Still not believing it. I think they are just biased.
URGENT - Wikipedia Star Trek entries being deleted
- Thread starter MitchQ
- Start date
I mean, I know it sounds ridiculous, but when did Wiki mods become assholes like this? I mean, he could've just left it alone, but NOOOOOOooooooo! Some reason Wikipedia now has this anal NEED to make things only relate to real world issues! Mehhhhh! If people agree with this, I'm questioning their logic.
A headline that might hit the nail on the head would be: "URGENT - Not everyone is as crazy about Star Trek as we are!" That's the only "problem" to address, but alas, not everyone will accept Trek into their hearts. 
^It's not even a Star Trek website. As numerous posters have noted, if you want a website that will discuss the minutiae of Star Trek, we've already got Memory Alpha for starters.
There's nothing crazy about Wikipedia wanting to focus on subjects that have attracted some significant level of real-world attention, and it does them and the people who by-and-large voluntarily edit for them a significant disservice to suggest there's some sort of bias or conspiracy involved.
TL;DR I think it's really crappy to suggest that this action on Wikipedia's part is anything other than a standard part of their process, supported by their policies, unless you can provide even a shred of evidence to support your theories.
There's nothing crazy about Wikipedia wanting to focus on subjects that have attracted some significant level of real-world attention, and it does them and the people who by-and-large voluntarily edit for them a significant disservice to suggest there's some sort of bias or conspiracy involved.
TL;DR I think it's really crappy to suggest that this action on Wikipedia's part is anything other than a standard part of their process, supported by their policies, unless you can provide even a shred of evidence to support your theories.
I don't care.
The whole point of my post was that there are FAR more pressing matters than info being deleted off a website.
Absolutely. I think it is silly that someone would allow the experience to be taken out of their hands.
Mods had nothing to do with this, a regular user nominated the article for deletion, a bunch of users agreed and a few disagreed. In fact, one of the editors who leaned towards keeping the article is an administrator (I'm not really familiar with wikipedia terminology, so I'm only assuming that's a somewhat important position).
I don't really find that entirely unreasonable, as there are more and more specific online encyclopedias, like the three already mentioned in this thread, such information is most likely to alredy be incorporated in one of these more specific wikis.
Exactly why does Wikipedia even need 350+ pages devoted to Star Trek? At most they should only need one per each TV series and movie, with maybe a few branching off to cover the episode lists of the various shows. I clock that in at 30 pages. Not really sure why there needs to be more, that's roughly what other franchises have on Wikipedia. It's all they need, and it's all Star Trek needs. If one wants more in-depth information, the franchise specific Wikis are available, Memory Alpha in Star Trek's case.
Or is this another case of Trekkies thinking Star Trek is something almighty and special and anyone who thinks otherwise must have an axe to grind?
Since Judge Dredd also has its own Wiki, I'd say this is nothing more than Wikipedia streamlining down to the essentials and anyone wanting more in-depth knowledge can go to that Wiki.
Is there something I'm missing? Is going to a particular franchise's individual Wiki somehow abhorrent and evil? It has to be Wikipedia itself people get their information period?
I really have problems to understand why apparently so many here agree with this. Who's to say the same people don't move on to do the same on the theme based wikis out there?
It seems to me like a move to prevent people to find some of the information for free by online searches and may actually considered to be an act of censorship...
It seems to me like a move to prevent people to find some of the information for free by online searches and may actually considered to be an act of censorship...
The reason why the same thing wouldn't happen elsewhere is that Wikipedia has policies governing inclusion of material that's largely in-universe (for instance, independent sourcing to verify claims and establish that they possess some real-world significance), while wikias such as Memory Alpha are expressly intended to focus more on such material.
If you have concerns about such things occurring at other sites, I recommend reviewing the policies and guidelines for inclusion of material at those sites, and participating in discussions regarding changes to those policies and guidelines.
It is hyperbolic and intellectually dishonest to imply that this is "censorship". The material being deleted is in violation of Wikipedia's current policies, which at least theoretically are established by (in some cases a formal process of) consensus, and in any case Wikipedia is privately-owned (I believe). Nobody has the right to publish any information they want there.
As an example, let's say TPTB at this site decided that posts evaluating individuals based largely on their hotness were inappropriate and didn't belong here. Would TPTB then removing such posts and sanctioning individuals who continued to make such posts in violation of policy constitute "censorship"?
If you have concerns about such things occurring at other sites, I recommend reviewing the policies and guidelines for inclusion of material at those sites, and participating in discussions regarding changes to those policies and guidelines.
It is hyperbolic and intellectually dishonest to imply that this is "censorship". The material being deleted is in violation of Wikipedia's current policies, which at least theoretically are established by (in some cases a formal process of) consensus, and in any case Wikipedia is privately-owned (I believe). Nobody has the right to publish any information they want there.
As an example, let's say TPTB at this site decided that posts evaluating individuals based largely on their hotness were inappropriate and didn't belong here. Would TPTB then removing such posts and sanctioning individuals who continued to make such posts in violation of policy constitute "censorship"?
I'm just really worried about that something like i mentioned could happen and who might be behind it, because it is happening now at a time when new Star Trek shows and movies are being produced. All the years before, there wasn't any problem with all these pages being around. And now, suddenly these things get deleted.
But maybe i'm just leery because a whole lot of trailers and promotional material for Star Trek now usually gets region locked.
Last edited:
I somewhat-inadvertently instituted a sea change in Wikipedia's categorization schema regarding media by pointing out that "Foo in film" was being overly-applied in cases where foo was an incidental element of a given film (for instance, "Death in film" was being applied to any film where anyone died), whereas Wikipedia's own categorization guidelines state that categorization is to be used when an element is a defining category of what it's being applied to. Consequently a significant (and increasing) number of "Foo in film" and similar categories have been renamed to "Films about foo" to cut down on cases where the category isn't really appropriate.
I don't think it's a good idea to assume malice with regards to Wikipedia in the absence of evidence, especially if "someone finally decided to try to do something about it" is a valid explanation. One might argue that this is practically the SOP for volunteer-driven situations; things don't get fixed until someone comes along who cares enough to try to fix them.
I don't think it's a good idea to assume malice with regards to Wikipedia in the absence of evidence, especially if "someone finally decided to try to do something about it" is a valid explanation. One might argue that this is practically the SOP for volunteer-driven situations; things don't get fixed until someone comes along who cares enough to try to fix them.
Life’s not fair.
