- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 2,232
Why doesn't Bladeforums have a Wikipedia entry? I would give it a shot, but I'm new...
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Why doesn't Bladeforums have a Wikipedia entry?
- Thread starter scotchleaf
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2006
- Messages
- 2,011
Because there's an entire messageboard?
But why not, someone should put one together!
But why not, someone should put one together!
tyr_shadowblade
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2006
- Messages
- 12,690
Wikipedia typically rejects entries pertaining to websites.
Esav Benyamin
MidniteSuperMod
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2000
- Messages
- 90,915
When people do a search for a topic, they get a Wikipedia article, among other responses. When people do a search for a website, they get the website. True, Wikipedia could provide some background or a summary of the rules or FAQ but there is no end to websites that would think they need Wikipedia to advertise for them.
I'm not sure if BF would meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Plus none of us can edit BF's Wikipedia article because of conflict issues. All info in the article would have to be independently sourced and verified from unbiased third-party media before it can be added to WP, theoretically. No to mention Wikipedia's never-ending troll/vandal infestation.
Basically, if a lot of non-BF people online or IRL start talking about BF, then we're "encyclopedic"
. If we just talk about ourselves, that's vanity; even though everyone knows BF is the greatest website in the history of the universe. 
Basically, if a lot of non-BF people online or IRL start talking about BF, then we're "encyclopedic"
. If we just talk about ourselves, that's vanity; even though everyone knows BF is the greatest website in the history of the universe. Wikipedia editors. Seriously, I tried to contribute once to Muammar Gaddafi's entry, by noting that to many in the west, he comes across as a colorful figure. A week later, 3 or 4 reputable newspapers as citation for this perception, and much haggling later, I threw in the towel. Someone with enough tenacity thought I was right, and there is some mention now, but contributing to wikipedia on contentious issues = too much headache.
Zero
Zero
Esav Benyamin
MidniteSuperMod
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2000
- Messages
- 90,915
Has to be that way. Even now Wikipedia catches really slanted material slipped through. Contentious is not their forte. Opera, automobiles, birds, that's OK. Anything political will be a constant battle to maintain a professional entry.
At one time I had gotten involved with their news stories whenever I found a mispelled or misidentified item. Just proof-reading really. They pursued me for a while, trying to get me more deeply involved, because it isn't easy for them to keep up with the small stuff. You need an eye for proof-reading.
But anything subjective or interpretive is where they get in the most trouble.