[EM] Kevin: FBC deleted from electowiki?

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 04:19 PM 3/5/2012, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:


>Kevin:
>
>You wrote:
>
>Did they use a special term for this property?
>
>We used to have an FBC page on Wikipedia, based on content from 
>Russ' site I believe, but eventually this
>was removed
>
>[endquote]
>
>Yes, that's why I don't have much use for electowiki. Something that 
>I put up can later be modified or deleted
>by anyone.
>
>You continued:
>
>
>  since the notability is unclear.
>
>[endquote]
>
>
>What is notability?
>
>Mike Ossipoff

Okay, that is a Wikipedia arcanity. The simple meaning is that the 
concept or idea or subject is "notable," i.e, significant. Wikipedis 
settled on an idea that independent publication by a publisher with a 
reputation -- or profit -- at risk, was a sign of "notability." I 
followed those discussions, which were started by a probable 
sockpuppet called Yellowbeard. The guy managed to take out a whole 
series of voting systems articles. He was obviously as supporter of 
IRV, this was a single-purpose account used to attack articles on 
anything that might compete with IRV or make it look bad.

In the discussion of FBC, you were mentioned. I think that the fact 
that there was no source considered "reliable" covering FBC was the 
critical factor. Yellowbeard was successful with other articles where 
there was much more in reliable source. He was eventually blocked 
when he went a bit to far attacking me.

He had, first edits, nominated a method proposed by Clay Shentrup, 
which was really a joke article Clay had written, about an invention 
of his own, mispelling his own name. Look for Contributions for 
Yellowbeard, it will be one of the first. But this is one of the 
facts that showed me what he was up to. He also went after the Center 
for Range Voting, Warren Smith, etc. Once he was identified and his 
nominations for deletion were being seen and there was response, he 
became much less effective. But sometimes there was no helping it. As 
I recall, there simply wasn't enough reliable source on FBC.

Remember, this has nothing to do with truth. It does have to do with 
notability and verifiability, and Wikipedia verification doesn't 
meant that if you do the math, you can verify it. It means that it's 
been noticed and covered in reliable source, doing Original Research 
or Synthesis is prohibited.

In theory. If it's what the cabal wants, you can do anything you like.

Yes, Mike, wikis are quite unreliable, but if they are being 
maintained by a decent community, they can be decent. In a community 
using what's called Pure Wiki Deletion, the material is *all* there, 
except for truly illegal content. On Wikipedia, when they "delete" 
articles, they are still there and can be read by any administrator. 
If PWD is being used, anyone can read the history, pages would only 
be blanked, again, except for illegal content, such as true copyright 
violation or libel, something that would get the site owner in hot water.

Yes, anyone can change the active page, but you can externally link 
to a page in history, a permanent link to that version.