When an online encylopedia goes bad
This entry comes from Guest Blogger RMHED, who probably doesn’t really care how you pronounce his name.
There sits on Wikipedia a short biography of a minor British showbiz personality - let’s call him Mr X. It is unloved and unwatched. How do I know this? Well, for over 7 weeks [...]
http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20090613/now-thats-tragic/
Full Version: Now that’s tragic!
QUOTE
"would be only to glad to be shot of"
too?
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 13th June 2009, 9:40am) 
QUOTE
"would be only to glad to be shot of"
too?
Three!
What can I say, it was getting late... Besides, you have to have at least one typo, or else it seems pointless to have all those fancy computerized editing capabilities.
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 13th June 2009, 4:53pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 13th June 2009, 9:40am)
QUOTE
"would be only to glad to be shot of"
too?
Three!
What can I say, it was getting late... Besides, you have to have at least one typo, or else it seems pointless to have all those fancy computerized editing capabilities.
Entirely my fault, I can't quite bring myself to use a spellchecker, they irritate the hell out of me.
Either way, good work RHMED, keep 'em coming.
This illustrates, as does the Holocaust Memorial shooter's vanity hate page, that Wikipedians have no idea what is on their website, which would be the threshold criteria for responsibility.
The nonsense additions have finally been removed by an IP, though they did add a load of uncited crap as well.
QUOTE(RMHED @ Mon 15th June 2009, 9:22pm)
The nonsense additions have finally been removed by an IP, though they did add a load of uncited crap as well.
Considering the glaring clue, it took them long enough to find it. And before the post, defamation in place from 22 April to today. Self-correcting, my ass.
QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Mon 15th June 2009, 10:23pm)
Self-correcting, my ass.
You have a self-correcting ass? Lucky you.
QUOTE(WR Editorials @ Sat 13th June 2009, 4:12pm)
When an online encylopedia goes bad
This entry comes from Guest Blogger RMHED, who probably doesn’t really care how you pronounce his name.
There sits on Wikipedia a short biography of a minor British showbiz personality - let’s call him Mr X. It is unloved and unwatched. How do I know this? Well, for over 7 weeks [...]
http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20090613/now-thats-tragic/
Would you like to do some numbers than and calculate how big the audience was for this, using the Wikipedia article traffic statistics?
signed
interested
QUOTE(Casliber @ Tue 16th June 2009, 12:19am)
QUOTE(WR Editorials @ Sat 13th June 2009, 4:12pm)
When an online encylopedia goes bad
This entry comes from Guest Blogger RMHED, who probably doesn’t really care how you pronounce his name.
There sits on Wikipedia a short biography of a minor British showbiz personality - let’s call him Mr X. It is unloved and unwatched. How do I know this? Well, for over 7 weeks [...]
http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20090613/now-thats-tragic/
Would you like to do some numbers than and calculate how big the audience was for this, using the Wikipedia article traffic statistics?
signed
interested
Less than a 1,000, but that isn't the point, this biography, if you can call it that, has no business being on Wikipedia. No credible encyclopedia has an article on this individual, but as Wikipedia isn't so much an encyclopedia as a repository of shite, then I really shouldn't be surprised should I.
QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 16th June 2009, 9:29am)
QUOTE(Casliber @ Tue 16th June 2009, 12:19am)
QUOTE(WR Editorials @ Sat 13th June 2009, 4:12pm)
When an online encylopedia goes bad
This entry comes from Guest Blogger RMHED, who probably doesn’t really care how you pronounce his name.
There sits on Wikipedia a short biography of a minor British showbiz personality - let’s call him Mr X. It is unloved and unwatched. How do I know this? Well, for over 7 weeks [...]
http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20090613/now-thats-tragic/
Would you like to do some numbers than and calculate how big the audience was for this, using the Wikipedia article traffic statistics?
signed
interested
Less than a 1,000, but that isn't the point, this biography, if you can call it that, has no business being on Wikipedia. No credible encyclopedia has an article on this individual, but as Wikipedia isn't so much an encyclopedia as a repository of shite, then I really shouldn't be surprised should I.
Why thankyou for deciding who should and should have a bio - was it ever nominated for deletion? Why is it so nonnotable (can't comment on exactly how as you haven't told us which it is) - I hate how so many people have such a sterile view of the world.
Cas
QUOTE(Casliber @ Tue 16th June 2009, 1:46am)
QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 16th June 2009, 9:29am)
QUOTE(Casliber @ Tue 16th June 2009, 12:19am)
QUOTE(WR Editorials @ Sat 13th June 2009, 4:12pm)
When an online encylopedia goes bad
This entry comes from Guest Blogger RMHED, who probably doesn’t really care how you pronounce his name.
There sits on Wikipedia a short biography of a minor British showbiz personality - let’s call him Mr X. It is unloved and unwatched. How do I know this? Well, for over 7 weeks [...]
http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20090613/now-thats-tragic/
Would you like to do some numbers than and calculate how big the audience was for this, using the Wikipedia article traffic statistics?
signed
interested
Less than a 1,000, but that isn't the point, this biography, if you can call it that, has no business being on Wikipedia. No credible encyclopedia has an article on this individual, but as Wikipedia isn't so much an encyclopedia as a repository of shite, then I really shouldn't be surprised should I.
