Dave Needs Help To Stay On WIKI - A General Call For Help

[ez24]

This is a take off on this topic

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/i%27m-on-wikipedia/?topicseen

Because even though Dave is on Wiki someone wants him off (read the top of the page) and this is not clear from above topic unless you read all the posts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_L._Jones

Last week there seemed to be a place for comments and recently for a few hours the warning went away.  But someone has made it his goal to get Dave removed and the warning is back and I do not see a place to comment.

Someday I would like to see the Wiki page become an index of some sorts.

So is there anyone that can help keep Dave's wiki up?  I will do what I can to help.

One thing I see:  there is a link to Fluke and there someone writes "Australian blogger".  Now if someone has some clout with Fluke maybe Dave's name could be mentioned in the article.

http://en-us.fluke.com/community/fluke-news-plus/how-robust-is-your-handheld-meter.html

(about 2/3 down the page)

thanks

[nctnico]

Wikipedia = truth by democratic process 
To be honest I don't see why Dave should have his own Wikipedia page. There are so many people with a blog and a Youtube channel.

[Asmyldof]

The obnoxiously manipulative ads a few years back (??, at least 1.5 year, but it feels like more) already made me stop donating and I have not really had an interest in getting a user account.

What can I do that people may feel is useful?
(assume no deeper knowledge about wikipedia than "used to get money from me" and "has a page on David L. Jones, for now" - Really never even used it that much as a reference, tbh)

[ez24]

I thought the Wiki could make a good index.  If you search on Wiki for eevblog it redirects to Dave's page.  That is how I found it, I was looking up "eevblog" not Dave.

I suggest that those who do not like the current page - keep in mind that it probably would develop into something better

An idea -->  maybe it would be better if "Eevblog" was the main hit and if someone searched Dave they would end up on "Eevblog" page  ?

[RickBrant]

What is needed to keep Dave on Wikipedia is significant coverage of Dave in what WP considers "reliable", not self-published sources.

To discuss the issue you could go to the talk page for Dave's article.

The two interviews (one in Circuit Cellar, the other in the "...at Work" book) have been challenged, accused of being primary sources. You can read my response to that in the deletion discussion (now archived), but my response has not been accepted by the deletionists (of course it hasn't). The closing admin was apparently not convinced by either side, leaving it at "no consensus".

I'm very busy this week (with mostly fun stuff, but still, busy) and haven't had a lot of time to continue the fight. If someone could add references to the article for Dave's second interview in CC (the 25th anniversary issue), and to the talk he was invited to give that was mentioned in the other thread, that would help. Just go ahead and do the simplest refs - I'll clean 'em up.

[Tac Eht Xilef]

Because even though Dave is on Wiki someone wants him off (read the top of the page) and this is not clear from above topic unless you read all the posts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_L._Jones

Last week there seemed to be a place for comments and recently for a few hours the warning went away.  But someone has made it his goal to get Dave removed and the warning is back and I do not see a place to comment.

Someday I would like to see the Wiki page become an index of some sorts.

So is there anyone that can help keep Dave's wiki up?  I will do what I can to help.

You realise that Wikipedia has policies* (e.g. WP:MEAT) that frown on this sort of thing?

Be very careful; what looks like simple enthusiasm to improve a page can easily be used against it in a keep/delete 'vote' (inverted commas because in Wikipedia a vote is rarely a vote - and even if it is, some votes are more equal than others... (see also WP:DEMOCRACY)).

(* Wikipedia has policies to cover everything, and they're not particularly shy about adding more. For people that haven't experienced Wikipedia's back-rooms, that should tell you all you need to know about the place...)

[John Coloccia]

I like EEVBlog...that's why I'm here.  I think the core issue with being "notable", and why other sources are requested, is what does the Wiki page add that isn't already here? Someone mentioned an index.  How many links to the same videos do we need?  Wikipedia isn't meant to a convenient place for people to organize their own favorite websites.  It's a place to go were people can get interesting information on people/things that aren't already convenient collected.

So with that said, if you want to keep a Dave Wiki page, start finding Dave/EEVblog things that aren't just rehashed EEVblog things.  For example, I believe he's also some sort of personal trainer, no?  Anything notable going on there?  Didn't he publish some sort of internet dating book?  Those are the kinds of things you need to be looking for, IMHO.

[Marco]

Dunno if it's significant enough, but there's a small call out in the book Beaglebone for Secret Agents.

"Dave Jones EEVBlog is an entertaining and informative video blog that covers many areas of electronics and should be of interest to hobbyists in electronics ..."

[marshallh]

Let the wikipedians decide. Is there a compelling reason for someone to have a wiki page?
Sticking your business in the dark, murky backwaters of the Wikipedia subculture is only going to ruin any positive outlook on life you ever had.

[Marco]

To be honest I don't see why Dave should have his own Wikipedia page. There are so many people with a blog and a Youtube channel.

If they have as much impact on the the rest of the blogs and as often noticed by industry I'd say they deserve one too.

Hell, I think Photoinduction deserves a Wikipedia page (although I doubt he'd like one).

[EEVblog]

The closing admin was apparently not convinced by either side, leaving it at "no consensus".

Ah, so the deletion request by Dream Focus has been effectively knocked back?
I see no mention of the pending deletion notice on the main page. BUt given that there is still a warning it's open to anyone coming back and starting the whole saga again?

[EEVblog]

I like EEVBlog...that's why I'm here.  I think the core issue with being "notable", and why other sources are requested, is what does the Wiki page add that isn't already here? Someone mentioned an index.  How many links to the same videos do we need?  Wikipedia isn't meant to a convenient place for people to organize their own favorite websites.  It's a place to go were people can get interesting information on people/things that aren't already convenient collected.

A list of episodes is best left to the EEVblog website (or neglected EEVblog wiki). BTW the EEVblog website will get an overhaul shortly, more to come on that.
What I think personal Wikipedia pages are good for is finding out more about the person you are interested in. Info that is technically out there, but would otherwise be hard to find.
e.g. someone might have said something in interview once that reveals an interesting fact about them.
I guess some people might be interested in who I am after watching my videos, and that's probably what the page would be good for.
In my case it's next to impossible to watch all my videos to get every snippet of personal information or controversial thing I said or done etc, but a crowd sourced wikipedia page makes it possible for people to add that stuff as they find them.

