• GaveUp [she/her]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    37
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Why would any truthful information not be worth creating? Storage is incredibly cheap nowadays and search engines are amazing at filtering out low viewed pages so it wouldn’t obscure more popular/useful pages either

    • RyanGosling [none/use name]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      33
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Especially when they receive standing ovation from several governments and a slew of controversy ensues in the media. Wikipedia has articles on random ass chemicals that surely only 2 guys will ever refer to, and local disasters or earthquakes or phenomenon that no one ever talks about. But yes, I do ageee that the rage bait is very enticing to users here

    • Tankiedesantski [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      92 years ago

      One downside for Wikipedia would be people making vanity pages for themselves or their friends. Those kinds of pages would generate a lot of noise in search results.

    • blobjim [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 years ago

      Because it makes some pathetic Nazi schmuck famous for no reason. People have had to go through Wikipedia and delete all sorts of crap honoring and glorifying Nazis. Having a Wikipedia page for a guy who’s only claim to fame is being a Nazi who lived a long time and got invited to parliament isn’t really enough justification. Having his own article suggests he’s a notable person, which he isn’t.

      • GaveUp [she/her]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 years ago

        Well it’s not really about him it’s more about the event which is definitely notable enough to warrant a wikipedia page

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 years ago

          A good portion of the discussion in the review was recommending a migration to the event instead of the person