Particularly Judge Death page was quite extensive on Wikipedia considering.
Not sure if it was damaged by a fan who is attempting to set up his own sites starting with http://www.judgedeath.co.uk/
Since it seems to be removed by an anonymous person last active 4 days ago & it was a decent resource for newer fans, looks like they started with one and have been slowly trimming down the other dredd related pages pages to suit themselves, if their end goal is to make money off previously free information they can sod off
But if it has been removed by someone officially which would be fair enough, especially if there was something new Official coming then that would be great.
But to be honest it looks like the information has been taken & deleted by one person to bring attention to their own site.
But also the same seems to be happening on the fandom wikia too, wll those months maybe years of content put in by hard working fans gone.
It doesn't look official to me based on the copyright notice in the about box.
If the same person who runs this has been deleting wikipedia entries, then that's a really shitty move.
I think it's possible for a different reading of what's going on:
a) Death doesn't deserve his own wikipedia entry (Though Dredd probably does).
b) A 2000AD fan / wikipedian probably knows that, and has deleted and collated the Judge Death stuff as part of a wider Judge Dredd section
c) but has decided that the information should still exist somewhere and has set up a website for it. (Remember the old days, when we had websites? they were great!)
I don't see anything stopping this interpretation from being true.
Plus I just looked at that Judge Death website and it has reviews - stuff which would never have belonged on wikiepedia, so it's possible they grabbed the wiki stuff long before it was deleted, to create that website.
I wouldn't be so quick to jump on the "They're doing this for profit!"
(Primarily because it's a niche within a niche, how much profit do you think they're gonna make??)
Quote from: pauljholden on 20 January, 2020, 01:40:26 PM
I think it's possible for a different reading of what's going on:
a) Death doesn't deserve his own wikipedia entry (Though Dredd probably does).
b) A 2000AD fan / wikipedian probably knows that, and has deleted and collated the Judge Death stuff as part of a wider Judge Dredd section
c) but has decided that the information should still exist somewhere and has set up a website for it. (Remember the old days, when we had websites? they were great!)
I don't see anything stopping this interpretation from being true.
Plus I just looked at that Judge Death website and it has reviews - stuff which would never have belonged on wikiepedia, so it's possible they grabbed the wiki stuff long before it was deleted, to create that website.
I wouldn't be so quick to jump on the "They're doing this for profit!"
(Primarily because it's a niche within a niche, how much profit do you think they're gonna make??)
Wayback Machine has a snapshot of the page taken 17th December 2019 indicating the page had been targeted for deletion because "article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations" https://web.archive.org/web/20191217005209/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Death.
I'm afraid I am at a loss to ever understand the intricacies of Wikipedia.
I don't know about profit, but wanting to control that information seems equally dubious.
Especially since it can then easily disappear if they don't want to continue it, as as happened with plenty of other sites.
Now it has 4 lines of text for the dark judges entirely?
I don't see the negatives in leaving it alone.
Wikipedia's editors are a law unto themselves. They make decisions based on what should or shouldn't be in the guide – and they quite often get it wrong.
As am occasional (but mostly burnt out) Wikipedian, I can give a bit of input into what's going on.
Wikipedia policy is that, for a topic to have its own article, it must be independently notable, with citations to reliable secondary sources to prove it. For some time, comics-related articles have ignored that, and articles about obscure supporting characters, harware, locations and so on have proliferated, cited only to issues of the comic they appeared in. This is known as "fancruft".
What's happened recently seems to be that the admins have noticed all the fancruft articles clogging up the Judge Dredd-related pages, and started proposing them for deletion on the basis that the subjects are not independently notable. I think this is generally a good thing, as what would best serve the subject would be a focused and informative central article on Judge Dredd that covers all the important aspects and characters, rather than a dispersed cloud of terrible articles about minutiae of no interest to anyone who doesn't know all about it already. But they may be getting a bit carried away.
Here's the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Comics_and_animation) where proposals for deletion of comics-related articles are discussed, and here's the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review) where deletions are appealed. Anyone who wants to defend the notability of the articles that have been proposed or deleted, and who can provide reliable secondary sources (and can make sense of the markup) can stick their oar in. You don't even have to make an account (although it makes it easier to keep track of things if you do).
I like the term "fancruft". I wonder how much of my code is cruft?
I find it difficult to take Wikipedia too seriously. Their entry on Witchcraft starts with "Witchcraft is the use of magical powers". Uh-huh, because magic is real, sure.
It's a good place to get a general feel for a subject, but a shit place to get reliable facts.