So with that said, if you want to keep a Dave Wiki page, start finding Dave/EEVblog things that aren't just rehashed EEVblog things.  For example, I believe he's also some sort of personal trainer, no?  Anything notable going on there?

Nope. Yes, I'm a qualified fitness trainer, but nothing ever came of that.

  Didn't he publish some sort of internet dating book?

Yes. And when I released it online for free, it became AFAIK the most widely read internet dating book with hundreds of thousands of downloads. I lost count after it went crazy (legally) on the torrent sites.
But probably hard to get factual data on this stuff that's not from the horses mouth, i.e. me.

[pickle9000]

And did the book work? Can you prove it? Is there a child involved?

[Richard Crowley]

User:Ronz is the Wikipedia editor who is proposing removing the page.
His main objection appears to be "non-notability",  to wit...

BIO not met with interviews alone - his blog seems more notable than him
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_L._Jones&action=history

and...

Please note that blogs and whitepapers are not considered reliable sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ronz

It is interesting to note how people here make such subjective arguments about keeping Dave's WP page, while many (most?) citations of Wikipedia are roundly scorned as "crowd-sourced" and "non-authoritative".  Seems hypocritical to me.

[Delta]

So is there anyone that can help keep Dave's wiki up?  I will do what I can to help.

Heh heh.

Viagra?

[Sigmoid]

Wikipedia = truth by democratic process 

Nah. It's truth by citation.
It does look like a deathmatch of lawyers at times, but overall the result isn't half bad.

The whole philosophy of WP is that it's a tertiary source. It's an encyclopedia that collects data about things that have already been written (in reviewed and edited publications). It leaves the question of whether a thing or person is notable enough to other, more traditionally edited papers and books.

And yea, this sort of zeal ("come on you guys, we gotta protect this page about {whatever}!") is frowned upon in WP circles, and understandably so. There is some kind of prejudice against anyone who might be perceived as a "fan" of something, and "fan pages" on WP, also understandably so.

[Monkeh]

So is there anyone that can help keep Dave's wiki up?  I will do what I can to help.

Heh heh.

Viagra?

[Richard Crowley]

And yea, this sort of zeal ("come on you guys, we gotta protect this page about {whatever}!") is frowned upon in WP circles, and understandably so. There is some kind of prejudice against anyone who might be perceived as a "fan" of something, and "fan pages" on WP, also understandably so.

Indeed. The very existence of this thread is enough to kill the page.  The best thing Dave could do is delete this entire thread and discourage any subsequent discussion of WP.

[Mechanical Menace]

The best thing Dave could do is delete this entire thread and discourage any subsequent discussion of WP.

I personally think Dave's current stance of "I don't really care what a bunch of Wikipaedophiles think of me" is the best thing he could do.

[Marco]

And yea, this sort of zeal ("come on you guys, we gotta protect this page about {whatever}!") is frowned upon in WP circles, and understandably so. There is some kind of prejudice against anyone who might be perceived as a "fan" of something, and "fan pages" on WP, also understandably so.

It's understandable, but it's also petty and inexcusable.

[c4757p]

And yea, this sort of zeal ("come on you guys, we gotta protect this page about {whatever}!") is frowned upon in WP circles, and understandably so. There is some kind of prejudice against anyone who might be perceived as a "fan" of something, and "fan pages" on WP, also understandably so.

It's understandable, but it's also petty and inexcusable.

Bullshit. Fans are by definition not impartial.

[Tac Eht Xilef]

Wikipedia = truth by democratic process 

Nah. It's truth by citation.
It does look like a deathmatch of lawyers at times, but overall the result isn't half bad.

No, it's not even that. At best, it gradually approaches a consensus of dedicated Wikipedians by citation. The whole structure & set of processes are designed towards achieving that specific outcome.

And it tends to result in many secondary & teriary problems that are inherent to that particular process e.g. that the group of dedicated Wikipedians is somewhat biased towards self-selected people with more time and inclination to 'play the game' than editorial ability to appraise sources, which in turn leads to (amongst other things) a tendency to appraise sources based on Wikipedia's citation criteria over & above the accuracy & applicability of their content.

I personally think Dave's current stance of "I don't really care what a bunch of Wikipaedophiles think of me" is the best thing he could do.

Me too.

[Psi]

Here's some links that may/maynot be useful to add to the wiki page



Dave April fools video is listed on tektronics official website
http://www.tek.com/blog/tektronix-dave-jones-weigh-april-fools-pranks

adafruit mentions eevblog and dave in the description of a extech meter
http://www.adafruit.com/products/308

His book on internet dating
http://www.amazon.com/The-Internet-Dating-David-Jones-ebook/dp/B004MDLVAO

some random website i found
http://tronixstuff.com/2011/07/14/learn-to-solder-with-david-l-jones

[EEVblog]

Looks like this Ronz person just deleted most of the Wiki article!
What's the point? If a Wiki article exists it might as well have as much info as possible on the person 

[Falcon69]

User:Ronz is the Wikipedia editor who is proposing removing the page.
His main objection appears to be "non-notability",  to wit...

BIO not met with interviews alone - his blog seems more notable than him
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_L._Jones&action=history

and...

Please note that blogs and whitepapers are not considered reliable sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ronz

It is interesting to note how people here make such subjective arguments about keeping Dave's WP page, while many (most?) citations of Wikipedia are roundly scorned as "crowd-sourced" and "non-authoritative".  Seems hypocritical to me.

I find that last quote very very funny.  Because in college, every single one of my professors has told me that if I use anything from Wiki as a resource for any assignment I turn, I could fail the assignment.  Every single one of my college professors considered anything on Wiki as an unreliable source.

I now consider anything I read on Wiki as utter nonsense or for reference only, often doing other research to back up what was read or seen on Wiki.  Lately, I haven't even gone to the site, as it's just double work since I look up info elsewhere to verify what is written on Wiki.

In fact, one of my professors even logged into (put the screen up on the big board for whole class to see what she was doing) Wiki, went to a certain article, deleted some stuff, and added her own falsifying stuff that was clearly false.  Funny thing is, it stayed that way for several days. So, Info on Wiki can be modified at any time, and the less smart of us would never know the difference. Very bad resource indeed. I actual find blogs and whitepapers to be a better resource than Wiki in and of itself.

