Wikipedia Article Discussion

[ikanreed]

I Fail to see how If 'O RLY' passes the critieria, how erfworld doesn't

The First Thing it says is that it's a popular interent phenomeonon, and if all the orly's where to be gone tomarrow what would really be left besides a few bad memories, that one joke (in an entire game )and perhaps a few print outs from the virus original?

I think that if they agreed that Notability is Subjective the problem would go away, Communally subjective sure , lets get second oppions as apposed to people divining the one provable objective truth, thank god its for wiki and not a religion is all i can say

Logos

Because, among other reasons, that article demonstrates that "O RLY" is documented in a newspaper.
Second... the fact that it nominated to be deleted should be a sign of how borderline it is. When using a comparison approach to demonstrate an assertion, you should choose an example that goes above and beyond the requirments to totally demonstrate what one means. That's a matter of high school level rhetoric.
Third, there's already a caveat that states that inclusion is not an indication of notability. For example, individual pokemon are allowed because of the extent of literature avaiable documenting all pokemon, not because "zubat" is particuarly notable on its own.

There's good reasons for most of the policies on wikipedia, and there's good exceptions for most of the policies on wikipedia.

And I know the majoriaty of my posts on giantitp forums is in this thread, because this is the kind of debate where I thrive.

[Erk]

No, that's not a problem with WP:N at all. That's one of the best things about WP:N that misunderstand. Notability was introduced so that articles that would never have sources to verify what they say.

If The Giant and pclips both died(let's hope that didn't happen) and a domain squatter aquired giantitp.com, what evidence could you point to that there ever was a Erfworld. (the answer in this case is an article in dragon magazine and a few online comic reviews.

That's the idea protected by WP:N. That there's always something that you can point to, that's trustworthy, that states there really was such a thing as X.

But ikanreed, the problem with this is that it is only necessary for print articles. Wikipedia is not set in stone, it is constantly changing. If all the blogged reviews of Erfworld were deleted and GitP went off the air forever and Erfworld faded from all memory, the article could be edited or deleted without hesitation. The only arguments I have heard for major professional blogs not being included is that they are editable and changeable... but if the information were to change, why couldn't wikipedia change? That seems to be, indeed, Wikipedia's greatest strength... yet it is being squandered by a Britannia-like attitude. Gotta save paper!

Also, I don't understand your second and third sentences at all. They seem to be missing some grammar.

It's an extension of WP:V, and one that has been abused. The problem isn't "deletion monkeys" but rather people who simply don't get WP:N.

From what I've seen, pclips doesn't get this either.

tagline for this post for people too bored with my banter to read it:
"People cite policy they don't understand"

I get WP:N just fine, but I still consider it deeply flawed. Scientivore did a better job explaining it than I could. In essense, Wikipedia's notability criteria are based on an antiquated system. Wikipedia is in itself a child of the overhyped information age, yet it is being limited to function only as its parents could. Why? Why should an instantly-updatable, utterly modern encyclopedia be forced to function exactly like a print one? Why is the blog of an expert in a non-scientific field not a valid source for information on that field? I am not saying there should be NO notability guidelines; I don't think many people are. We are saying the notability guidelines are arbitrary, and only work with very traditional topics: topics that would, in fact, be far better researched in a REAL encyclopedia, written by EXPERTS. The things wikipedia is good for - the things amateurs can write about, the things that can be researched online - these are being forced off wikipedia.

Does that make sense to anyone?

[GeoffA]

Because, among other reasons, that article demonstrates that "O RLY" is documented in a newspaper.

I've been documented in a newspaper. I would readily admit that I don't deserve my own Wikipedia article.

Second... the fact that it nominated to be deleted should be a sign of how borderline it is. When using a comparison approach to demonstrate an assertion, you should choose an example that goes above and beyond the requirements to totally demonstrate what one means. That's a matter of high school level rhetoric.
Third, there's already a caveat that states that inclusion is not an indication of notability. For example, individual pokemon are allowed because of the extent of literature available documenting all pokemon, not because "zubat" is particularly notable on its own.

There's good reasons for most of the policies on wikipedia, and there's good exceptions for most of the policies on wikipedia.

I don't mean to put words into the original poster's mouth, but I think what is really riling people up in this discussion is that notability seems to be applied very unevenly. You admit that there are "good exceptions". There is the perception that a certain few editors seem to be using notability to specifically go after web comic entries. If notability were applied strictly then some of the web comics should go, but then so should a lot of other trivial entries in Wikipedia. If things like O RLY and random pokemons deserve an exception, why do they get to be "good exceptions" and not some webcomic?

