J0E here launched the Fluther.com article on Wikipedia today. How does it look to you? What else should the article say? What should be changed on the article?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
85 Answers
Yes, it’s J0E. he and i are working on it.
Lurve you to you @eponymoushipster and Joe. You da best (and ugliest) but da best.
Go fluther!
How about letting someone who actually knows about the site worry about the Wikipedia article?
Please take my name out of the title, use J0E instead. Thanks
@J0E ask a mod to edit the Q.
@EgaoNoGenki Posting people’s real names is against the guidelines. As is posting questions about users. As you have already been informed.
Response moderated
@J0E Okay, J0e, your request has been honored. :^}
OK, back on topic.
I think the article is pretty thorough and provides a good overview.
You could have more detailed descriptions of the awards (or at least mention they are nautically-themed).
You could also add to the memorable question list. Perhaps mention the chatroom. I might also mention the 20K achievement level and party threads as there’s been a few now.
Good work gentlemen.
This article needs a lot of work. Don’t be surprised (or offended) if I make large, sweeping edits. Remember, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. Currently, there is a ton of irrelevant and pointless information.
@J0E >wikipedia ****ing sucks
Ouch. What happened now? I’ve been editing wikis since 2005 and I don’t mind it that much right now.
@Ivan Please do what you will.
what a surprise – @Ivan‘s gonna add his .02.
multiple people worked on that contents, but a 12th grader is gonna sweep in and “fix” it.
Nice work @eponymoushipster and @J0E. One error caught my eye. Under Awards And Recognition, there is a spelling error: ”Fhe founder Ben Finkel was interviewed in an article in Business Pundit magazine.”
Other than that, it’s a great start.
So anyways, @J0E thinks the article should be just named “Fluther” instead of “Fluther.com.”
Does anyone else second him? What’s your opinion on how the article should be named?
Yes, I definitely think it should just be “fluther”.
@EgaoNoGenki uhm….when was it suddenly decided that we were voting on things?
Well, I don’t like it. I mean, I’m not mentioned even once.
@AstroChuck > “Well, I don’t like it. I mean, I’m not mentioned even once.”
You have to be notable somehow to be mentioned on a Wikipedia article.
Addendum: LOL, however, we can mention you on its article’s “Talk:” page if you’d like!
wow, you two kids really don’t get @AstroChuck‘s sense of humor…. ha.
Response moderated
@cprevite I believe schmuck is how it’s spelt.
Also, I believe Andrew has moved up to San Francisco. I could be wrong on that but I know that was the plan.
@AstroChuck true. i think we wrote some of this before that happened. good point.
I tried changing it to just Fluther but they just redirected it to Fluther.com.
@J0E If we get a good enough consensus that it should just be “Fluther,” then one of us will change it back.
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
He’s not doing anything except saying we should come to a consensus. I don’t care how long he’s been here, he’s trying to help.
Response moderated
I’m very sorry. I clearly applied the word “schmuck” to the wrong jelly in this thread.
@cprevite It aint the Yiddish that fails me, oy vey, it’s my other systems. I could just platz at these questions. I get all tsufarmisht.
;-)
My edits are complete for now. Feel free to change what you wish. I’ll be monitoring it.
Ivan is a 12th grader?
I’m a pedophile.
@Ivan :: You might want to add a section about funding. See here.
@nikipedia
I’m a Junior in college, but that’s nice to know.
I don’t have the time or patience to modify a wiki article, but perhaps the content could be improved (and prevent wholesale deletion of the article) by adding a few of the legitimate news articles about Fluther and Ben and Andrew, including this one, this one and this one.
It looks like it’s been up for a few hours now. That’s longer than I ever managed. Good job guys.
Still got a ways to go, we have 5 banners atop the article.
Muliple facepalms took place while reading this discussion.
I think it would help to actually incorporate what the banners are saying. Inline citations are critical. Perhaps moving the list of references and incorporating them inline somehow would be better.
Excellent work. Thus, the first step in creating the Andrew McClain wikipedia article is born—starting with my extremely low Erdos-Bacon number. ;)
@EgaoNoGenki: ... It seems to be lacking an important denotation, there.
@absalom Its lacking quite a bit. Therein lies the problem when people who know nothing think they can do stuff.
I think it’s a good start. Why was it labeled
“This article is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. For blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic, use {{db-spam}} to mark for speedy deletion.” ?
I’m gonna battle these Wiki bastards to the death of the article.
@J0E: I mean, we barely and arguably meet the criteria. Just because Fluther is important to us doesn’t make it appropriate for an encyclopedia. But I’m giving it my best shot over there.
@nikipedia We meet the criteria just fine. I realize Fluther isn’t a power house like Google or something but there is still no reason to keep Fluther out. It’s hypocritical of them to allow similar sites to have pages but not Fluther.
@J0E: It is hypocritical, but two wrongs do not make a right. The fact that the other pages should never have been created does not make our page more notable.
The discussion on the delete page talks in great detail about whether we meet the criteria or not. I believe we do, but definitely not “just fine.” More like “just barely.”
Whether Fluther is personally notable to us is irrelevant—what matters is if it is generally notable enough to include in an encyclopedia. I think it’s important to try to remain neutral about its notability if we are going to successfully build the page.
@nikipedia Regardless of whether or not they deserve it the fact remains that those site do have pages, so should we.
I totally agree, and I am being impartial, I think Fluther has enough credibility.
@EgaoNoGenki There’s a banner at the top that says explicitly:
“If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia’s content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.”
@EgaoNoGenki: I don’t think voting is going to be that helpful. If you want the article to last, please contribute to its page by adding sources and citations that grant it additional notability and verifiability.
If you read the discussion on the deletion page, one user suggested that it be moved into an “incubation” state. I think this is more appropriate while we develop the page into something that meets wikipedia standards.
@EgaoNoGenki This is not up for a “vote”. It’s best that people stay out of it actually.
Response moderated
@avvooooooo: I don’t know what your history with this dude is but I don’t have any beef with him… I don’t think insulting him is going to be productive.
To bring this back on topic let me reiterate—if anyone has something of substance to add to the wikipedia article, please go ahead and do so. This will help our cause much more than bickering about established policies.
@nikipedia Having been here for about a week, @EgaoNoGenki thought he was qualified to create a wiki for a site he knows nothing about. Using terms like “us” and “we” when someone is barely a part of a community is tacky in the least. That alone is enough, even without knowing everything else.
@EgaoNoGenki Are you ignoring the other question you posted on this same topic when you had been here about a week? Pretending it didn’t happen? Because it can be found here.
[mod says]: Avoo. Seriously. Stop. Now.
@J0E
Remember that web article about the “top Q&A” sites that Will posted on wis.dm? I think Fluther was ranked number 1.
@Ivan I was looking or that, it was a video I think. I can’t seem to find it.
@J0E
Oh that’s right. Not a big deal, it was just some crummy website. Not like it was some credible source.
@mattbrowne The article has been killed. Having someone “canvassing for votes” here did it no favors.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