[Richard Crowley]

I find that last quote very very funny.  Because in college, every single one of my professors has told me that if I use anything from Wiki as a resource for any assignment I turn, I could fail the assignment.  Every single one of my college professors considered anything on Wiki as an unreliable source.

Meanwhile, over at the next university, classes are making projects of creating, expanding, updating, or correcting Wikipedia articles.  Those college professors' attutudes have an aroma of sour grape about them.  Just sayin. 

[Falcon69]

yup, I agree, But there have been several times I have found false information myself on them.  So, I don't see it as a reliable source. So, I can see my professors point of views.

[Richard Crowley]

OTOH, your anecdote of your professor's "demonstration" made me wonder how old they are?  They seem to have lost the academic vision of improving information in the world. That kind of academic graffitti would get them fired if I were running the school.  It does nothing to enhance my impression of modern academia.   

[Falcon69]

Ya, I thought it was a bit childish as well, but someone in class spoke up as to why Wiki was not a reliable source, so She demonstrated it for us as to why it was not. What she should have done was go back and reverse what she did.

[george graves]

I, not being a fan of wikipedia(they always burry the most import part of the article), and know guys that have pages there just for a ego boost(that they set up them selves) - would not care for one. 

[keethrax]

Looks like this Ronz person just deleted most of the Wiki article!
What's the point? If a Wiki article exists it might as well have as much info as possible on the person 

So much this. I could go either way on the existence of said wikipedia page, but if you're going to have one...

It's almost like the thought process is this:

"I really don't have the support I thought I did to remove this page outright, so instead I'll deliberately edit it for the worse to give me another excuse to excise the whole thing."

Which is a fairly petty thing to do.

[EEVblog]

So much this. I could go either way on the existence of said wikipedia page, but if you're going to have one...
It's almost like the thought process is this:
"I really don't have the support I thought I did to remove this page outright, so instead I'll deliberately edit it for the worse to give me another excuse to excise the whole thing."
Which is a fairly petty thing to do.

Yup, this Ronz person is butthurt that the moderator didn't agree with them pull the page 

[ez24]

This is a funny saga.  Yesterday (June 8, 2015) the wiki page was "almost" gone with warnings and today it is all there with no warnings.  But I have seen that before, but since this the second "good" time,  maybe it will remain good      and the bad guys will leave it alone and go on to other projects to flame.

I must say I was surprised at some of the hostility here about this.  I still think someday the page could be a good index to the Youtube videos and maybe something else.  ie look to the future of the page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_L._Jones

[John Coloccia]

If you try and make an index to Youtube videos, you'll surely kill it.  That's not what Wikipedia's for.  The way the page is right now (restored to it's previous content) is about right.  Someone wants to know a bit more about Dave, collected in one place...there it is.  He's well known enough at this point that there's no reason not to have one, though I don't blame Dave one bit for not caring one way or another.  There's nothing that page will ever do that he hasn't already done himself with EEVBlog.

Regardless, that Ronz guy is a schmuck.  I don't know how Wikipedia works.  Don't they have any real editors to bonk these guys on the head when they start acting like idiots?

[timofonic]

I just want to joke a bit



I did so fast so I repeated "to" and other shit. My image-fu skills are even worse than my electronics ones

[Tac Eht Xilef]

Yup, this Ronz person is butthurt that the moderator didn't agree with them pull the page 

If you poke around a bit it's clear that some of the people involved are carrying grudges from times when similar things didn't go their way. So they've decided to flip sides and be overly-pedantic about it to make their point.

It's Wikidickery at its lamest...

[RickBrant]

Looks like this Ronz person just deleted most of the Wiki article!
What's the point? If a Wiki article exists it might as well have as much info as possible on the person 

It's all in how you interpret the rules. Ronz thinks that everything in an article must in and of itself be notable.

I'm sorry, I just didn't have time to deal with it any more.

If the page gets largely nuked again, I have an alternate strategy in mind for getting it back.

[RickBrant]

Well, Ronz has returned and has deleted enough, vaguely citing "BLP" (Wikipedia policy on Biographies of Living Persons) as a reason, that it's now a stub.

Next he will claim "nothing here establishes notability" and will propose the article be deleted entirely.

I am going to restore one point at a time and demand a rationale for each point's removal.

If that tactic fails I will simply restore it all, then move the article, i.e. rename it, to "EEVblog", and make it apparently about the YouTube channel, blog, and forums rather than Dave Jones. Of course there will be a redirect from "David L. Jones" to the new name. This avoids the BLP policy issues.

[ez24]

Well, Ronz has returned and has deleted enough, vaguely citing "BLP" (Wikipedia policy on Biographies of Living Persons) as a reason, that it's now a stub.

Next he will claim "nothing here establishes notability" and will propose the article be deleted entirely.

I am going to restore one point at a time and demand a rationale for each point's removal.

If that tactic fails I will simply restore it all, then move the article, i.e. rename it, to "EEVblog", and make it apparently about the YouTube channel, blog, and forums rather than Dave Jones. Of course there will be a redirect from "David L. Jones" to the new name. This avoids the BLP policy issues.

Thank you

[nctnico]

Appearantly there is a term for people spending too much time on deleting Wikipedia articles.
http://nl.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikinazi

Oddly enough there is no Wikipedia page describing that phenomenon. A bad sign! 

[ez24]

maybe done by the bat......

[EEVblog]

Well, Ronz has returned and has deleted enough, vaguely citing "BLP" (Wikipedia policy on Biographies of Living Persons) as a reason, that it's now a stub.

After all these months. How lame. It was investigated and the decision was made to keep it.

Perhaps someone should add the new Sydney Morning Herald Article:
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/batteriser-battery-life-extender-scam-or-saviour-20150915-gjmrql.html

[RickBrant]

I like it. I'll add it in the next "cycle". Update: Done.

Anything else that a) is coverage in a third-party source and b) isn't in the article already? (You might have to go back a version or two depending on which phase we're in of the sabotage/restore cycle, to see what all is in it...)

Note that if the article is converted an article about "EEVblog" there is more excuse for including links to significant videos. So that's not the worst thing.

Dave, I know you've said a few times that it doesn't matter that much whether you have a WP article or not. But I hate the attitude that these deletionists bring. "They delight in cliipping wings because they themselves cannot fly." - Heinlein

[ez24]

Note that if the article is converted an article about "EEVblog" there is more excuse for including links to significant videos. So that's not the worst thing.