And I know the majority of my posts on giantitp forums is in this thread, because this is the kind of debate where I thrive.

This seems to be the same reasoning that many Wikipedia editors use to discount people who show up specifically to argue against the deletion of their favorite entry. "All you do is show up here and talk about deleting webcomics. You're not really interested in Wikipedia as a whole; you're just trying to push your issue."

I'm not saying that we should ignore ikanreed. He's taken the time to write out his arguments reasonably clearly and this is clearly important to him. At the same time, I think Wikipedia should be more sympathetic to people who are most interested in (and likely most knowledgeable about) a particular topic up for deletion. If a certain Wikipedia editor says "I don't really know much about webcomics" then perhaps he should take the time to listen to those who do. If Pclips says "I have worked in webcomics for five years, I know a lot about them and I know a lot of people involved in webcomics" then he's probably got something worthwhile to add to the discussion. Perhaps he should not be talking quite so much about his own comic (there's an undeniable bias there), but in as much as the debate applies to webcomics as a whole, he's a good resource.

[Renegade Paladin]

That's the thing, though: As an institution, Wikipedia hates experts. And your average expert will hate right back, because while at Wikipedia someone who is, say, a professor of medieval European history editing the article on the battle of Agincourt could very well run up against some guy named Bob who insists that the French employed chainsaw-wielding zombies in their assault on the English lines. And rather than this idiot getting laughed out of the place, the professor will be expected to talk to said idiot and reach some version of the article incorporating the chainsaw zombie theory as a compromise. Of course this is an extreme example, but Wikipedia values the opinions of people who know nothing about a subject far more highly than the knowledge of people who are expert in a given field.

[Tokiko Mima]

No, that's not a problem with WP:N at all. That's one of the best things about WP:N that misunderstand. Notability was introduced so that articles that would never have sources to verify what they say.

If The Giant and pclips both died(let's hope that didn't happen) and a domain squatter aquired giantitp.com, what evidence could you point to that there ever was a Erfworld. (the answer in this case is an article in dragon magazine and a few online comic reviews.

That's the idea protected by WP:N. That there's always something that you can point to, that's trustworthy, that states there really was such a thing as X.

It's an extension of WP:V, and one that has been abused. The problem isn't "deletion monkeys" but rather people who simply don't get WP:N.

From what I've seen, pclips doesn't get this either.

tagline for this post for people too bored with my banter to read it:
"People cite policy they don't understand"

If WP:N is abusable and often misunderstood (by your own admission), doesn't that mean it's a policy that should be rethought, or stated more clearly? You can blame one person for not getting WP:N, but when many people read it incorrectly and use it incorrectly, doesn't that imply a strong possibility that the policy itself is flawed?

[atteSmythe]

Wait, wait. You have to 'assert notability?' Isn't that a little meta? Isn't creating the article in the first place an assertion that it's notable enough for inclusion?

If lack of assertion of notability is a criteria for speedy deletion, then that's really asinine. It just about completely precludes any community discussion that would lead to a discovery of whether the subject of the article is, in fact, notable.

[Tokiko Mima]

Wait, wait. You have to 'assert notability?' Isn't that a little meta? Isn't creating the article in the first place an assertion that it's notable enough for inclusion?

If lack of assertion of notability is a criteria for speedy deletion, then that's really asinine. It just about completely precludes any community discussion that would lead to a discovery of whether the subject of the article is, in fact, notable.

Agree 100%. Asinine is exactly the right word.

The way it was told to me was that in order to avoid a speedy delete, like Erfworld got, an article has to make a 'reasonable claim to significance.' Having the article be about something or anything that exists, period, would seem to be a reasonable claim to significance, but I'm not a Wikipedia admin. Judging from their oh-so objective viewpoint there are apparently many truly insignificant webcomics out there. One of which is Erfworld.

[Karellen]

A claim to significance, in my best observation, would be a reason why anyone at all should care or find this information even moderately interesting. Honestly, I think the current "reception" section is pathetic; it contains information that interests no one at all, and it completely misses the point, and if you guys want to talk about going by the letter of the law and not the spirit, well...