To solve the original problem: get the information that was deleted from the way-back machine, become a Wikipedia editor (I think this step is necessary, but I'm not sure), put the information about Death on the Dredd page.
Not that it matters in a wider context, but it would be nice to have something outside of wikipedia, so any new readers who wants to fill in the gaps are able to do so.
This is what happened to the entry for Transformers The G1 Collection from Hachette. Luckly the info is all now over at tfwiki. Given the detail found on the entries for JDMC and 2000adUC I've said before it would really be a good plan to put it elsewhere. But the pages are now so detailed I've not found the time myself.
Wikipedia has its uses, though use as a fictional encyclopaedia isn't one of them (it could be, but the deletionists have other ideas). That's why I wouldn't put much too much time and effort into creating articles on there only for a deletionist to come along and get rid of it all.
It should be noted that if the person behind the judgedeath website is actually copying content from wikipedia then it should contain the correct copyright info. Wikipedia is not public domain, though can be used as long as the correct licences are displayed (generally CC BY-SA or CC-BY-SA-compatible).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content
Quote from: Funt Solo on 20 January, 2020, 04:02:43 PM
To solve the original problem: get the information that was deleted from the way-back machine, become a Wikipedia editor (I think this step is necessary, but I'm not sure), put the information about Death on the Dredd page.
It wouldn't necessarily be safe there. It may not be deleted but could still be heavily edited down.
Personally, I'd be very happy if 2000AD had its own official wiki, which is really where stuff like this belongs.
Quote from: Steve Green on 20 January, 2020, 04:14:10 PMNot that it matters in a wider context, but it would be nice to have something outside of wikipedia, so any new readers who wants to fill in the gaps are able to do so.
Quote from: Tomwe on 20 January, 2020, 04:14:19 PM
This is what happened to the entry for Transformers The G1 Collection from Hachette. Luckly the info is all now over at tfwiki. Given the detail found on the entries for JDMC and 2000adUC I've said before it would really be a good plan to put it elsewhere. But the pages are now so detailed I've not found the time myself.
*ahem*
2000ADopedia (https://2000ad.fandom.com/)
Ahh thanks for the input the reason I brought it up in the first place as not only had it been wiped on wikipedia.org
But also fandom wiki which is a separately owned site owned by fandom entertainment (not wikipedia.org) but also edited by fans in the same way, also similarly wiped but not as much as Wikipedia.
Also he mentions something about the barney too
The account that put up the fansite only appeared on Reddit https://www.reddit.com/user/judgedeathfiles
Within the last 24 hours
And registered the name Judge Death Casefiles .co.uk as a website, just making sure newbies wouldn't think it was an official rebellion owned site.
Finally my concern was he'd direct traffic there since it was now missing from the free sites, whilst his fansite currently has no adverts my thought was there was nothing stopping him adding adverts once he gets enough traffic, possibly using his own content plus if he just copy pastes stuff from both those sites & barney then thats a bit cheap.
If it is all original content created by him though then thats cool.
But now I have more information since I first posted, it seems it may just be a genuine passionate fan piece of work with no ill intentions, lets hope so.
Quote from: Tomwe on 20 January, 2020, 04:14:19 PMThis is what happened to the entry for Transformers The G1 Collection from Hachette.
What baffled me is that one was cut, but other partwork pages survived. No consistency.
Isn't Wikipedia a lost cause to far right astroturfers these days? Jimmy Wales all but admits that he curates the site to support his libertarian views.
The judge death website has been updated (http://judgedeath.co.uk/about) in response to accusations from this forum:
Quote2020 Update: WIkipedia, in a display of absolute stupidity, have relegated the Judge Death wiki to a mention on a page of 2000 AD characters. We don't know what sort of massive brain aneurysm caused them to make a move that stupid but it's a disgusting move. I've seen a suggestion that I could have somehow done that to get more traffic to here but I was gutted to see the wiki go as I was relying on their bibliography a lot (until I remembered Wayback Machine) and, honestly, this is the most niche site ever and I'll be glad to get any readers! Think of it as a resource that I always wished existed and ended up making myself.
Quote from: sheridan on 20 January, 2020, 04:22:24 PM
*ahem*
2000ADopedia
SMF is messing about with formatting again - that should have gone to this wikia/fandom page: 2000ADopedia. (https://2000ad.fandom.com/wiki/2000ADopedia)
There's also the Judge Dredd Wiki (https://judgedredd.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page) and the Judge Dredd Wiki (https://judge-dredd.fandom.com/wiki/Judge_Dredd_Wiki)
Deletionists have been going after Judge Dredd related articles for years, on and off. This was just the first time they got their act together and did it in accordance with Wikipedia policies (which they completely ignore when it comes to articles about Marvel and DC characters). So Batman's utility belt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman%27s_utility_belt%20Batman's%20utility%20belt) gets its own article, but Judge Death (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Judge_Death) doesn't.