That would be the BEST thing.  This is what I really wanted when I started this post. 

When I looked under EEVblog for links to his videos I got redirected to Dave's page without any links.  Then I saw the warning messages and started this topic.

The EEVblog article of course would have a bio on Dave.

So I believe it would be better for the good of man if there was an "EEVblog" article.

I would be willing to add the links from https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/electronics-primers-course-material-and-books/   and any other help I can do.

As an example:

  Under the EEVblog heading we could put a topic "Capacitors"  and under this links to Dave's videos related to capacitors (if there any) AND links that members have submitted that contain useful info.

There are always good links given by members but no way to "file" them.

I believe this could lead to the most useful page on the net related to electronics because it would be using the combined knowledge of the forum members.  This would drive more traffic to Dave's YT channel and increase his ability to buy more toys to show us.

I am sure there are many members here would be willing to help.

What can I do to help?

[SeanB]

Link to the Please tell us page, and the what component is this sticky threads.  That will be a good filling, and will be useful, along with the forum please read this thread.

Basically the first 5 sticky posts in Beginners, and the same in General Chat.

[RickBrant]

My inclination is to let the current discussion run its course, see what article content can be successfully defended against the deletionists. They'll make the same arguments against any mention of Dave in an eevblog article.

But if you want to "be bold" and just move it now, you could do that. Well, almost. There is a redirect from "EEvblog" and deleting that might require admin intervention. Check the articles that exist about other YouTube channels for ideas about the required rewrite - if you just move the article without really rewriting it, it wont' be right at all.

[AF6LJ]

Wikipedia is a waste of time, money and bandwidth.
Truth by consensus what a bunch of crap.
It is worse than Snopes.

[Galenbo]

Note that if the article is converted an article about "EEVblog" there is more excuse for including links to significant videos. So that's not the worst thing.

That would be the BEST thing.  This is what I really wanted when I started this post. 

When I looked under EEVblog for links to his videos I got redirected to Dave's page without any links.  Then I saw the warning messages and started this topic.

The EEVblog article of course would have a bio on Dave.

So I believe it would be better for the good of man if there was an "EEVblog" article.

Convert? Why no do both pages?

[RickBrant]

Because the page about "David L. Jones" is subject to their "Biography of Living Persons" (BLP) notability requirements. By going to a page about the channel we can sidestep that.

There is already a redirect from "EEvblog" to "David L. Jones", and should the page be converted to one about the channel, the opposite will be true, so both names will always get to the page.

What frosts me is that Electroboom has a page (under his real name, not "electroboom"), and nobody is saying a thing about that. Granted his videos are entertaining but ... (I am NOT saying electroboom's page should be deleted or challenged!)

[John Coloccia]

Why not just get an admin involved? He's stubbed the page twice without discussion, and he's clearly just got an agenda and is intentionally being disruptive. Ronz's arguments are beyond stupid. Is he going to go around stubbing articles about musicians too, now? Or how about actors? I've dealt with people like him throughout my entire career (hence, I now work for myself)...the perfect storm of stupidity and arrogance.

[RickBrant]

We'll see. I expect that he will try that again and at that point I will bring it up at ANI. Right now I think the thread could use a few more WP-knowledgeable people to argue on the "keep" side. (By WP-knowledgeable, I mean people who can cite WP policy and guidelines on their side with some expertise, not just "yay rah rah rah, I love Dave and I love this page".)

I am stretching it out, just one or two replies per day, because a) I have limited time and b) rapid-fire responses tend not to be thought out so well... not mine, anyway.

[EEVblog]

What frosts me is that Electroboom has a page (under his real name, not "electroboom"), and nobody is saying a thing about that.

Because he doesn't have someone obsessed with erasing him from Wikipedia. I'm just lucky
Nice work BTW Rick on all the rebuttals.

[SeanB]

Are you sure that Wikinazi is not related to Batteriser?

[RickBrant]

Ronz was around a long time before the Batterizer review, so I doubt it.

The IP... we know nothing about, but it knows an awful lot about WP. I doubt it's a recent editor either. It recently had a different IP, again with only a few edits, and I expect it's had many more.

[RickBrant]

What frosts me is that Electroboom has a page (under his real name, not "electroboom"), and nobody is saying a thing about that.

Because he doesn't have someone obsessed with erasing him from Wikipedia. I'm just lucky
Nice work BTW Rick on all the rebuttals.

Thanks! There's more where that came from.

Doing replies about once a day allows me to keep a sense of bemused detachment.

[Mechanical Menace]

Wikipedia is a waste of time, money and bandwidth.
Truth by consensus what a bunch of crap.
It is worse than Snopes.

For the articles like this (living people) I'd generally agree. But for technical, science and some other topics I find it a useful place to start researching. But I'll admit that except for a few weeks which I ended up sending me the way of ED to join in the whining about the place I don't really come across things on there where politics and other, for want of a better word, religions start edit wars amongst the wikipaedophiles.

[AF6LJ]

Wikipedia is a waste of time, money and bandwidth.
Truth by consensus what a bunch of crap.
It is worse than Snopes.

For the articles like this (living people) I'd generally agree. But for technical, science and some other topics I find it a useful place to start researching. But I'll admit that except for a few weeks which I ended up sending me the way of ED to join in the whining about the place I don't really come across things on there where politics and other, for want of a better word, religions start edit wars amongst the wikipaedophiles.

For science and some historical events I am okay with it....
Outside of that Wikipedia is a great source of political spin and misinformation.

[RickBrant]

I'm afraid we (editorial "we"; not that anyone else here seems to be helping) are fighting a lost cause. Although Ronz is simply snarky most of the comments by the IP are on point.

[timofonic]

I really appreciate your tenacious cyberwarrior attitude, that's something too awesome.

On the other hand...

What about making an Electropedia? It would be shared between videobloggers, bloggers, DIY communities, professionals and more.

It would true a massive effort in organization, reusing copyleft compatible licensed content, but it would be a lot better centered about electronics and electric fields.

In the future, it would be translated. But these days English is the universal pidgin language, specially in science and engineering fields.

[ez24]

What about making an Electropedia? It would be shared between videobloggers, bloggers, DIY communities, professionals and more.