What went on, if I may be so bold as to guess, was that this guy who found the page comes in, sees barely any links to anything and no suggestion that there's anything particularily special about this webcomic (in which, one might argue, he may have been quite right), then maybe checked out the webpage, thought, "20 pages? Oh you've gotta be kidding-" and deletes it. I think something along the lines of, "new comic of Rob Balder, sister comic to the successful "Order of the Stick", well received among the webcomic community", and that's a claim for notability. All the claim the comic really has, anyway.

On why there are Pokémon articles, I think it's likely at one time or another actions will be taken against excessive anime fancruft; I don't think having all that is really in Wikipedia's best interest, it would all be best placed in a seperate Wikimedia anime wiki. Which, honestly, I think is what should be done webcomics too for the most part. It works perfectly well with Star Trek; a casual user checking out Star Trek from wikipedia would be interested in Star Trek's significance as a cultural phenomenon and what precisely is meant when somebody is compared to Kirk or Spock, as opposed to the detailed structural schematics on the Starship Enterprise. With the division to two different wikis for different userbase, as far as I can see, everyone's more or less happy.

[atteSmythe]

What went on, if I may be so bold as to guess, was that this guy who found the page comes in, sees barely any links to anything and no suggestion that there's anything particularily special about this webcomic (in which, one might argue, he may have been quite right), then maybe checked out the webpage, thought, "20 pages? Oh you've gotta be kidding-" and deletes it.

Fair enough. I'm not even arguing that the initial article was good enough for inclusion...but CSD? Really? Isn't speedy deletion supposed to be reserved for vandalism, libel, profanity, and copyright infringement? Aren't articles supposed to be given the benefit of the doubt, with a deletion mark/discussion period to allow people to improve the article or argue for its inclusion? Regardless of the notability of Erfworld, that seems to me to be the crux of the issue.

As I've said on another wiki, any editor who can find no other solution to a problem than to delete dozens or hundreds of articles with which he or she finds fault shouldn't be editing.

Ahwell. My opinion, rantmode off.

[Maurog]

I think there is too much discussion here over one trigger-happy idiot with access to tools more powerful than he should handle. Really, it's not about the rules and policies of WP (which should be followed by spirit, not by word anyway). It's not an act of terrorism that should be followed by swift reprimandment on other parties. It's also not about justifying the existence of your article by pointing out the flaws in others. It's about one stupid man who made one stupid mistake, and probably not even losing any sleep over it.

The new article is in and is grappled with more references than it needs, so it's gonna stay. Let it die, people.

[ikanreed]

If WP:N is abusable and often misunderstood (by your own admission), doesn't that mean it's a policy that should be rethought, or stated more clearly? You can blame one person for not getting WP:N, but when many people read it incorrectly and use it incorrectly, doesn't that imply a strong possibility that the policy itself is flawed?

Yes. It does. So? I've been working on the matter slowly for a while now. In spite of what it says about itself, wikipedia is highly beurocratic and slow-moving.

The general notion among editors is that all kinds of mistakes are made, including deleting articles. If the subject really was very notable, the article will end up being recreated in better form.

The problem with working by consensus is that consensus takes a long time to form.

The truly astounding thing in my mind is that wikipedia could be total chaos. It's not. I'm not sure exactly how that happens.

[ikanreed]

I think there is too much discussion here over one trigger-happy idiot with access to tools more powerful than he should handle. Really, it's not about the rules and policies of WP (which should be followed by spirit, not by word anyway). It's not an act of terrorism that should be followed by swift reprimandment on other parties. It's also not about justifying the existence of your article by pointing out the flaws in others. It's about one stupid man who made one stupid mistake, and probably not even losing any sleep over it.

The new article is in and is grappled with more references than it needs, so it's gonna stay. Let it die, people.

Double posting here, but this statement is awesome. It reflects a good deal of what I've been thinking about this issue.

[Jayabalard]

WP:N Notability is not Subjective

WP:N is not supposed to be your opinion, though. Or Aaron's opinion, or mine. The fact that it was hosted on Giant in the Playground was more than enough of a claim of significance. There was also mention in a Time magazine blog you seem to have missed. Just because it's a blog doesn't mean you get to automatically discount it.

I think that you need have misunderstood that section.

It's not subjective; which means that "I've never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc are not relevant when deciding notability.