(The last version of the Judge Death article is here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judge_Death&oldid=932280635).)
Quote from: sheridan on 20 January, 2020, 04:18:48 PM
Wikipedia has its uses, though use as a fictional encyclopaedia isn't one of them
Yeah it is fantastic for a factual resource on the world around us. The fact that articles are backed up by their sources makes it reliable enough for me when tacking questions from the kids :-)
Quote from: gurnard on 21 January, 2020, 01:22:01 PM
Quote from: sheridan on 20 January, 2020, 04:18:48 PM
Wikipedia has its uses, though use as a fictional encyclopaedia isn't one of them
Yeah it is fantastic for a factual resource on the world around us. The fact that articles are backed up by their sources makes it reliable enough for me when tacking questions from the kids :-)
The problem is that journalists use Wiki, creating a feedback-loop - someone posts a complete lie, a journalist sees it and uses it without saying where it came from - hey presto, there's a second credible source in a mainstream publication that makes the 'fact' even more reliable, so more journalists quote it etc....
Quote from: Dandontdare on 21 January, 2020, 01:42:46 PM...someone posts a complete lie, a journalist sees it and uses it without saying where it came from - hey presto, there's a second credible source in a mainstream publication that makes the 'fact' even more reliable, so more journalists quote it etc....
A.k.a. "history".
Yeah, that's how British journalism has long worked, though nowadays they pretend the lie comes from "Sources".
With Wikipedia it gets a bit more complicated: someone will publish a lie on Wikipedia and cite an online source for the story, then someone will come along and edit it saying "actually, what happened was" and cite a more up-to-date source, then the editor who published the original lie - who most likely has notifications turned on to alert them about edits - will come along and undo the edit saying the news source cited for the update doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for notability or reliability, so the original lie stands.
Where it gets fun is that there are dedicated deletionists who spend all their time making sure that off-message sources aren't allowed to be used by making sure the website/author aren't "notable" (usually by getting their Wiki page deleted), and the vast majority of these unreliable or non-notable sources are - unsurprisingly - left wing, though the Daily Mail has also been named as an unreliable source.
Then, of course, you have to remember that there are Wikipedia editors who work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. One - Philip Cross - was noted as working for five straight years without a break, and after this was pointed out, it became a bannable offence on Wikipedia to try and make a page about him or the ensuing media controversy where people tried to "unmask" who he really was, which in retrospect was probably just a bunch of pundits calling Wikipedia's bluff that Cross is a real person and not a shared account taking advantage of the open-source nature of the site - something they've long been warned about.
The crime isss wiki, the sentence is ... deletion!
Wikipedia does my head in. Some of the retrogaming stuff is more or less copy-and-paste from articles I've written. Huge chunks just lifted wholesale. But then when factual stuff is suggested, they flip their lid. (One example is Lode Runner, which remains entirely inaccurate, because they don't believe the person who created the game did, and so go with the person who reworked the original for the Apple II version. Idiots.)
You wouldn't want to look too closely at many of the archaeology pages on there either. A huge number of articles seem to draw solely on 19th C to 1950s secondary sources, loosely glossed with hugely complex and generally misinterpreted DNA data. It's like 70 years of careful grounded research and rigorous interpretation never happened, and good luck getting any of it stuck back in there.
Quote from: TordelBack on 21 January, 2020, 06:33:03 PM
You wouldn't want to look too closely at many of the archaeology pages on there either. A huge number of articles seem to draw solely on 19th C to 1950s secondary sources, loosely glossed with hugely complex and generally misinterpreted DNA data. It's like 70 years of careful grounded research and rigorous interpretation never happened, and good luck getting any of it stuck back in there.
At some point someone decided it would be a good idea to upload out-of-copyright 19th and early 20th century encyclopedias. You come across this stuff on history pages a lot and it clearly displays the biases of the era.
Quote from: TordelBack on 21 January, 2020, 06:33:03 PM
You wouldn't want to look too closely at many of the archaeology pages on there either. A huge number of articles seem to draw solely on 19th C to 1950s secondary sources, loosely glossed with hugely complex and generally misinterpreted DNA data. It's like 70 years of careful grounded research and rigorous interpretation never happened, and good luck getting any of it stuck back in there.
