User:Maurog: Difference between revisions

I used to protect Wikipedia from vandals, but not anymore. What is the point of denying outside attacks, when the inside attacks do much more damage and cannot be prevented? Wikipedia is firmly on the path of destroying itself right now.

I work as a software engineer.

(削除) Articles I'm currently active in: (削除ここまで)

(削除) DROD and all related ones - Caravel DROD, Journey to Rooted Hold and The City Beneath. (削除ここまで)

(削除) I might track vandals and report them using this form. (削除ここまで)

New signature - • Maurog • 13:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Why? Because I can. And yes, the red dots link to talk/contributions.

Self correcting notability is the notion that notability should be asserted not by some vague standard involving outdated meatspace media, but by the very defined and tangible page view count for the article in question. Once we employ this method of measuring, we can see that the system is self-correcting in regards to possible "damage" to Wikipedia.

Let us outline the four possible scenarios regarding notability and quality:

• The page is both good and notable. This is the perfect scenario. The page is good and lots of people view it. Massive props to Wikipedia for finally doing something right.
• The page is good, but not notable. Despite the outstanding quality and detail of the page, not many people view it. But so what? You managed to please the few who do, and the rest don't give a damn. You're still in the plus here. However, if you delete this page on the grounds that it's "not notable", you pissed off the few people who view it, and the rest didn't gain anything.
• The page is bad, but not notable. So the few people who wander into this obscure page on the outskirts of Wikipedia will find a poorly written article. It's common sense really. The net result is very slight damage to Wikipedia, slight because nobody cares. One could argue deletion would be a plus here. They are right. Improving the article might be better though.
• The page is bad and notable. This is the worst scenario, but this is also where the self-correcting issue comes in. The article is bad, but lots of people view it. Sure, it raises all the red flags, but with so many people viewing it, some of them will correct it. And the more notable it is, the faster it will happen. Unless there is some edit war going on, pretty soon the page will be good. Way to fix yourself, Wikipedia!

So here you go. This is basically why you should kick WP:N into trash and forget about it, Wikipedia. But you won't. Because you're mad. You poor thing. • Maurog • 19:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Pages with missing files