Seems this would be a good idea and I thought it could be done via Wiki but an Electropedia would be better but less likely to happen.

[RickBrant]

Wikipedia has these rules about "notability". An article shouldn't exist unless its topic has received "significant" coverage in two reliable "secondary" sources (i.e. someone else, not directly associated with the subject has to originate the material). These rules are enforced with particular vehmence for biographies of living persons (BLP). The only two things that qualify as really significant coverage in the article are the two interviews, and unfortunately, interviews are considered primary sources because practically everything in them comes from the subject, not the interviewer or the publisher. We would need two instances of other people writing about Dave.

The rules for articles about web content (including YouTube channels) are much the same. The only possible "save" there is that they tend to not be enforced as stringently. I'm afraid that given the vigor with which the article has been opposed so far I'm not up for that fight.

So unless someone has another idea I'm afraid I have to drop it.

[Psi]

There's been a few unrelated youtube channels that have made reference to Dave's channel. Is that not a secondary reference?

The latest one i can recall is Dave's video about removing the warrenty voice stickers. It prompted AvE to respond talking about it and showing his own method.

Hey, what about this,  Looks like Sydney morning herald decided to make an article about the batteriser and reference eevblog rebuking it. Seems secondary to me!!
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/batteriser-battery-life-extender-scam-or-saviour-20150915-gjmrql.html
EDIT: nevermind, i see Dave already mentioned it in this thread.

What we need is a EEVBlog branded multimeter being sold at various stores. Yes that sounds like i'd be good ammo for wiki article.

[RickBrant]

The Sydney Morning Herald article was already dismissed by the Wikicops as not significant enough.

[Psi]

It's just getting stupid now.

Someone on here who knows someone famous need to ask them to do a random Dave Jones name drop at a public appearance.

Bill Gates would probably do lol

[RickBrant]

It's just getting stupid now.

I know it. You should see the last deletion discussion:

- The chapter in the book doesn't count because anybody can publish a book.
(That's true, but this book was from a long-established publisher in the computer tech field. I have several of their programming books on my shelf now.)
- Ok, but this book of interviews of social-media-using-tech-people seems far from that area. It does not seem that they have any demonstrated competence in publishing this sort of book.
(But their 'people in tech" series [I think it is called] already has a lot of other books in it. This suggests an editorial process to develop and publish such books. It's not new to them.)
- But this is the author's first book. We can't rely on it.

GAWD! It must get tiring for them, carrying those goalposts around like that.

It's going to go to "articles for deletion" where there will be an extended discussion. The "rules uber alles" people will cite the rules I've stated. I can't win at trying to convince that the article content meets the rules.

But in the AFD discussion, with more people involved, I'm going to appeal to a provision at the top of that page: it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I am going to argue that the preponderance of mentions we have is enough to establish notability even though the strict terms of the guideline are not met. And if that fails that'll be the end of it. I don't have much hope, since WP is full of SJ-types (Meyers-Briggs term) for whom the rules are somewhere higher up than god.

But, if it's deleted I'm going to request a copy so I can continue to improve it. I actually have a draft of the article converted to be about EEVblog. Although the notability rules for "web content" are really much the same as the ones for people they are enforced much less rigidly.

David needs to ask someone at the SMH to do a full-length article on him and on EEVblog. NOT an interview, since "interviews are primary sources." But per the strict rules, we'd still need another one. Maybe David has other contacts in the industry press (online or otherwise) who could be persuaded to write something similar.

[ez24]

I actually have a draft of the article converted to be about EEVblog. Although the notability rules for "web content" are really much the same as the ones for people they are enforced much less rigidly.

   personally I think an article about EEVblog would be more useful.  We could include links to the forum and Youtube (indexed of course) and include a bio

[RickBrant]

I don't think links to specific videos are going to fly anyplace on WP. They are very stringent about external links.

[EEVblog]

David needs to ask someone at the SMH to do a full-length article on him and on EEVblog. NOT an interview, since "interviews are primary sources." But per the strict rules, we'd still need another one. Maybe David has other contacts in the industry press (online or otherwise) who could be persuaded to write something similar.

I wouldn't want to do that just the stay on WP, that's pretty tacky.

So why will it get deleted this time when it didn't get deleted last time?, and there is now one extra newspaper article to reference.

[RickBrant]

The newspaper article is being called a pretty lightweight reference.

What would be a "slam-dunk" would be two different articles about you and/or eevblog, NOT interviews, but of similar length to the interview in Circuit Cellar.

Interviews are deemed "primary sources".

As for why this time and not last time, the enemies are much more on the warpath this time. I have some talking points ready but I'm afraid they mostly depend on the "occasional exceptions may apply" in the header of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) .

[Psi]

Is this relevant? 

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140226/18352626367/australian-man-cant-get-parts-because-his-super-generic-name-is-us-terrorist-watchlist.shtml

[EEVblog]

So unless someone has another idea I'm afraid I have to drop it.

Thanks for your efforts.
Still have no idea who put the page there in the first place!

[EEVblog]

Is this relevant? 
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140226/18352626367/australian-man-cant-get-parts-because-his-super-generic-name-is-us-terrorist-watchlist.shtml

That ones got lots of coverage actually.
It even made the crackpot (but very popular) Alex Jones channel:
http://www.infowars.com/secret-u-s-government-watchlist-forces-company-to-place-hold-on-orders/

[ivan747]

It's just getting stupid now.

Someone on here who knows someone famous need to ask them to do a random Dave Jones name drop at a public appearance.

Bill Gates would probably do lol

Not a bad idea

[RickBrant]

It's gone to Articles For Deletion, or rather a Review of the previous AFD.

I STRONGLY suggest that "fans of Dave" NOT post there with "I like it"-type posts.

If you want to help, please review WP policies if you're not already familiar with them. Arguments against deletion must be made within the confines of WP's rules. If you want to "study up," put these things into the in-WP search (without the parenthesized descriptions):  WP:BLP (biographies of living persons), WP:N (notability) and particularly WP:PEOPLE (notability of people), WP:RS (reliable sources), WP:OR (no original research), WP:NOT (what Wikipedia is not).

To keep this page the subject must be shown to be "notable" by WP standards. WP:PEOPLE says: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Footnote 3 in WP:OR says that interviews are considered primary sources. So the two major "sources", the interviews in CC and the book, don't count. Most of the sources in the article have been decreed by the deletion promoters to be either primary or non-significant.

