Wikipedia dumps Miss Dynamite
The Miss Dynamite article on Wikipedia was deleted. It now redirect to the article for Ms. Dynamite, the british singer. A friend was able to save the cache of the page. Apparently this series isn't notable enough. :-p Fine, I don't feel like arguying with the Wikipedia nerd police.
posted by Sirkowski at 10:48 PM
21 Comments:
...weird how I'm reading wikipedia right now just as you're commenting on it being nerdcore.
Man,that a bitch move Wikipedia bastards,plus whodafuck is MS.DYNAMITE!?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brackenwood, another equally popular animation series online has its own page on Wikipedia. Yet, some two-cent british pop failure gets the complete disambiguation of Ms. - an abbreviation & the full title, when she goes by as Google shows, Ms. Dynamite only?
That is some stupid bullshit if you ask me.
Looks like your own entry's going to get scrapped too, at the moment it's just a hotlink to an article that doesn't exist anymore.
It's politics, plain and simple. See, Wikipedia's always had an image problem as being not serious enough. Whoever axed your entry probably thought doing that helps give Wikipedia that mature, respectable look that they're *sure* will win over the anti-net snobs who've made up they're minds. Y'know, the ones who write essay-length blog entries about how blogging degenerates civilization.
Franchement...
Ça fait 2 articles concernant la bd québécoise qui se font effacer depuis un mois par du monde qui ne nous connaissent même pas! [L'autre était une petite présentation et historique du site BD Québec sur le Wikipédia français]
Ce sont vraiment des méthodes fasciste. :-/
DryaUnda said...
It's politics, plain and simple.
No, you're right there. Though it's probably more of the case that a complaint was filed because people couldn't find an entry on that "artist" or that the artist herself filed a complaint.
The thing that burns me about Wikipedia, is that it still allows broad editing of pages, yet locks some only to be edited by their great moderating staff who contrary to their own belief, don't know everything.
Au moins, la page clone sur Answers.com est toujours là!
http://www.answers.com/topic/miss-dynamite
Je n'ai jamais compris l'utilité de cette copie quasi-conforme de Wikipedia, en passant...
Moi non plus je ne trouve pas normal que l'article sur wikipedia concernant Miss Dynamite ait été supprimé !
De quel droit on supprime un article pour faire la place à un autre ?
C'est du mépris !
*quote* See, Wikipedia's always had an image problem as being not serious enough. *quote*
I thought their image was that they played favourites with things like people, websites and books/movies. Tom Cruise, Todd Goldman, Ah-Nold, Hilary Clinton and (most recently) Jordin Sparks have all bribed or bullied Wikipedia to give them glowing praise in their articles. Likewise, hundreds of sites have given themselves self-felatio on that site and no amount of "Here's proof that _____.com was sued for slandering/harassing ________ on their site" can get it included as an incident or a criticism. They call it "attempting to start a flame war" when you try.
Yet, on the flipside, a person, movie, etc. that's new and not immediately a pop culture icon can have whatever the fuck people please done to their page- or have it removed for some bullshit reason like it's a "vanity page". If it was written by the person or their fan club, of course it's gonna kiss their ass a bit- even it out and move the fuck on.
Wikipedia just tells them that it's a wiki, and unavoidable... so why do they privatize pages certain people and groups, even ones who don't donate constantly to buy sway when it happens to them?
Wikipedia is the perfect example how private libraries fail. If you are in the collective that controls content and choose to exercise that control, your library will loose creditability (which is why no one out side of wikipedia takes wikipedia seriously)
Wikipedia is the perfect example how private libraries fail. If you are in the collective that controls content and choose to exercise that control, your library will loose creditability (which is why no one out side of wikipedia takes wikipedia seriously)
There's a sister site about wikipedia called "Wikipedia Bias" that covers things like selective persecution and slanted politics on there. It hasn't been updated in forever, but I was on their pages for politics and websites a lot before they quit.
Pity, I was gonna put Jordin Sparks on their celebrities sesction- she's really going out of her way to keep her current controversies on there...
Off of there, sorry
Mmm. I think I can sum my feelings pretty tersely...
THIS IS BULLSHIT.
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!
Wow! Thats truly F*@%$# Up! I could bitch my head off till some one fixed this! Its not right!
Deleted or not... I know that much if not all previous Wikipedia content is preserved.
Is there some section on Wikipedia where the "dead Miss Dynamite" content is still viewable?
I guess if no else has done it yet, I can make a new one. I'm not the best writer, but we can all work it.
OK, there might be a way to bring it back if the article has been preserved in the Wikipedia archives. More on that later.
What a bunch of losers. I only found out about that British bimbo because of YOUR series. She should be dumped and have her entry redirected to yours.
Post a Comment
<< Home