A lot of modern sources might be copyrighted, behind paywalls, or just too dang hard to dig out from the interwebs, thus making outdated information in the public domain the only sources Wikipedia will/can accept as legitimate - but a cynic might ask if a notably far right body of anonymous editors has any ulterior motive in creating a system of validating articles whose long term effects are to keep the scientific consensus of Wikipedia somewhere in the distant past.
So as Wikipedia is not regarded as a reliable source is there a website you guys would recommend for showing my kid what a duck billed platypus is for instance.
What are your preferred, online, encyclopedias?
Quote from: gurnard on 22 January, 2020, 01:46:11 PM
So as Wikipedia is not regarded as a reliable source is there a website you guys would recommend for showing my kid what a duck billed platypus is for instance.
What are your preferred, online, encyclopedias?
to show him what one looks like: https://www.google.com/search?q=duck+billed+platypus&safe=active&rlz=1C1GCEV_en___GB873&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZvpjMuJfnAhW3QRUIHfXUBuwQ_AUoAXoECBEQAw&biw=1415&bih=783 (https://www.google.com/search?q=duck+billed+platypus&safe=active&rlz=1C1GCEV_en___GB873&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZvpjMuJfnAhW3QRUIHfXUBuwQ_AUoAXoECBEQAw&biw=1415&bih=783)
For more info, any one of many many sources such as https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/p/platypus/ (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/p/platypus/)
At last you know a site like national Geographic is curated by experts not just any old twonk with a keyboard.
I use Wikipedia lots: I just know it's not perfect. But you can expand that out to almost any online research.
There's a truth I've noticed through trying to find help when I'm stuck on a coding or technical computer issue and I search for a solution online:
- The first response is "you're doing it wrong altogether: do it this way instead". (But they're wrong.)
- The second response is a personal insult - like "What are you, a doofus? Nobody codes in Cobol!"
- The third response is gold.
Several years ago, one of our pathologists had a load of his students (can't remember if they were medical students or trainee pathologists) compare Wikipedia with textbooks on various medical subjects. Wikipedia turned out to be more accurate and perhaps most importantly more up to date.
Wikipedia is a fantastic resource and I use it routinely at work and at home. What you have to be wary of are popular subjects where people have agendas, such as politics, veganism and whether or not the Hulk is stronger than the Thing. Haematoxlin, immunoperoxidase and combinatorics are largely out of the way of vandals and shit-stirrers because they're oblivious of their existence.
Regards,
Robin
Several years ago, "edit wars" weren't quite as big a problem.
I was talking to a not-very-online mate who mentioned trying to edit our hometown's Wikipedia page without success - it wasn't even anything contentious he was trying to add, just details about a local historical site, and he'd even attached some photos he'd taken, but some anonymous editor just wasn't having it. What's funny is that the editor kept defaulting to copy that was mostly written by me circa 2004-ish when I was bored and didn't really know what the internet was for. To be fair, I still don't.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 21 January, 2020, 02:50:33 PM
Then, of course, you have to remember that there are Wikipedia editors who work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. One - Philip Cross - was noted as working for five straight years without a break, and after this was pointed out, it became a bannable offence on Wikipedia to try and make a page about him or the ensuing media controversy where people tried to "unmask" who he really was, which in retrospect was probably just a bunch of pundits calling Wikipedia's bluff that Cross is a real person and not a shared account taking advantage of the open-source nature of the site - something they've long been warned about.
I'm not sure what your point here is? Philip Cross appears to be a normal editor - when you said 'without a break' I thought you were accusing him of being a bot, but a look at edit history reveals he makes edits as you'd expect a human would? Apparently there were some right-wing commentators trying to generate a scandal in an attack on a journalist they didn't like, but the most well-known proponents deleted their tweets when they realised they were making libellous accusations which wouldn't stand up in a court of law.
Quote from: Funt Solo on 22 January, 2020, 04:30:52 PM
There's a truth I've noticed through trying to find help when I'm stuck on a coding or technical computer issue and I search for a solution online:
Best resource for coding issues is undoubtedly Stack Overflow most of the derogitory people are monitored out so you get reasonable thought out responses unless someone doesn't understand your question.
Quote from: sheridan on 23 January, 2020, 10:27:49 AMI'm not sure what your point here is?
How framing works, and how editors - whether real people or astroturfing accounts - can abuse Wikipedia's rules.
QuotePhilip Cross appears to be a normal editor - when you said 'without a break' I thought you were accusing him of being a bot, but a look at edit history reveals he makes edits as you'd expect a human would?
I actually said that Cross was a
shared account - as in: several different editors use it. It could be a singular and very real person for all I know, though I thought it would be funny if someone had created an account once on a public terminal and was never logged out and Phillip Cross is actually just a string of angry pensioners on the computer in the Tunbridge Wells library.