We can chafe at these rules (and the people who enforce them) all we like but without them, WP would have a far worse reputation than it has now. We must stay on the "lawful good" side.

Moreover, a preponderance of non-policy-based "I like it" posts are likely to be not well received. We hope that the admin who closes the discussion would ignore such, but in practice a bunch of Fans Of Dave who show up on WP just to say "I like it! Don't delete it!" are likely to give a negative impresion.

[timofonic]

Insane burocracy is killing Wikipedia, seriously...

Sorry, my mind goes to another dimension trying to read complicated rules. I really hate all that legalese stuff, it's too boring and nonsense to me.

Fuck them, it's not worth it.

I have a sone tiny ideas that might be useful to improve eevblog, I'll post it a bit later. One of them is related with wiki.

[Richard Crowley]

I STRONGLY suggest that "fans of Dave" NOT post there with "I like it"-type posts.
....
Moreover, a preponderance of non-policy-based "I like it" posts are likely to be not well received. We hope that the admin who closes the discussion would ignore such, but in practice a bunch of Fans Of Dave who show up on WP just to say "I like it! Don't delete it!" are likely to give a negative impresion.

Yes, as Sigmoid suggested some 5 months ago. The very existence and content of this thread rather makes Wikipedia's argument.
As I said before, if I were Dave, I would nuke this entire thread and discourage any discussion of WP.   

[RickBrant]

I had hopes that via the thread we would find some qualifying references, but that has not been the case.

[nctnico]

Insane burocracy is killing Wikipedia, seriously...

Well... this year has been my last donation to Wikipedia. People can still vote with their wallet!
IMHO: If Limor Fried from Adafruit has a Wikipedia page about her (yes she has) then so should Dave.

[timofonic]

Insane burocracy is killing Wikipedia, seriously...

Well... this year has been my last donation to Wikipedia. People can still vote with their wallet!
IMHO: If Limor Fried from Adafruit has a Wikipedia page about her (yes she has) then so should Dave.

Are  you against women in tech? You are part of the oppression patriarchy!

And she has pink hair, so she must be some kind of eccentric genius or whatever.

Dave? He even doesn't have a engineer degree, despite even worked at Altium and many other companies. Am I wrong?

[nctnico]

Insane burocracy is killing Wikipedia, seriously...

Well... this year has been my last donation to Wikipedia. People can still vote with their wallet!
IMHO: If Limor Fried from Adafruit has a Wikipedia page about her (yes she has) then so should Dave.

Are  you against women in tech? You are part of the oppression patriarchy!
And she has pink hair, so she must be some kind of eccentric genius or whatever.

This remark is so stupid I won't dignify it with a response.

[timofonic]

Insane burocracy is killing Wikipedia, seriously...

Well... this year has been my last donation to Wikipedia. People can still vote with their wallet!
IMHO: If Limor Fried from Adafruit has a Wikipedia page about her (yes she has) then so should Dave.

Are  you against women in tech? You are part of the oppression patriarchy!
And she has pink hair, so she must be some kind of eccentric genius or whatever.

This remark is so stupid I won't dignify it with a response.

You don't need to. I was being sarcastic to the newborn hipster culture

I might do it better, I know. Because most of the time people fail to understand my stupid jokes...

[Cubdriver]

You don't need to. I was being sarcastic to the newborn hipster culture

I might do it better, I know. Because most of the time people fail to understand my stupid jokes...

Your comment was so over the top I figured that was the case, but in the future it might help to stick something like a winking smiley at the end to drive home that point and help preclude people from taking it too seriously.   

-Pat

[timofonic]

You don't need to. I was being sarcastic to the newborn hipster culture

I might do it better, I know. Because most of the time people fail to understand my stupid jokes...

Your comment was so over the top I figured that was the case, but in the future it might help to stick something like a winking smiley at the end to drive home that point and help preclude people from taking it too seriously.   

-Pat

That would make it less funny!

 I consider it as a therapy for aspie-like traits I myself have, so I try to use it as much as I can as a self therapy method

And if it's due to language barrier: Well, mistakes makes you learn too

[Zero999]

David needs to ask someone at the SMH to do a full-length article on him and on EEVblog. NOT an interview, since "interviews are primary sources." But per the strict rules, we'd still need another one. Maybe David has other contacts in the industry press (online or otherwise) who could be persuaded to write something similar.

I wouldn't want to do that just the stay on WP, that's pretty tacky.

So why will it get deleted this time when it didn't get deleted last time?, and there is now one extra newspaper article to reference.

Just one question: do you really care whether you're on Wikipedia or not?

[John Coloccia]

It's just that things like this seem to be very selectively enforced, and when you have a bunch of rules that are only enforced when people feel like it, it's using the rules as a weapon to do exactly what the rules are supposed to prevent. It doesn't really matter if Dave in particular is there or not, but if not him then I can name a LOT of musicians, actors, athletes and other entertainers that also have no business being on Wikipedia.

Anyhow, whatever. Does anyone actually use Wikipedia as a real source for information? It's OK to get an overview and maybe point you in the right direction, but it's not a very good "source", IMHO.

[Galenbo]

Anyhow, whatever. Does anyone actually use Wikipedia as a real source for information? It's OK to get an overview and maybe point you in the right direction, but it's not a very good "source", IMHO.

You are right, but my problem is often to find a real source that is better, because even official datasheets and product info is often wrong.
For me, wikipedia was always a very good summary: To know fast what 'it' is, but also what happens around 'it'

[pickle9000]

This story is all over the place.

"The Independent newspaper reported that this is exactly what has happened: hundreds of individuals and businesses were scammed by editors, who fraudulently claimed to improve reputations and even blackmailed subjects who didn’t pay up."


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/03/wikipedia_industrial_scale_smears_and_blackmail/

[crispy_tofu]

Just one question: do you really care whether you're on Wikipedia or not?

Well, it would increase traffic to the EEVBlog... 

[Galenbo]

Just one question: do you really care whether you're on Wikipedia or not?

Well, it would increase traffic to the EEVBlog... 

My guess: He would be honoured and happy when he is,
but won't cry, manipulate or change things to be on it.