On the other hand, evaluating whether something is notable based on sources that may or may not be sufficient to indicate notability, such as Blogs and interviews, does require a certain amount of judgment, which is why I said that "up until that point, [when a reference was added about how it was mentioned in Dragon magazine], nothing in in the article made a reasonable claim of notability (IMO)."

Personally I think that reference is more than sufficient to stop any further speedy deletion, and possibly good enough to keep it from being deleted even if it goes through the regular deletion process.

[taigen]

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

Wikipedia is not a moot court, and although rules can make things easier, they are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page.

These are their own words... as close as any words can be considered to be 'wikipedia's' that is.

I can't find a reference to it, but the founders own mission statements was to make wikipedia the 'sum of all human knowledge'

Human knowledge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Human knowledge on a broad scale is the sum total of all thoughts, creations, and inventions of the human mind. It includes the collected discoveries of science, mathematics, literature, and the humanities. On a narrow sense, is the body of thoughts, beliefs and abilities any human being has as an individual, as opposed to the knowledge other kind of living beings have.

Now.. when I make a bit long column in a spreadsheet... and then put a sum function at the bottom... it doesn't just out of habit choose the cells it wants to add up... it actually grabs them all. If the size of the column approached infinity.. it still would not skip any it felts weren't important enough.

I do agree that notability =/= popularity. Something can be notable without being popular. The really old obscure works of literature that noone reads unless a professor assigns you to (ok thats a generalization and an opinion.. but meh) is not all that popular but it is notable. However... The works of Shakespere would not be notable if he never had become popular. Bob of Demark, the not so great playwright and collector of much rotten fruit may have been writeing plays around the same time as Shakespere... but hes not notable because he failed at life.

Thus, it should be a rather easy assertion to say the popularity -> notability. If something is popular.. people find it important to themselves.. importance to people is what notability is. If enough people find something notable... is it not in fact notable?

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Webcomics do exist. Webcomics are important to a significant group of people. This webcomic exists. This webcomic is important to a significant group of people.. therefore... this webcomic is notable. Dragon could go lay an egg... Time could stand still and the webcomic award could go polish itself and this webcomic would still be notable.. simply because... it is important to people.

To close a quote I find extremely humorous:

Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet
Main article: Wikipedia:Verifiability

Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or comments on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. See self-published sources for exceptions.

Even wikipedia doesn't trust wikipedia...

----------------
Wikipedia Inspirational Poster:

Spoiler

Show

[Tokiko Mima]

Wikipedia is CRAZY!

Did you know that for all the bluster about Objectivity and Verifiability not Truth, they have a rule that based on a totally subjective judgement i.e.

If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia...

allows you override them and do whatever you feel needs to be done?

Ignore all Rules

Meet WP:Ignore All Rules

So, hey, I feel like Erfworld improves Wikipedia (and it does!) the rules compel me to repost Erfworld. It should be almost impossible going by that rule to delete any page someone might consider to be improving Wikipedia.

[Kanthalion]

I don't know if it helps, but for my very first attempt at editing Wikipedia, I added a short reference to Erfword on the Leeroy Jenkins page at Wikipedia.

[Entertainer13]

Its kind of odd... what I always enjoyed about Wikipedia was the ability to find articles on obscure, pop culture things such as web comics. If I want to read about "relevant" or "noteable" things, I'll do what any good researcher does: use anything that isn't the internet.

[Silverlocke980]

The problem is that Wikipedia can't figure out what the boop a "notability" limit is. Flintlocke's Adventures in Azeroth, which runs over the concept of notability with a truck, has been put up for deletion so many times it's hard to count.

Don't take it personally. Wikipedia kind of sucks.
(And I was one of its strongest supporters, once.)

[Stormthorn]

That's the thing, though: As an institution, Wikipedia hates experts. And your average expert will hate right back, because while at Wikipedia someone who is, say, a professor of medieval European history editing the article on the battle of Agincourt could very well run up against some guy named Bob who insists that the French employed chainsaw-wielding zombies in their assault on the English lines. And rather than this idiot getting laughed out of the place, the professor will be expected to talk to said idiot and reach some version of the article incorporating the chainsaw zombie theory as a compromise. Of course this is an extreme example, but Wikipedia values the opinions of people who know nothing about a subject far more highly than the knowledge of people who are expert in a given field.

Experts can put their info in 'real' sources. Wikipedia is for people like me who care about something but are not notable enough to count for crap when it comes down to 'real' sources. Wikipedia is also for things like Erfworld that are not important enough in the eyes of many 'real' sources to warrent articles.