Why thankyou for deciding who should and should have a bio - was it ever nominated for deletion? Why is it so nonnotable (can't comment on exactly how as you haven't told us which it is) - I hate how so many people have such a sterile view of the world.
Cas
Oh he's probably notable enough by Wikipedia standards, but that really isn't saying much. If Wikipedia can't act responsibly in regards to biographies of living people then it has no business having them.
I'm sorry about your sterility, have you sought medical help?
QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 16th June 2009, 10:51am)
QUOTE(Casliber @ Tue 16th June 2009, 1:46am)
QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 16th June 2009, 9:29am)
QUOTE(Casliber @ Tue 16th June 2009, 12:19am)
QUOTE(WR Editorials @ Sat 13th June 2009, 4:12pm)
When an online encylopedia goes bad
This entry comes from Guest Blogger RMHED, who probably doesn’t really care how you pronounce his name.
There sits on Wikipedia a short biography of a minor British showbiz personality - let’s call him Mr X. It is unloved and unwatched. How do I know this? Well, for over 7 weeks [...]
http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20090613/now-thats-tragic/
Would you like to do some numbers than and calculate how big the audience was for this, using the Wikipedia article traffic statistics?
signed
interested
Less than a 1,000, but that isn't the point, this biography, if you can call it that, has no business being on Wikipedia. No credible encyclopedia has an article on this individual, but as Wikipedia isn't so much an encyclopedia as a repository of shite, then I really shouldn't be surprised should I.
Why thankyou for deciding who should and should have a bio - was it ever nominated for deletion? Why is it so nonnotable (can't comment on exactly how as you haven't told us which it is) - I hate how so many people have such a sterile view of the world.
Cas
Oh he's probably notable enough by Wikipedia standards, but that really isn't saying much. If Wikipedia can't act responsibly in regards to biographies of living people then it has no business having them.
I'm sorry about your sterility, have you sought medical help?
har har, not mine, but others who have a more spartan/sterile outlook, me I love the amazonian jungle of pop culture/tangential connections etc.
QUOTE(Casliber @ Tue 16th June 2009, 1:56am)
QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 16th June 2009, 10:51am)
QUOTE(Casliber @ Tue 16th June 2009, 1:46am)
QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 16th June 2009, 9:29am)
QUOTE(Casliber @ Tue 16th June 2009, 12:19am)
QUOTE(WR Editorials @ Sat 13th June 2009, 4:12pm)
When an online encylopedia goes bad
This entry comes from Guest Blogger RMHED, who probably doesn’t really care how you pronounce his name.
There sits on Wikipedia a short biography of a minor British showbiz personality - let’s call him Mr X. It is unloved and unwatched. How do I know this? Well, for over 7 weeks [...]
http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20090613/now-thats-tragic/
Would you like to do some numbers than and calculate how big the audience was for this, using the Wikipedia article traffic statistics?
signed
interested
Less than a 1,000, but that isn't the point, this biography, if you can call it that, has no business being on Wikipedia. No credible encyclopedia has an article on this individual, but as Wikipedia isn't so much an encyclopedia as a repository of shite, then I really shouldn't be surprised should I.
Why thankyou for deciding who should and should have a bio - was it ever nominated for deletion? Why is it so nonnotable (can't comment on exactly how as you haven't told us which it is) - I hate how so many people have such a sterile view of the world.
Cas
Oh he's probably notable enough by Wikipedia standards, but that really isn't saying much. If Wikipedia can't act responsibly in regards to biographies of living people then it has no business having them.
I'm sorry about your sterility, have you sought medical help?
me I love the amazonian jungle of pop culture/tangential connections etc.
So you're saying that Wikipedia governance is the equivalent of "The law of the jungle", if so I can't help but agree with you.
QUOTE(RMHED @ Mon 15th June 2009, 6:07pm)
So you're saying that Wikipedia governance is the equivalent of "The law of the jungle", if so I can't help but agree with you.
Except on WP it's Gresham's law of the jungle: bad editors drive good ones out!
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 16th June 2009, 11:09am)
QUOTE(RMHED @ Mon 15th June 2009, 6:07pm)
So you're saying that Wikipedia governance is the equivalent of "The law of the jungle", if so I can't help but agree with you.
Except on WP it's Gresham's law of the jungle: bad editors drive good ones out!
Cue - In the jungle, the mighty jungle, the lion sleeps tonight...
oh wait, wrong continent....
QUOTE(Casliber @ Mon 15th June 2009, 6:13pm)
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 16th June 2009, 11:09am)
QUOTE(RMHED @ Mon 15th June 2009, 6:07pm)
So you're saying that Wikipedia governance is the equivalent of "The law of the jungle", if so I can't help but agree with you.
Except on WP it's Gresham's law of the jungle: bad editors drive good ones out!
Cue - In the jungle, the mighty jungle, the lion sleeps tonight...
oh wait, wrong continent....
But with just the proper amount of maybe-gay falsetto! Thanks, Jay Siegel and the Tokens! (and you too, Mr.Linda)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.