[EEVblog]

Sorry, haven't followed this for a while, what was the result?
I see the page is still there, and the deletetion notice has been removed. Did an a senior Wikipedian step in and declare it should remain?
Someone by the name of SageGreenRider has been doing a ton of work it seems.

[John Coloccia]

A quick read through the talk page shows that Ronz still has a giant stick rammed up his butt, and someone else has joined in as well (seems to have an axe to grind). They're getting slapped around by a couple of other editors that seem to actually know what they're doing. It's all very entertaining and some of these folks seem like cartoonish evil villains...one track minds, stubborn, bumbling. I could never be a Wikipedia editor and have to deal with guys like this all day long.

[jancumps]

Sorry, haven't followed this for a while, what was the result?
I see the page is still there, and the deletetion notice has been removed. Did an a senior Wikipedian step in and declare it should remain?
Someone by the name of SageGreenRider has been doing a ton of work it seems.

the reult is keep:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_L._Jones_(2nd_nomination)

[EEVblog]

A quick read through the talk page shows that Ronz still has a giant stick rammed up his butt, and someone else has joined in as well (seems to have an axe to grind).

That "someone else" certainly does have an "axe to grind". It's none other than an infamous banned forum user who is responsible for spamming this forum along other things, taking down the forum and EEVblog website via fraudulent DMCA requests several times in the last month, and who is now very much on the radar of my web hosts legal department for these actions they are not at all pleased with.
Trivial to find this out on Google.
And he's no doubt reading this as all crazed stalkers do.

[timofonic]

A quick read through the talk page shows that Ronz still has a giant stick rammed up his butt, and someone else has joined in as well (seems to have an axe to grind).

That "someone else" certainly does have an "axe to grind". It's none other than an infamous banned forum user who is responsible for spamming this forum along other things, taking down the forum and EEVblog website via fraudulent DMCA requests several times in the last month, and who is now very much on the radar of my web hosts legal department for these actions they are not at all pleased with.
Trivial to find this out on Google.
And he's no doubt reading this as all crazed stalkers do.

That happens when you become more than a media puppet and get into a true geek warrior!

Congratulations! A real person has both enemies and friends. Don't give up, that's what they want you to do!

Professional scammers and corporate lobbies are against independent media

The question is : Are you an enough brave and strong enough fighter for this war?

[jancumps]

There's a dispute page between wikipedia moderators:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:David_L._Jones

Our banned friend is involved. Can't say it's an unbiased party at the table.

[crispy_tofu]

What is our good friend here aiming to gain from doing this? They've been at it for months... 

[Towger]

A life? He has also been busy on github updating polices on bullying!! To think, I though he should have been given a another chance...

[crispy_tofu]

Looks like he has. 
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/moderation-reports/msg752033/#msg752033

[John Coloccia]

A quick read through the talk page shows that Ronz still has a giant stick rammed up his butt, and someone else has joined in as well (seems to have an axe to grind).

That "someone else" certainly does have an "axe to grind". It's none other than an infamous banned forum user who is responsible for spamming this forum along other things, taking down the forum and EEVblog website via fraudulent DMCA requests several times in the last month, and who is now very much on the radar of my web hosts legal department for these actions they are not at all pleased with.
Trivial to find this out on Google.
And he's no doubt reading this as all crazed stalkers do.

You know, it's funny...my first thought was that it might be him, and then I figured, "Nah, who would waste this much time on something dumb like this?" I really hope that guy gets some help. This sort of anger and obsessiveness really isn't healthy.

 

[John Coloccia]

Oh my word. I just glanced at the talk page for the article. I thought it had kind of calmed down and worked itself out, but it's gotten even more heated! Ronz and the other guy have turned this into some sort of personal vendetta. They're really behaving quite poorly. They've even accused one editor of being YOU.

[jancumps]

Have you checked the dispute page I've linked above?
He isn't disclosing there that he's banned from the forum and that he's tried to take it down multiple times. He's trying to sound like he's unbiased.

[EEVblog]

The question is : Are you an enough brave and strong enough fighter for this war?

There is no war, just another pathetic loser who can't let something go. The internet is filled with them.

[EEVblog]

They've even accused one editor of being YOU.

Idiots. I couldn't care less about editing my own page.
And I suck at Wiki-speak, so bad that most of my Wiki contributions are photos.

[EEVblog]

He isn't disclosing there that he's banned from the forum and that he's tried to take it down multiple times. He's trying to sound like he's unbiased.

That's his trick, and why he avoided being banned on this forum for so long.
He's also attacking another channel who mentioned me. Go have a look at Karl's State of Electronics videos, he's spammed that channel and trying to force Karl to edit his videos to remove me. A truly sad individual.
A simple google search reveals who he is.

[John Coloccia]

I wonder if one of our resident editors should out him. That would certainly blow things up, wouldn't it? 

[jancumps]

I wonder if one of our resident editors should out him. That would certainly blow things up, wouldn't it? 

Per WikiPedia policy, you are not allowed to reveal any details on editors.

[John Coloccia]

I wonder if one of our resident editors should out him. That would certainly blow things up, wouldn't it? 

Per WikiPedia policy, you are not allowed to reveal any details on editors.

Well, he IS accusing one of the editors of being Dave. That would seem to violate the policy then, wouldn't it? It seems pretty relevant to me that he's a banned member that continues to vandalize EEVBlog. Anyhow, I wouldn't dare say anything because I don't know the rules and don't participate in Wikipedia, but it does seem relevant.

[EEVblog]

Well, he IS accusing one of the editors of being Dave.

Where does he claim this?

[timofonic]

The question is : Are you an enough brave and strong enough fighter for this war?

There is no war, just another pathetic loser who can't let something go. The internet is filled with them.

I believe he has an agenda, but maybe this is a paranoid idea [emoji1]

[jancumps]

Well, he IS accusing one of the editors of being Dave.

Where does he claim this?

The rules about editing your own biographical entry, or encouraging others to do it for you, are quite clear

[John Coloccia]

Well, he IS accusing one of the editors of being Dave.

Where does he claim this?

On the talk page for the article. I just happened to notice it this morning browsing through the latest nonsense.