[Om]

Experts can put their info in 'real' sources. Wikipedia is for people like me who care about something but are not notable enough to count for crap when it comes down to 'real' sources.

I'd strongly disagree. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not some pop-culture reference book. The entire point of the site is that I don't have to dig out some "real source" from the library but can access it via the free Wikipedia.

Let's take an example - I have an interest in various periods of history and have reccently been reading up on the First Crusade. Now let's say that I, with my new found knowledge, go to edit the First Crusade page. However another user, who happens to have done a PhD in the logistics of the Crusade, disagrees with my edit and reverts it.

This is the Wikipedia policy of today: the changes that I make to the page, with my two books read on the subject, are every bit as valid as those from someone who has devoted their life to the field and has written a number of papers on the subject. This is nonsense.

[Piedmon_Sama]

Its kind of odd... what I always enjoyed about Wikipedia was the ability to find articles on obscure, pop culture things such as web comics. If I want to read about "relevant" or "noteable" things, I'll do what any good researcher does: use anything that isn't the internet.

QFT. The only thing Wikipedia is useful for when you need to do serious research is provide references to (possibly) more respectable sources.

If I want to look up the powers of an obscure comic character or whether X happened in the Dragonball manga or anime exclusively, then Wikipedia is a GREAT resource.

[SteveMB]

An article on the subject that appeared in Sunday's Washington Post by Timothy Noah (writer of the "Chatterbox" column in Slate): I'm Being Wiki-Whacked

It's worth following the link and reading the whole thing if the subject interests you at all, but these two paragraphs get to the nub of it:

...But the terms of eviction from Wikipedia raise a larger issue than the bruised ego of one scribbler (or Jungian analyst or anime artist or Finnish security consultant). Why does Wikipedia have a "notability" standard at all?...

When people go to this much trouble to maintain a distinction rendered irrelevant by technological change, the search for an explanation usually leads to Thorstein Veblen's 1899 book, "The Theory of the Leisure Class." This extended sociological essay argues that the pursuit of status based on outmoded social codes takes precedence over, and frequently undermines, the rational pursuit of wealth and, more broadly, common sense. Hierarchical distinctions among people and things remain in force not because they retain practical value, but because they have become pleasurable in themselves. Wikipedia's stubborn enforcement of its notability standard suggests that Veblen was right. We limit entry to the club not because we need to, but because we want to.

[pclips]

Thx Steve. I had read that article (on Slate, though) and noted the truth of that particular point. There's truly never been the slightest decent argument yet made for WP:N and it's destroying the place's potential, not to mention making thousands and thousands of Wikipedia haters, one deletion at a time.

[Haarculaneaum]

I was the subject of this WP:N and it is consistently annoying.
I felt it both from an articles I created standpoint and ones written about me (I am a young & published poet &c). The very IDEA of Wikipedia ought to be one of inclusion. The only reason I can see for WP:N is to create an aura of exclusivity which, of course, works at destroying its supposed nature of egalitarianism.

Also, I tried to write an article about Rob but found my school's IP address is blocked from editing anything. This is most annoying because now I can no longer correct the its/it's errors rampant in WP without logging in -- which I am loathe to do on general principle (i.e. if anyone can edit anything, why do we need to log in?).

The pogrom against webcomics comes, in part, from the idea that webcomics aren't Literature. I tried to forward this argument here (in the OOTS forum) some months back and was generally shouted down for thinking such lofty thoughts. Perhaps the Wikitators think that if the webcomic community has no respect for itself, neither should they. Just a thought. We need to get some critical works published.

HAar

[dauvis]

Here's a question I've been wondering... why is the notability argument only being applied to webcomics? It seems like every single open source project has a page. I don't know what constitutes notablity for open source but the same standard is not being applied as webcomics.

Then there are things like does every single pokemon need its own page? Maybe Pikachu in the context of pokemon is notable but does the one with a 5 second cameo need one? I didn't think that Wiki was supposed to be a fan site.

[pclips]

Here's a question I've been wondering... why is the notability argument only being applied to webcomics? It seems like every single open source project has a page. I don't know what constitutes notablity for open source but the same standard is not being applied as webcomics.

Then there are things like does every single pokemon need its own page? Maybe Pikachu in the context of pokemon is notable but does the one with a 5 second cameo need one? I didn't think that Wiki was supposed to be a fan site.