Hi, all!
I would have answered sooner but it took a while to get approved here.
I'm the chap who is making the Judge Death site referred to in the first post and just wanted to clear up a couple things that were mentioned in Marc's posts. Sorry this is a bit of an epic post, it's just me getting the details out. I'm not taking any of this personally, you all don't know me and the timing of the wiki thing looked bad so I get it. We're all good.
Just to confirm, contrary to the first post I'm only doing a Judge Death site, I'm not going to be doing anything similar for other characters. Although I do think I might do something similar based on the comic Scream! but I'm not sure yet.
I'm not planning on doing any advertising as I imagine I'll be getting about ten visitors a year anyway. :)
I am linking to the products on Amazon via affiliate linking but I'll be literally amazed if it makes 1p.
When it comes to the Wiki... bloody hell. I noticed the Wiki had been redirected around Xmas. I have no idea how Wikipedia works and so made an account on there on Dec 26th (I think) to basically moan about the Judge Death and Dark Judges wikis disappearing. Because if ****ing Mick Hucknall gets a wiki then surely Judge Death should (although to be fair, Hucknall is more evil).
Anyway, trying to find out how to appeal the decision was basically impossible. I ended up trying to remove the redirect at one point and found the guy who I thought was responsible (I think he was called Spartaz or something) and edited his own page with a message saying that they should reinstate the wiki. None of that worked or helped in the slightest and it was all just a bit too baffling for me.
I actually had a link to the original wiki in my 'about' page as it was a good resource. Mainly the bibliography which I was relying on quite a bit. My page now has a link to the Wayback Machine archive of the page as well. So it's definitely not wiki-vandalism on my part!
Also, see my tweet on the 28th of December before this all broke. https://twitter.com/judgedeathfiles/status/1210933913079754752
As I've since said on my site, the site came about because I've been collecting the various appearances JD has made. I've not got it all, but I must have over 70% of them either as progs, Megazines or collected volumes but I always found the timeline of these things a bit confusing and I realised that the wiki wasn't entirely complete and that Barney is just a bit messy. So I just wanted it all in one place. I barely ever look at the fan wiki stuff as that misses most of the stories.
My site does have spoilers on each story but that's because I want it to be like the Wiki but better. The Wiki describes the story for the characters (to a point) but I wanted more info. It's more for fans of the character to be able to keep up with all of his appearances.
I'm currently up to the late 90s about 25 out of 45 appearances logged. Hopefully I'll get it finished before I die.
I hope that clears up any ambiguity about my motivations. Happy to answer any questions and I hope to post on here a bit from now on. Like I said, it's all good. :)
Thanks, all!
Talking of Mick Hucknall...
(https://i.imgur.com/sBNeRpq.png)
I'm so sorry if I brought the Hucknall to this forum.
Mods, forgive me.
Actually, on topic: I appreciate anything that ties together characters in the Dreddverse.
With so many Dredd writers now, each with their own stable of minor characters, it's difficult to figure out when I last saw them or why they're important (and it's not like it would be easy to skim through the collection to find them). Sometimes the editor drops a "see prog xxx", but not always.
I know you're just doing it for Death, but every little (and it's not a little, really) helps.
Repoman, that's a great website. I encourage everyone here to visit it.
http://judgedeath.co.uk (http://judgedeath.co.uk)
I believe the list on Wikipedia was complete, so you won't miss anything.
Quote from: Richard on 24 January, 2020, 10:46:27 PM
Repoman, that's a great website. I encourage everyone here to visit it.
http://judgedeath.co.uk (http://judgedeath.co.uk)
Thanks, chap!
Quote from: Richard on 24 January, 2020, 10:46:27 PMI believe the list on Wikipedia was complete, so you won't miss anything.
It wasn't bad but it did miss a few stories. Tea with Mrs Gunderson for example. At least five from what I remember. Although some are just ones where someone dresses up like Judge Death.
Quote from: repoman on 25 January, 2020, 05:05:24 PMAlthough some are just ones where someone dresses up like Judge Death.
And brother are there a lot of those!
Agree with Richard, very nice resource you have there.
Quote from: TordelBack on 25 January, 2020, 05:21:11 PM
Quote from: repoman on 25 January, 2020, 05:05:24 PMAlthough some are just ones where someone dresses up like Judge Death.
And brother are there a lot of those!
Agree with Richard, very nice resource you have there.
Thanks, man. I'm finally into the 2000s on it. There were so many Death stories in the 90s!