As usual, this new section is just an advert for Jones, promoting him without justification. I'll tag it in the morning. Tsavage, are you actually Jones? Your writing style is somewhat similar, and you seem hell bent on promoting him/yourself

I tend to agree with you that a Wiki page at this point is pretty irrelevant. What's the value of one stupid page when you have a big website, lots of You Tube followers, and a popular forum? I just kind of feel like if there's going to be one, though, it should at least be done right, not by Ronz and that other clown.

[EEVblog]

As usual, this new section is just an advert for Jones, promoting him without justification. I'll tag it in the morning. Tsavage, are you actually Jones? Your writing style is somewhat similar, and you seem hell bent on promoting him/yourself

[/quote]

He's the one who does the impersonating. I just caught him with yet another sock puppet account on the forum, trying to weasel his way back in so he can slowly and methodically attack from the inside. Pathetic. He really needs to seek professional help.

I have never edited my Wiki page and have no desire to. I don't even look at it, except out of morbid curiosity about what's happening with all these attacks on it.

[EEVblog]

I tend to agree with you that a Wiki page at this point is pretty irrelevant. What's the value of one stupid page when you have a big website, lots of You Tube followers, and a popular forum? I just kind of feel like if there's going to be one, though, it should at least be done right, not by Ronz and that other clown.

Yes, I don't care either way, the page is irrelevant to me and my blog. But if there is a Wiki page (and it's survived two deletion requests (one buy our resident nutter)) then it should have as much detail as people see fit to add, subject to the referencing guidelines etc.

[daqq]

Todays and yesterdays dilbert seem really apt:

http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-11-19
http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-11-20

[Towger]

Todays and yesterdays dilbert seem really apt:

Scott Ddams must be following our Dick Head problems 

[RickBrant]

Both Tsavage and jeh have been "accused" of being Dave at the article talk page. Tsavage  here by User:, and jeh here by an IP from Panama with no prior edit history at WP.

[EEVblog]

Both Tsavage and jeh have been "accused" of being Dave at the article talk page.

 
Just look at the extensive Wiki history of the two, yeah, obviously me! 
 

[tekbasse]

Whoever edits DLJ's wikipedia entry should consider modeling after another internet personality, such as: "Gary Vee", a strong internet promoter. He hasn't been flagged and uses his personality as part of his promotion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Vaynerchuk

This thread is testimony that wikipedia is important for some EEVblog/forum members; Anyone actively improving the overall wikipedia knowledge base will have more clout with issues.

By generating value for wikipedia, EEVBlog can't lose even if the page is temporarily lost. Help link external references in general electronics entries, especially for cases where electronics entries are flagged for inadequate references etc. There's a bunch of them.  This forum is a good source for finding appropriate references. References don't have to point to EEVblog. Just point to EEVblog resources when most relevant or other credible resources are lacking.

[John Coloccia]

If it were me, I might consider making an account for myself and DEMAND they delete the page immediately. It's win-win. If they delete it, you can claim that you forced them to delete it because you think their process is arbitrary and crappy. Stick it to the man! If they refuse, you can claim that you asked them to delete it, but they thought you were so important and influential that they simply outright refused.

[Howardlong]

Both Tsavage and jeh have been "accused" of being Dave at the article talk page. Tsavage  here by User:, and jeh here by an IP from Panama with no prior edit history at WP.

Wow, creepy to say the least. Kinda worrying I ever engaged with the guy, you never know what he might do, he clearly has way too much time on his hands.



If nothing else, surely your page becomes notable just from the sheer volume in the wiki pissing competition on the wiki Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and the page itself? Irrespective, his modus operandi has always been to provoke endless circular discussions with no end in sight. Maybe he'll get banned from Wikipedia too. It'll be interesting to see how they deal with a gazillion DMCA notices from him when he finally pisses everyone off there too.

I see that he's now pointing those that are bothered in Wikipedia to this very thread.

It made me laugh, when he says "I'm not entirely sure who they are talking about", but for the avoidance of doubt, for when anyone pops over from Wikipedia, it's the writer of the statement, but then he knew that all along.



He's what I call a millennium victim: the one in a thousand who requires a thousand times more effort and attention than all the other 999 other individuals put together. To describe him as tiresomely vexatious would be an understatement, and I do fear for his health in this respect. He seriously needs to move on and find something creative to do that adds value rather than being so net negative.

[Richard Crowley]

Additional: Now I'm very concerned about any kind of RfC because of this: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/dave-needs-help-to-stay-on-wiki-a-general-call-for-help

This is EXACTLY why I said previously:

The very existence of this thread is enough to kill the page.  The best thing Dave could do is delete this entire thread and discourage any subsequent discussion of WP.

This has turned into a stupid pissing contest. It is unfortunate that Dave and EEVblog is an innocent victim (IMHO) in the juvenile schoolyard skirmish.

[John Coloccia]

If this thread affects anything over there, then Wikipedia has truly outlived its usefullness.

[timofonic]

Wikipedia goes Brazil...
(Yes, I linked to Wipedia!)

[EEVblog]

It was just pointed out to me that me Talk Page has over 50,000 words.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_L._Jones
Almost 5 times more than Donald Trumps, one of the most talked about and divisive persons on the planet! 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump

[SeanB]

Noone said MJHC can't type drivel at 100WPM, 24 hours of the day.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

[timofonic]

The Rise and Decline of Wikipedia?

HughPickens.com writes:

Halfaker, Geiger, Morgan, and Riedl have a new paper on the topic of open collaboration systems about how Wikipedia's reaction to its popularity is causing its decline (pdf).

    Open collaboration systems like Wikipedia need to maintain a pool of volunteer contributors in order to remain relevant. Wikipedia was created through a tremendous number of contributions by millions of contributors. However, recent research has shown that the number of active contributors in Wikipedia has been declining steadily for years, and suggests that a sharp decline in the retention of newcomers is the cause. This paper presents data that show that several changes the Wikipedia community made to manage quality and consistency in the face of a massive growth in participation have ironically crippled the very growth they were designed to manage. Specifically, the restrictiveness of the encyclopedia's primary quality control mechanism and the algorithmic tools used to reject contributions are implicated as key causes of decreased newcomer retention. Further, the community's formal mechanisms for norm articulation are shown to have calcified against changes – especially changes proposed by newer editors.

The comments are the best!

Some things you can use for this RPG game aka Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring

[EEVblog]

Another article for those playing along at home:
http://www.eevblog.com/files/HillsLifeArticle.PDF