See WP:N is like a dagger. Perfectly harmless sitting on a table. It takes someone with the intent to murder to pick it up and shove it into someone's back.

Right now, fewer than a half dozen editors are actively destroying webcomics articles, but it's like saying there are fewer than a half dozen assassins in your apartment building, and there's nothing you can do. Two of the worst have been at it for over a year, and there is nothing that the community can or will do to stop them. (Brenneman is the one who speedy-deleted the original Erfworld article, and I have no civil words to describe him. And Dragonfiend is at least three or four times worse than him. She re-wrote the page on webcomics notability to turn it into more of a sword than a dagger. Like WP:N, Webcomics-bane. She's evil incarnate, trust me. And she covers her tracks like the master assassin she is.)

Webcomics is being singled out because there are people like that, who want to hurt webcomics. Just because nobody is deleting articles on, say, cricket players, doesn't mean you couldn't just walk in there and start doing it. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can destroy.

It's broken on a lot of levels. 1) policy, 2) abuse of policy, 3) lack of means to correct the abuse of policy. This is why I talk about suing Wikimedia Foundation. It would be a class action suit, on the part of every person or company who've had articles about what they do destroyed, when those things are provably notable by Wikipedia's slippery standards. I can think of a dozen webcomics alone which fit the bill.

It would seek damages incurred by problems 2 and 3, with the intent to make them change problem 1. Right now, it's a pipe dream in terms of pressing it myself (I'm not the right one to do it anyway, since my articles have been restored), but I wonder if I talk about it enough, maybe someone else will take the suggestion.

Anyway, deletionism is a dam that is holding back reality, and it will break at some point. I just wonder when and how. I hope it is soon. And I hope it hurts.

[pclips]

Also, I really have to stop spinning my wheels on this topic. I admit I am powerless to change this situation, yet between here, PartiallyClips, my LJ, and conversations with practically everyone I know, I can't seem to drop my obsession with it. Yeah, deletionism is a horrible thing. But if I'm not careful, I am going to end up like Mort Sahl about the Warren Commission.

[Scientivore]

I like you and I appreciate your passion. You even got me interested enough in the subject to make my own analysis; thank you for your compliment, by the way. As an aside to Shhalahr Windrider, I'm not a psychologist or anything like that. I'm just a knowledge-devourer, so I'm not qualified to provide therapy or conduct research.

I reiterate my conclusion: let's just leave them be and do our own thing. My reasoning is that the problem runs deeper in Wikipedia than we do.

There is some mental slight-of-hand in the idea that Wikipedia-the-repository belongs to everyone. I see that as a little white lie: it's true...technically...but it's not equally true of everyone. Since Wikipedia-the-metaperson is failing to root out internal inconsistencies between its philosophies and its instincts, the burden ultimately rests on those who can decide the criteria by which policies are chosen -- those with real meta-policy-making power -- who are its ego-equivalent.

You speak of lawsuits. There are different ways of framing such discussions and I believe that "ought" and "should" are evil words that hide "want" and "need". We need respect. We need shared experiences. We want and don't need to get self-consistency from Wikipedia. It's only one potential source (among many) of satisfaction of our ego needs. As Dr. Phil would say if he studied systems and complexity theory, "The bad news is that the only metaperson that we can control is us. The good news is that the only metaperson that we need to control is us."

It sucks that Wikipedia is dissing us with arbitrarily unfavorable treatment. It even hurts us, in the sense of not helping us as much as they seemed to promise that they would. It does not actually take away anything from us that was ever inside of our boundaries; the egalitarianism of Wikipedia was really always an illusion.

We can explain to them why this or that policy lacks objective grounding and appears to just be a symptom of unresolved emotional issues. We cannot force them to deal with their own anxieties about getting respect. People don't endure internal contradictions because they like it; it's just that they have to wait until they can deal with it before they will.

I think that we are awesome and cool and smart and funny and anyone who doesn't like us isn't worth paying any mind. What Wikipedia won't do for us, let's do for ourselves if we can. Some things maybe we can't do for ourselves, so we'll grieve the deaths of those dreams and then look forward to all the wonderful amazing fantastic incredible things that we can do.

Seriously, dude. Our future's so bright, we gotta wear shades.

[Renegade Paladin]

This may interest some of you.

[NecroPaladin]

This may interest some of you.

Damn Straight it will. And people ask me why I only trust those very close to me...