although, not sure I'd like to spend too much time on editing a wiki, it just takes so much and you tend to be more careful which is good but takes sooo much.
added on the 2014-09-09 22:29:07 by Optimus Optimus
Fun when non-demosceners try to judge what is/was 'relevant' or 'notable'...
But like everything in the demoscene, we also document our past ourselves, so who cares.
added on the 2014-09-09 22:38:26 by Scali Scali
Don't blow it out of proportion. WP is not a source of evil. Give them the ISBN of a book covering demos or the demoscene and all will be well.
added on the 2014-09-09 23:54:45 by Photon Photon
WP is not a source of evil.

Oh really. For one, it is monopolistic.
added on the 2014-09-10 00:03:29 by Gertrude Gertrude
why not create a demoscene wiki, on untergrund for example? this way people that actually know what the demoscene is all about can record every bit of information about it. this has been proposed before and was rejected since there wouldn't be many demosceneres that would help it grow but from what i have seen from recent examples (demozoo, pouet credits) that is certainly not the case.
added on the 2014-09-10 00:23:19 by Defiance Defiance
Maybe we should make a backup before they delete it?
Just host it someplace else if they are so bound on deleting it every few years (what is up with that anyway?)
added on the 2014-09-10 00:28:15 by numtek numtek
Wait. They are debating wheter or not to delete the PRINT-command.
That kind of answers my last question.
added on the 2014-09-10 00:33:03 by numtek numtek
Don't blow it out of proportion. WP is not a source of evil. Give them the ISBN of a book covering demos or the demoscene and all will be well.

If it's any use, I own a copy of "Demoscene: The Art of Real-Time" which has ISBN 952-91-7022-X.
added on the 2014-09-10 01:04:41 by fizzer fizzer
You could stash them on http://deletionpedia.org/ (wikipedia)
added on the 2014-09-10 01:11:21 by movAX13h movAX13h